I've updated my rules and will allow cub art to be commissioned going forward. You can check out my commission rules here.
Note that such work will only be exclusively posted on Ink Bunny. In the future, I'll be making a pool for such content. I have a few rules on cub and I'll expand on that in a later document I'll link here soon.
Have fun dude maybe in the future I'll lend one of mine to you, I was on the fence about this myself but finally decided it's just lines on paper and I like drawing cute things with a naughty edge and getting that art too
Have fun dude maybe in the future I'll lend one of mine to you, I was on the fence about this myself
America is one of the FEW countries left that hasn't tried to make FICTIONAL cartoon drawings "illegal."
Sadly -- Canada, France, UK, Australia, Switzerland and Italy still consider even fictional cartoon drawings to be on the same ethical and moral and legal level as csem of a real existing human person.
"You ask, What makes it worth defending? and the only answer I can give is this: Freedom to write, freedom to read, freedom to own material that you believe is worth defending means you're going to have to stand up for stuff you don't believe is worth defending, even stuff you find actively distasteful, because laws are big blunt instruments that do not differentiate between what you like and what you don't, because prosecutors are humans and bear grudges and fight for re-election, because one person's obscenity is another person's art. Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost."
.
It ~is~ .... it ~IS~ just "lines on paper." Glad y'all are finally coming around. America is one
"The CPPA is not unconstitutionally vague. Persons of ordinary intelligence can discern whether a depiction is virtually indistinguishable from a photograph of a Real Person engaged in explicit conduct.The question is whether a reasonable unsuspecting viewer would consider the depiction to be of an actual individual under the age of 18 engaged in explicit activity."
.
Only the brain-dead Twitter Crusaders & Pixel Protectors with a specific Anti-Art / Pro-Censorship Agenda would claim that Tails The Fox, Klonoa The Cat-Rabbit, Buster Bunny from Tiny Toons or Kit Cloudkicker from TaleSpin all look "indistinguishable from an actual human person."
Fictional Bipedal Talking Cartoon Animals are in fact -- non-existent. Fake. Imaginary. Just Pretend.
.
"Congress intended for both prohibitions to reach a narrow category of material ---- depictions that are "virtually indistinguishable to the unsuspecting viewer from un-retouched photographic images of An Actual Person engaging in explicit conduct."
"Depictions That Are Virtually Indistinguishable From Depictions Of Real Children Engaged In Explicit Conduct Are Unprotected By The First Amendment."
IF IT PASSES FOR REAL, THEN IT GETS TREATED AS REAL. But if it looks like a Cartoon Fox or a Cartoon Wolf? Nobody cares....
The Texas Bill, from how Rev Says Desu describes it in that video, seeks only to enforce existing laws against hyper-realistic A.I. generated images -- or "deep fakes" intended to mimic the likeness of a real person.... (watch Rev's video).
Dragoneer even tried to push back against the Anti Cub Art Puritans who very much were in favor of the Cub Ban being proposed at FA, hoping instead to implement a "Tags and Blacklist System" similar to what e621, Ink Bunny, and pretty much every other decent Furry Art website has....
He didn't want to push "bans of specific art tropes" -- rather, he wanted to add Tags and Blacklist to Fur Affinity so that individual users could choose for themselves what they do or don't want to see.
As for the Texas Law, as long as it ONLY GOES AFTER HYPER-REALISTIC A.I. IMAGES, and not hand drawn cartoon drawings that look nothing at all like a Real Person, then whatever, it's fine I guess. Still better than the Law In France that nearly put poor Bunny Bits in jail / prison.
I think -- for now -- ain't nobody going to jail / prison for having a copy of Sheath & Knife by Harmarist, or Oh Brother by Wolfblade, or the old SoftPaw Magazines. None of those comics or stories contain any images of ACTUAL people.
America is one of the FEW countries left that hasn't tried to make FICTIONAL cartoon drawings "illegal." is why i replied. i thought the links were laws and things from the other countries you mentioned. So i looked at all links after. that said, the Gov. of IL is pushing for cub too
America is one of the FEW countries left that hasn't tried to make FICTIONAL cartoon drawings "illeg
"i thought the links were laws and things from the other countries you mentioned. So i looked at all links after. that said, the Gov. of IL is pushing for cub too."
That's lame as fuck. Texas and now Illinois? LOL.
These fuckers are tryna pull a France on us.
It's the Bunny Bits Situation, The Home Game™
Now you too can get arrested for drawing a naked fictional cartoon bunny rabbit.
♪Roll the dice -- and take a space, and hope the Leopards won't eat your face!♪
"i thought the links were laws and things from the other countries you mentioned. So i looked at all
Because it's Panty Ranger's constitutional right (assuming they are from the States) to draw whatever they want to, so long as it does not resemble any actual person in real life. Even if it will upset many Twitter Users who are incapable of telling the difference between Fiction & Reality. Even if it will agitate and aggravate the "Fiction Cops" and the "Morality In Fiction" purity cultist freaks. You know the ones... they like to scream "problematic!" at everything they don't like.
Because if someone rants at you that your drawings are "problematic" -- the weak course of action is to quit drawing those things and apologize for ever having drawn them in the first place. But the STRONG, BOLD, REBELLIOUS course of action is to draw even MORE of it just to piss those people off.
