AJLynn Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 You're wrong. What this hinges on is that possession of certain types of images is illegal, making it necessary to establish that a person does possess that type of image. A fake is not illegal under US law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchrender Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 I don't agree. Let put it to you another way. If you make a bomb, is that not illegal, you are not in possession after the fact. I know an extreme example, but none the less. Sorry i would nail these guys to the floor if I thought somebody was doing it. And i mean nail. phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 If I make a bomb it's often illegal. If I make something that looks like a bomb, but isn't, then don't use it to make any threats or do anything else that's illegal, I haven't broken any laws. If I have a ziplock bag of flour in my pocket that's not illegal either. The fact of the matter, and this is not a point that's debatable, is that this fake illegal stuff is not illegal in the US. In the US it's necessary to prove that somebody has committed a law before sentencing them to prison time. You can't just say "that guy is scum" and stick him in prison. This is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattclinch Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 i've only glanced over this thread, but.. my university dissertation (the implications and ethics of accurate digital humans) touched on 3d child porn very briefly, mainly to highlight what a grey area of US law it was that they were having so seriously consider. liek you i have next to no idea about this, other than knowing that photoshop irregularities can be picked up by certain pieces of software - uneven/irregular photographic noise levels, contrast ratios over a whole image, lighting tone/temparture. a good recent example of photographic fakery that was proved by photoshop was on photoshopdisasters.com, and surrounded irans faked extra missile that didn;t go off. http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/2008/07/iranian-govt-persian-pixels-pwned.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 If I make a bomb it's often illegal. If I make something that looks like a bomb, but isn't, then don't use it to make any threats or do anything else that's illegal, I haven't broken any laws. If I have a ziplock bag of flour in my pocket that's not illegal either. Actually, I think you can be charged with a crime on both accounts. A bag of flour in your pocket becomes illegal if you imply it is drugs. If you have a fake bomb, and induce panic, you will probably be charged. I think a decent lawyer could get the charges dropped, but still, the authorities will more than likely try to charge you. Whatever happened to these guys.. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/31/boston.bombscare/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Right, the having of them isn't illegal, it's using them in commission of other illegal acts that breaks the law. Like if I told somebody the flour was something much more costly and tried to sell it, I'd be committing fraud. Or if I used the fake bomb to make threats, that would be illegal, but if I kept it in my basement and didn't use it to make threats that wouldn't be. The "bomb scare" crap and the other one involving the MIT student with some LEDs were obviously incorrect prosecutions - the fact that they were arrested does not mean they broke a law. (Though the first set of guys were pretty darn stupid.) In both cases they were settled out of court with charges being dropped and the people agreeing to do some community service because the prosecutors couldn't, politically, drop the cases outright, even though no crimes had been committed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eo Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 (edited) Thanks for all of your replies thus far. Right now I'm on a site at Columbia. I don't have sufficient privileges to post the link, however if you google Trustfoto Apollo and then click demo you can get there. Basically you point to an image and it gives you some statistical analysis of how likely it is that its real or fake. Again, I don't have sufficient privileges to post a link, but if you google It will bring up an article related to what I am working on. Essentially, digital forensic investigators are plagued with a problem related to your field. A few years ago Congress passed a law making it illegal to create and pass around virtual images (that would be illegal if they were real) of children. However the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional because there were no victims, and threw out the law. So as the law stands, in order to prosecute an individual for illicit images of children you must have identified the child and confirmed that he or she was underage at the time of the photo. As you can imagine, this is ridiculously complicated at times because photos are uploaded/downloaded all over the world again and again, and it can be very hard to trace them back to origin. One of the cases related to this dilemma involved an 'expert' who could only accurately determine 67% of the time whether an image was real or fake. If we could more reliably determine what was real or not, we might not have to actually identify and parade the individual in the photographs thru court in order to get a conviction. I no longer work in law enforcement, but the project I am working on addresses this problem. The better you get at your job, the more difficult mine becomes. And boy are ya'll gettin' good... A few of you asked if you could see the images in question. Obviously the images I'm working on do not depict children illicitly in any way, we are working on random images of all sorts of objects/people/what-have-you (some real, some not) for the purposes of testing. So if I send you an image don't be afraid to open it, the photos are in no way inappropriate. Again, thanks for all the input! VERY interesting topic... This is an image