I've had cause to wonder, lately, about certain aspects of child pornography laws. It is my understanding that these laws exist to protect children from being exploited for the sexual gratification of others. As such, I was curious about two things: whether or not such laws applied to non-photographic representations (drawings, computer-generated images, and so forth), and whether or not they *should.*

The first point is the easiest. I did some searching through the criminal codes of the United States and of Canada, and came to the conclusion that, in the United States (Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 110, Secs. 2251-2252a), the applicability of the law in such a circumstance hinges on the phrase "appears to be" (Sec. 2256 Subsec. 8 Par. B). Now, clearly, if I draw a picture of someone, that "person" does not have any exact chronological age. And so the only clause in the document under which it could be deemed child pornography is that one - if such a picture "appears to be of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," then it would be covered by this law.

Canada's code (Part V.163.1) reads basically the same, but also includes the following: "the court shall find the accused not guilty if the representation ... has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose." This hearkens back to the distinction between pornography and erotic art in general; at what point can one truly say "this has no artistic merit?"

So now we get to the point. I'm looking for opinions on this one; if I (theoretically) draw a picture of a young-looking person of unspecified age, would I be guilty of producing child pornography? And should I be? Assume, of course, that I'm not using an actual person as a model; I'm just sitting around the house, idly sketching something. Also, how do we determine whether or not it has "artistic merit?"

(Sources follow:
U.S. Criminal Code from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
Canadian Criminal Code from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/)