|
Post by Levelord on Feb 1, 2006 21:20:41 GMT -5
That's a mystery =P What's even more strange is that I think I know this dude, on another forum. I haven't spoken to him on DA yet. I found this page when I was surfing for Kp pics on DA.
|
|
|
Post by JuPMod on Feb 1, 2006 21:27:43 GMT -5
Kim certainly has aged but not aged enough. At the begining of her senior year - she is probably 17 or so. So... The point I was making was that some people can't wrap their minds around that Kim and Ron can age to be adults, get married, and start a family. They're thinking totally on the show alone with no concept that these two teens can age. As Cloudmonet pointed out, if they can't read captions of art, which clearly stated Kim and Ron are older in the art shown, why are they still thinking Kim and Ron are minors in the art? Like Goofmore's pregnant Kim art? It's stupid! (sigh) I give up trying to figure out this stuff. I'm with matt3671. Some fans reported these things, and DA admin goes from there.
|
|
|
Post by Ashley Benlove on Feb 1, 2006 21:32:52 GMT -5
That's what I said yesterday. That somebody who didn't like Drakim reported it.
|
|
|
Post by captainkodak1 on Feb 1, 2006 21:32:57 GMT -5
Okay given, looking at the rules some pictures could be considered in violation. But no matter what, a picture of Kim and Drakken in a sexual encounter or situation is no comparison with the shown or mentioned pictures. That is Child pictures in the eyes of a vast majority of people. In all of those pictures Kim is by herself. There are many of Kim and Ron is situations together. Yes they are close to the line. But two teens together is not against the law. An adult and a minor is against the law. No amount of artist rights can change that.
Those warnings are not enough. It is not the people who know what those warnings are that you have to think about. It is the people who see the warnings and investigate anyway. In fact putting the warning there just invites them even more to see the image. The only way to keep the pictures of a minor and an adult from being seen on a public forum is to ban them. If someone wants to draw something like that, they have everyright to post them to a free website or build their own. Then they bear the legal reprocussions of said art.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Spawn on Feb 2, 2006 1:12:00 GMT -5
Sucks. I'm not sure it's so much as the p0rn thing that's got 'em as it is you're implying that this is going on in a children's show... er... not sure myself, but it was rather stupid of them to do it either way.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Spawn on Feb 2, 2006 1:18:26 GMT -5
actually, I found the exact definition in the DA FAQ - yet another reminder to read all the small print... What is the policy concerning nudity depicting minors? Underage Individuals and Nudity If you are under eighteen (18) years of age you cannot legally be depicted nude, partially nude, in your undergarments, or in an erotic or other sexually driven manner in any deviation or scrapbook submission. The following is a listing of situations which are prohibited; 1. Minors depicted without clothing, front view, back view, or side view, with genitalia and/or breasts visible or not. 2. Minors depicted in under garments or lingerie. 3. Minors depicted in an S&M or ‘Bondage’ situation. 4. Minors depicted in a sexual or 'alluring' pose (dressed or undressed). 5. Minors in the possession of ‘adult’ sexual toys. 6. No use of: transparent clothes, blurring of nude areas, or the use of “blots” or “Censored” wording or props to cover areas that are otherwise not clothed. 7. Gender that is questionable on an image with an exposed chest will be removed from the gallery at the discretion of the reviewing administrator 8. No Child Nudity: Images of children or characters resembling children (including teens, pre adolescent, child like fairies and other imaginary figures) resembling, or stongly resembling, under 18 years of age. 9. No depictions of fictional young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 displayed in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context. 10. Since age is difficult to identify with 3D modeled images and certain art styles (such as Anime), this will be at the discretion of the reviewing administrator. 11. Babies in diapers will be allowed. Toddlers fall under the restrictions stated above. Any submission found to depict any of this prohibited content will be removed immediately and without notice. These rules apply equally to all forms of submissions and they apply equally to depictions of 'real life' persons as well as fictional characters - FAQ answer #249 ************ so there ya go... better to start your own website. Makes sense. I think it's okay in photography since most of the pictures are portraits of themselves or friends and are usually over the age of 18, but if under the age of 18 it's considered child nudity, and seeing Kim Possible is a children's show, it seems a bit out of term (Since I believe she's 17 or something).
|
|
|
Post by sqevans on Feb 2, 2006 5:38:24 GMT -5
If that's their policy, DeviantArt is way stricter than the law. You can go to modeling/photography websites and see teen models in lingerie, swimsuit & 'provocative' poses. What's illegal is child nudity/sex. But the law right now (1st Amendment) doesn't apply to 'creative expressions' like artwork, as long as it's not obscene. So for them to have this policy seems rather draconian. Maybe you should have taken the scene out of the delivery room. Have Kim, Ron and Drakken looking at the baby behind the glass of the baby viewing area. Or use a different website. There must be a good one out there.
|
|
|
Post by teztor123 on Feb 2, 2006 13:43:23 GMT -5
Cloudmonet - yes. I did entirely miss the point. Thanks for clearing that up.