that I did a few years ago trying to imitate a cheap flash photo. Obviously, I could do much better now... thanks to advances in software, hardware, and my on improvement. (Not to mention, my life doesn't depend on it) As far as people, you might be scare to see this but take a look at some of the best on the CG business: http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=121&t=532817 http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=121&t=655126 http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=121&t=624956 http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=121&t=550192 those are 3d models, perhaps doing them in 2d would be much more easy... not to mention you could do a combination of faces and body part from different person in photoshop to achieve some type of.... either artwork or porn A few of you asked if you could see the images in question. Obviously the images I'm working on do not depict children illicitly in any way, we are working on random images of all sorts of objects/people/what-have-you (some real, some not) for the purposes of testing. So if I send you an image don't be afraid to open it, the photos are in no way inappropriate. I'll be interested in looking at them Edited August 12, 2008 by 1eo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronll Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Does anyone know on images like these, are the faces and other textures photomapped? Or are these all pure 3D models with assigned colors and lighting? For instance, the one of Ingrid Bergman, it would be one thing to apply a photo of her to a 3D model, but quite another to tweek a wireframe model until the features resembled Ingrid Bergman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eo Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Does anyone know on images like these, are the faces and other textures photomapped? The textures can be done with reference photos or it can be done 100% by hand. Some people will claim that, the only way to go is with empty canvas and that using photos would be cheating... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronll Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I would agree. If those are mostly photomapped, no big deal. If they are pure 3D models without mapping, they are awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eo Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 one more http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=399499 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy L Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I would agree. If those are mostly photomapped, no big deal. You kidding me? To create that standard of imagery using any technique is a helluva task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eo Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 You kidding me? To create that standard of imagery using any technique is a helluva task. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronll Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 You kidding me? To create that standard of imagery using any technique is a helluva task. Well, yes and no. What I meant was, if that is just a 3D blob somewhat in the shape of a head with a photo of that woman mapped onto it, no big deal. I DON'T think that is what that is tho. So I agree, they are truely stunning! But I would still like to know to what level photography was used in those, especially the last one cited (Song Hye Kyo). Does that woman really exist? Did the artist use a photo of her for reference? Are any photo textures used? Or is she made up totally from scratch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Actually if you scroll through the Song Hye Kyo WIP thread referenced in the image post, the images do a good job showing the model and reference photos. You can't get this just using a blob and photo - all you'd really be doing would be using your 3D software to do a photo comp, the lighting wouldn't match well and it would only work from the one camera angle. This is a real 3D project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
litleboy Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=121&t=655126 this could be a perfect example of child porn case. you could argue that is under age or not.. if its real or not.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronll Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Actually if you scroll through the Song Hye Kyo WIP thread referenced in the image post, the images do a good job showing the model and reference photos. Thanks. I had missed that page. That does explain the process and I have to admit that is some really fine work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=121&t=655126 this could be a perfect example of child porn case. you could argue that is under age or not.. if its real or not.. There's a reason why people put a "NSFW" flag on posts in some forums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
litleboy Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 LOL it's the same link posted before in this thread.. but you are rigth... BTW I just learn what "NSFW" mean.. I will keep it in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonRashid Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Just pasting a photograph onto a blob would not work. The shadows on the face and lighting etc would not accurately p=reflect the lighting in the scene. You would in fact be lighting the face twice. Im sure I read recently that a US court refused to accept photographic evidence and this has set some sort of precedent. The judge refused to accept that photographic evidence was irrefutable. Thus I'd say that he accepts the fact that it is possible to produce an undetectable fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
litleboy Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 or just that there is no technology or experts to detect it. any one want on invest to set up the first company? you will have a lot of work, and few competitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now