Illustrated submission question

[bb_peaks]

This is from the FAQ

For Photographs: Legally, we can allow soft nudity in photographs, but under current United States law, photographs posted on this site may not contain "sexually explicit conduct", which the government defines as:

- Actual or simulated:
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

All artwork - including drawings, paintings, and photographs - must also comply with these rules:

- All persons in the image must be over 18 years of age.
- Image must not contain a URL or other advertisement.
- Image must be no more than 525 pixels wide. (Note: we will size the image to fit if we are able to do so. However, if we are unable to shrink the image, you will need to resubmit.)
- Like all other submissions on Literotica, images must be your original work - i.e. photographs that you yourself took, or paintings or drawings that you yourself created. Please do not submit photos or other images you have found elsewhere.

If I take my own photo and then use the magic of photoshop to make it appear as if drawn (it will still be my work) would it have to comply with the strict photo guidelines or under artwork as if I drew it?
Here are a couple of examples of what would/could be done

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v230/barbygirl43/original.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v230/barbygirl43/mca.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v230/barbygirl43/dvi.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v230/barbygirl43/scp.jpg

If my question needs to be posted elsewhere, just lemme know.

 

[sr71plt]

Presume you are asking about taking a photo owned by someone else and doctoring it? If so, no, what you started with was someone else's property--and remains their property under whatever doctoring you do. Why don't you just take a picture yourself and play with that?

 

[bb_peaks]

Presume you are asking about taking a photo owned by someone else and doctoring it? If so, no, what you started with was someone else's property--and remains their property under whatever doctoring you do. Why don't you just take a picture yourself and play with that?

No. I'm talking about taking my own photos (I am able to do that either by the computer or a remote so they would even be of me). Those pics I posted are ones I just fixed in photoshop of my own dog that I took in January.

 

[sr71plt]

No. I'm talking about taking my own photos (I am able to do that either by the computer or a remote so they would even be of me). Those pics I posted are ones I just fixed in photoshop of my own dog that I took in January.

Oh, then I'm not sure what you're asking. You can certainly photoshop your own photos. If you want to photoshop a dog coupling with a human, then, no, you couldn't post that here--that would be bestiality. Is that what you're asking--or is it something else?

I don't really see whatever photoshopping you'd do as changing the limitations the faq gives. If you can tell it's sexually explicit, it doesn't matter how fancy the artwork is, does it?

 

[bb_peaks]

If you can tell it's sexually explicit, it doesn't matter how fancy the artwork is, does it?

Here's a story submitted in illustrated. You'll notice the second illustration clearly shows an oral-genital scene. So my question is this: if it were originally a photograph that I took and converted it to appear as if drawn would it still be acceptable? (I only used the dog pic as an example because it's either the dog or my kids that I have on my computer. He would have nothing to do with any of the stories.)

 

[sr71plt]

From the FAQs you cite, I don't see how those images passed, no. But they apparently did, because it looks like the story you index is posted here. So, your guess is as good as mine. If those got through, either the site didn't look at them very well, or it passes them without making a fuss over it. So then it would seem to be up to you what you wanted to do--follow the letter of the FAQ or submit and see if it passes.

I don't see that it makes any difference on whether it's a straight photo or a photoshopped one--the FAQs seem to cover both and rule equally on them.

I'm not making a judgment on the artwork, of course--the ones on my author Web site (by a professional artist who reads my stories and sends me what they inspire him to create) are just as/more explict then these--but not photoshopped from photos, of course.

(nice artwork, by the way.)

 

[damppanties]

Here's a story submitted in illustrated. You'll notice the second illustration clearly shows an oral-genital scene. So my question is this: if it were originally a photograph that I took and converted it to appear as if drawn would it still be acceptable? (I only used the dog pic as an example because it's either the dog or my kids that I have on my computer. He would have nothing to do with any of the stories.)

You can do that, yes. It doesn't matter how the artwork was made or modified, just that you own the copyright to it (which you do if you produced it originally).

 

[Darkniciad]

Photographs cannot contain anything more than "tasteful" nudity. Playboy at best. Even a little pink or an erection might be enough to get you the slap-down.

Artwork isn't subject to the same rules. It can be as dirty as you like, so long as it complies with the other Lit standards ( no bestiality, underage, etc. )

As to using Photoshop filters to change it... gonna be tough. If it's still recognizable as a photo that's been photoshopped, then you might still get popped for the photo restrictions. If you can make it looke enough like it was hand/computer drawn, then you'll probably be in the artwork range.

I'd say that's going to be a moderator call. You'll about have to submit and hope for the best.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, there you go. That sounds like someone who knows.

 

[Weird Harold]

Here's a story submitted in illustrated. You'll notice the second illustration clearly shows an oral-genital scene. So my question is this: if it were originally a photograph that I took and converted it to appear as if drawn would it still be acceptable? (I only used the dog pic as an example because it's either the dog or my kids that I have on my computer. He would have nothing to do with any of the stories.)

I'm not sure how that story got posted in Feb 09. I thought it might have been one that predated the ban on explicit pictures, which would be grandfathered as long as it wasn't modified.

The picture you cited is a clear violation of the legal limits and shoul dnot be used as a guide to what YOU might get posted.

 

[fieryjen]

I kinda get a feeling the point is still being missed. From what I understand this is it:

According to the rules, photographs cannot contain full nudity or sexual acts. Drawings, however, can.