One factor in all this is that there is an effort right now on the part of the Bush administration to crack down on ( *sigh* the board won't let me write the proper name ....) so I'll just say pictures ...
ah to heck with it ...
|
|
|
Post by Aers (That Writer Chick) on Feb 2, 2006 14:07:42 GMT -5
yes, it's important to keep all that child pron up there for everyone to see.
*rolls eyes*
I swear, it's enough to make me give up this board.
|
|
|
Post by captainkodak1 on Feb 2, 2006 16:01:54 GMT -5
I don't see this as a freedom of speech thing entirely. There is a freedom of speech yes, but there are limits to that. Yet with all freedoms come responsibilites. It is not always whether or not you have the right to say something, but whether or not you should say something, be it in art or whatever medium. The depictions that have discussed here depict something that if occured in life would land someone in jail. A minor and an adult in such a situation is against the law and depictions of such are also if not against the letter of the law they are against the spirit of the law.
|
|
|
Post by teztor123 on Feb 2, 2006 16:29:00 GMT -5
Curiously, I just had my one and only picture on DA deleted.
It was a screen cap from a computer game. One of my characters standing there in his armor and weapons showing off the 2 year badge on his left shoulder.
No sex involved.
They said something about securing 3rd party permission before posting another artists work ...
So ... I guess I can't post screen caps from computer games ...
That or someone over there has just gotten really serious about digging holes with their new shovel ...
*shrug*
|
|
|
Post by surforst on Feb 2, 2006 17:23:24 GMT -5
One factor in all this is that there is an effort right now on the part of the Bush administration to crack down on ( *sigh* the board won't let me write the proper name ....) so I'll just say pictures ... What? Not every thing that happens in life is Bush fault you know. Good lord I don't even know how he got involved in this. The guy probably doesn't even know what Kim Possible is for crying out loud I doubt he's going around shaking his fist at sites making sure they take down any artwork of Kim in any sexual manner. Leave the guy alone for crying out loud I kind of see your point on this one. I'm fine with Kim/Ron in less then G rated (nothing above PG-13 mind you) but a minor and an adult is pushing it. The more I think about this the more I tend to agree with the admins on this one. Drakken and Kim engaging in anything sexual is not only illegal but it's immoral on the part of Drakken. If it happened in real life it wouldn't be cute we'd be calling for the man head though in real life we probably would have drooped a bomb on him already. Oh well I'm not one who wants to get in a big argument over this so I'm just going to say I'm on the fence on this one now. Either way it goes really doesn't effect me anyway. Amen! The fact of the matter anyway is the site is privately owned and if they want to screen what they put on it's their choice. As long as they break no laws they can ban whatever artwork they want. Only the government is required to allow freedom of speech within reason. That means nothing obscene or dangerous to the public. Read up on some of the court cases where this was decided they get pretty interesting with the test judges are suppose to use to decide whether something is legal speech or not. To sum up the site is under no legal obligation requiring them to allow this artwork. It's their choice.
|
|
|
Post by cloudmonet on Feb 2, 2006 21:08:26 GMT -5
The major issue seems to be the implied sex between a man in his 40s and a girl, who when last seen, was 17. But one year later, like it or not, it's no longer illegal. Yes, even I, a man of 56, can legally bed someone who's 18-- but I'd better do an ID check, cause even one day before her birthday and it's pedophilia or something. For the record, the youngest woman relative to my own age who I've ever actually dated would now be 40. Hey, yesterday, I saw a white haired babe in the grocery store who looked seriously hot in tight jeans and a sweater. White hair?! She did look otherwise in her 50s...
