Talk:Indecent pseudo-photograph of a child

message: "data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a pseudo-photograph." - This means, basically, any digital photo. Right? Why don't they just say that? 
But what possible criteria could there be for this? Practically any digital image can become part of a pseudo-photograph. So, be definition, all digital photpgraphy and stored visial electronic media of any kind is illegal. What about regular photographs and paintings? They can be scanned... Shouldn't they be outlawed too? I know I'm being sarcastic, but ...who knows, maybe not. These questions are for me as much as anyone else as I think the article should definitely not leave these open. --DanielCD 19:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This means, basically, any digital photo. Right? Why don't they just say that? they don't say that because what they are trying to do is to make the Act as general as possible. They are trying to avoid the act being tied down to a specific form of technology and inapplicable to any developments that might come further down the line. For example, what exactly is a "digital" photograph? Does it mean that every pixel is described with a specifc value of luminosity and brightness? Or an RGB value or somesuch? What about an image that is created from a description of curves? That is a little stretched as an example of the types of arguments that lawyers might try, but hopefully it gives an idea. It's hard to think of what new technologies might come into play in a few years :) lmno 22:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing

message: Some suggestions for improving this article:
*The concept of "Indecent pseudo-photograph of a child" is not unique to British law. The US has the Protect Act of 2003 which also defines a similar concept. Also German and Canadian law ban such pseudo-photographs too. As such, this article should either have it's title changed and a separate on the general concept be written or expand this article to cover the concept in general and under the laws of other countries.
*The article presents a lot of speculation about what might be illegal under British law. Such speculation should be attributed to notable British legal experts, commentators, etc. Issues that have been settled by courts should be made clear with issues not yet settled could have the opinion of legal experts offered instead. 
*While the article present the arguments that have been used to justify making "Indecent pseudo-photographs of a child" illegal, it does not present opposing views. For NPOV purposes, counter arguments should be added. 
*In the US, the Supreme Court struck down a previous law banning "Indecent pseudo-photographs of a child" (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition). The courts rational should be included in discussion of the subject. The current ban of "Indecent pseudo-photograph of a child" within the "Protect Act of 2003" has not be fully tested in the courts yet.
*There are also some, while agreeing with the general concept have issues with how the laws in their respective countries have been written, especially the issue of being overbroad. This should be addressed. --Cab88 21:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that; it really helps me put more focus on the problem. --DanielCD 21:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The article is about an element of English law and as such need not even entertain what might happen in America, where the phrase "indecent pseudo-photograph" is NOT used. Furthermore, it is a description of the legal situation. You will not get very far in an English court trying to argue with the judge about why idea of criminalising pseudo-photographs is abhorent to some people. Some people believe that "property is theft" - why does the article on theft not entertain these viewpoints? An exploration of why virtual child porn should be legal is not appropriate to a desciption of the existing legal situation. lmno 22:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, perhaps we need a separate article that covers altered photos in general, where we can talk about it in a general sense and mention US and other countries' views and laws. I'll look around, there might even already be one. --DanielCD 23:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: * :-) Someone else thought that we should talk about pseudo-photographs in a wider sence, so.... Try pseudo-photograph :-) lmno 09:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Do those other countries use the term "Indecent pseudo-photograph of a child"? If not, then the article is fine. I believe Wikipedia policy is to prefer simpler titles. There is no need to disambiguate if the term is unique, just because some other countries have similar concepts. Perhaps we could have a general article covering fictional child porn (currently the only place that covers the legal aspects of fictional child porn is in lolicon, which doesn't seem quite right), but I think someone should go ahead and write that article, rather than saying this article needs to change. Mdwh (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How to improve this article

message: I wonder whether we should merge Indecent photograph of a child with Indecent pseudo-photograph of a child. The former isn't very good and this needs lots too. R v Bowden (1999) needs to be slotted in somewhere too.  Secretlondon 11:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: Do we have a source to know that an actual photograph of a staged act can't come under this law?
Whilst I'm convinced by the logic, I also note there are no sources here, and we can't be sure that a court will see it in the same way. (One could argue that the set of images which appear to be photos also includes as a subset actual photos.) Mdwh (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudo photographs are not photographs?