The question is whether a photograph doctored to look like a drawing would still be subject of the much stricter rules for photographs, or whether it would be allowed under the more lenient rules for drawings.


I actually don't have a clue about this one, I would guess that it wouldn't be allowed but it's not an easy call.

 

[sr71plt]

I kinda get a feeling the point is still being missed by some people.

According to the rules, photographs cannot contain full nudity or sexual acts. Drawings, however, can.

If so, the FAQs are badly worded, then (which might be the case):

The emphasized "also" in this: "All artwork - including drawings, paintings, and photographs - must also comply with these rules:" ipso facto implies that the forgoing prohibitions as well as the stipulatons that follow apply to drawings too. At least that's what the English-language wording signifies.

Again, may not be the intent--but, if not, it's badly worded.

 

[fieryjen]

If so, the FAQs are badly worded, then (which might be the case):

The emphasized "also" in this: "All artwork - including drawings, paintings, and photographs - must also comply with these rules:" ipso facto implies that the forgoing prohibitions as well as the stipulatons that follow apply to drawings too. At least that's what the English-language wording signifies.

Again, may not be the intent--but, if not, it's badly worded.

I don't read it that way, actually, but I can see how it might be open to interpretation (and therefore badly worded, as you said).

 

[Darkniciad]

Yeah, it's bad wording. That underline really needs to be under "All" to make it a little more clear.

Or reword it completely.

After all the legal wrangling, this is the important part of the 2257 law that is in effect as of June 23, 2005:

or other matter that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct

Actual limits it to photos and videos, from what the lawyers in the biz have determined from the language and various cases that have come up.

 

[sr71plt]

Actual limits it to photos and videos, from what the lawyers in the biz have determined from the language and various cases that have come up.

That's been my understanding too--but when you have an "actual" photograph at the foundation of the work . . . Which is why I think the original question is a good question.

 

[Darkniciad]

Agreed. That's why I say that it's going to have to be pretty much unrecognizable as a photo in the final. Simply photoshop filtering it isn't going to do the trick.

 

[KarennaC]

I read the rules the way sr71 and others have, that any and all artwork attached to a story has to be softcore at most. If it's only photos that are subject to that rule, the rule is very confusing. It also might explain why people who post photos in their stories sometimes get slammed with negative feedback in Illustrated, since people who use drawings apparently can have sexually explicit illustrations while people who use photos cannot.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

What is stated in the FAQ is pretty simple to understand. There is a rule for photography only that says there can't be any sexually explicit conduct. In addition to that, there are other rules that apply to all illustrations.

For a photo to be altered in order to the photography rule not to apply to it, it would have to be altered beyond being recognized as a photo. That would make it acceptable in the eye of the law, I think. Then there would be the moral aspect. Just because it looks like a drawing, it doesn't mean it's a drawing. Putting all your money in an off-shore bank account is not illegal, but not paying your taxes is still a pretty douchebaggy thing to do.

 

[KarennaC]

It's unclear, to me at least having read it a few times, that the rule is for photography ONLY. I read it that way now because people on this thread have said that's what it means, but before, I didn't interpret it that way. Maybe I'm a bit obtuse; I'm always open to that possibility. LOL.

It might help to have the word "only" in there somewhere, though...

 

[Lauren Hynde]

It's unclear, to me at least having read it a few times, that the rule is for photography ONLY. I read it that way now because people on this thread have said that's what it means, but before, I didn't interpret it that way. Maybe I'm a bit obtuse; I'm always open to that possibility. LOL.

It might help to have the word "only" in there somewhere, though...

I've always seen it pretty clearly as saying that for photography there's this rule, and then there are also these other rules that apply to everything. English isn't my first language, though.

 

[sr71plt]

I've always seen it pretty clearly as saying that for photography there's this rule, and then there are also these other rules that apply to everything. English isn't my first language, though.

How can it be clear if several readers here have said it's unclear to them and badly worded? Isn't that sort of a contradiction in terms?

 

[KarennaC]

I've always seen it pretty clearly as saying that for photography there's this rule, and then there are also these other rules that apply to everything. English isn't my first language, though.

That must be my problem; it IS my first language

 

[THROBBS]

Here's a story submitted in illustrated. You'll notice the second illustration clearly shows an oral-genital scene. So my question is this: if it were originally a photograph that I took and converted it to appear as if drawn would it still be acceptable? (I only used the dog pic as an example because it's either the dog or my kids that I have on my computer. He would have nothing to do with any of the stories.)

Interesting.
I am not entirely convinced that the story you reference isn't exactly what you are proposing. The author state's: "...Just don't expect many (if any) more of these, because it takes me forever to finish the drawings, and uses up reams of paper when I screw them up a dozen times each."

I would venture that his "drawings" are definitely "rendered" from photographs, especially considering the framing, perspective and consistency of the characters. I have a suspicion that the "rendering" may be simple photoshopping techniques.

hmmmm...

I think I could recreate the same effect in a few minutes without reams of paper expended. Unless it is in the printing process.

Though, I also know full well that it is possible to hand render or even digitally render images, without the aid of photos, that look very "photorealistic".

Of course this does not answer the question about the intent of the rules or the interpretationof the law.

So... In view of that I might just PM Laurel and Manu and ask.

 

[fieryjen]

That must be my problem; it IS my first language

Apparently, since English also isn't my first language and I found it very clear indeed, until it was pointed out to me that there was another way to understand that rule.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Wishing you'd read your email and /or PMs....