The question is, how old is Kim in the picture, something Drakkenfan needs to state clearly if she wishes to avoid all these complications. It seems to me that more than a year would have to elapse to get Kim and Drakken from where we see them in "So the Drama" to any sort of place where the two could be lovers, if not several decades or centuries.
On the other hand, Drakken is supposed to be evil. This is the dude who was gonna "neutronalize" Paris, which probably would have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths at least, had the brain-switch machine not blown the power. Not to mention he stole a wheelchair from a paralysed kid. Now if Mr. Barkin knocked up one of the girls, I could see throwing a hissy fit over it. Drakken's already a psychopathic obsessive-compulsive criminal. What would he care for society's niceties?
Of course, he might. There's lots of bank robbers, murderers, terrorists, or whatever, who aren't pedophiles.
I don't, however, think Drakkenfan intends her unorthodox shipping to be counted on Drakken's long list of evils. If not, she'd better caption and explain her pictures.
|
|
|
Post by teztor123 on Feb 3, 2006 10:15:16 GMT -5
One factor in all this is that there is an effort right now on the part of the Bush administration to crack down on ( *sigh* the board won't let me write the proper name ....) so I'll just say pictures ... What? Not every thing that happens in life is Bush fault you know. Good lord I don't even know how he got involved in this. The guy probably doesn't even know what Kim Possible is for crying out loud I doubt he's going around shaking his fist at sites making sure they take down any artwork of Kim in any sexual manner. Leave the guy alone for crying out loud That wasn't a slam on Bush, simply a statement of fact. But I'm not going to try and debate political issues on a board that won't let you use the words required ... It's to much trouble to fight the board and people who read their preconcieved notions of what you are saying instead of what you actually wrote.
|
|
|
Post by surforst on Feb 3, 2006 17:34:22 GMT -5
It's to much trouble to fight the board and people who read their preconcieved notions of what you are saying instead of what you actually wrote. Preconcieved notions? I don't have any of those ;D Looks like we all agree on why the pics were deleted. Looks like the discussion is done with and next time all that's needed is a clear indication of age. Like Kim holding up a driver license, a college diploma, and her mother verifying her age. That's all we probably need.
|
|
|
Post by drakkenfan on May 14, 2006 21:37:16 GMT -5
Stupid DA deleted another one of my drawings... "Kim Possible: American Beauty", in which Drakken is dreaming about Kim covered in rose petals.
|
|
|
Post by Levelord on May 14, 2006 21:47:17 GMT -5
Yeah, you're pretty much in the same boat as Bundycoot... but Bundycoot has started some sort of 18+ project where she can still do her art, but she will have it mailed to you... I'm happy to be on that mailing list XD
|
|
|
Post by Commander Argus on May 14, 2006 22:25:34 GMT -5
The main problem with DA is they don't care if an artist states their character is of legal age, if somebody complains they're just going to take the easy route and delete the offending image.
I know it's been said before, but this is pretty funny for a site with such a name that has daily deviations that look like they belong behind the counter at 7-11...
...RIGHT FREAKING BESIDE MY DRAWINGS OF A 17 YEAR OLD CARTOON CHARACTER
|
|
|
Post by teztor123 on May 15, 2006 11:06:05 GMT -5
Yeah. They have what is in fact x-rated pictures on their site but they don't do anything about that.
I had one of my pictures deleted right after a little confrontation with a guy Drakkenfan had had a confrontation with too - and I suspect he went around to each persons site and complained about them to DA. The coincidence of them deleting pic's from both our sites right after that is what makes me think so. But I've no way to prove that.
Essentially, they've got thousands of artists and millions of pictures - so unless someone brings something to their attention - they don't bother to go looking. But if someone does - they just delete the pic.
My pic was a screen cap from a computer game. They told me I needed permission to post it - I got permission - and then they told me they didn't allow screen caps ...
Idiots ...
|
|
|
Post by Commander Argus on May 15, 2006 13:06:14 GMT -5
"Essentially, they've got thousands of artists and millions of pictures - so unless someone brings something to their attention - they don't bother to go looking. But if someone does - they just delete the pic."
Well, maybe I should start complaining about how offensive I find some of these pictures the *honor* by showing as "Daily Deviations." It'd be one thing if these things were tucked away in some obscure gallery. It's quite another to see lots of photos of real human body parts displayed there while they go and delete barely raunchy cartoon artwork simply because somebody *thinks* the subject matter suggests sex with minors.
That site really needs to take a good long hard look at their name!
|
|