No.22658
ITT: cartoon/anime versions of real lolis
No.22670
illegal under US law, so fuck off
No.22673
No.22712
>>22670
So unteralterbach is illegal ?
No.22714
>>22712
The use of pseudonyms makes it legal.
No.22728
>>22710
didn't someone get v&'d for that pic?
No.22729
>>22728
Prob not that one specifically, but someone did get v& for Simpsons porn. Somewhere in Europe I think, could be remembering wrong though.
No.22736
>>22712
Yes, which is why I have always questioned its acceptance here.
No.22738
>>22736
It's not illegal, so try again. You're just anther anti western weeaboo.
No.22752
>>22738
Yes, loli based off real people is considered illegal. It's in the legal text quite clearly.
No.22753
>>22712
If it is, that only makes it better.
No.22805
>>22752
Please post the actual law if it's that clear.
No.24099
>everyone lives in Lardistan
>everyone must comply to BurgerLand laws
Clapistan arrogance never ceases to amaze me.
No.24103
>>24099
Well the site is hosted in murka so obviously it has to abide by U,S law, just like if it was hosted in germany all the nazi symbols would have to be removed because they'd be illegal.
Still, its questionable whether its even illegal in murka to post lolis based on actual people.
No.24106
I don't want to get a boner from >>24100
Make it stop.
No.24115
>>24106
Relax bro, there's only two pics which were traced from irl pics
No.24129
>>24115
Referenced=/=traced, using a same/simular pose is not tracing. Stop with the untrue, unfounded rumors. These types of false rumors are the type of things SJWs latch onto to attack loli.
No.24133
>>24129
haha niga they are traced or at least "heavy inspired"
No.24134
>>24129
altought some of the original picture dont feature nudity in the original
No.24135
No.24155
>>24133
I just said that. Referenced and inspired are the same thing. They are still not traced. People see a pose, a common pose, and scream "traced!".
No.24157
>>24155
Do you know what traced mean? It doesn't necessarily mean a drawn copy of irl picture. Just tracing the pose and making sure the anatomy is exactly how it was in the reference picture would make pictures "traced"
>Stop with the untrue, unfounded rumors. These types of false rumors are the type of things SJWs latch onto to attack loli.
What? Why would you care about what SJW say? Also you said "referenced" which implies author watching CP anyway, so what's the difference between that and "tracing" (in your definition) for people who want to attack this type of work?
No.24159
>>24157
>It doesn't necessarily mean a drawn copy
Yes. It necessarily means that you have layered a pre-existing image beneath your drawing medium, either physically or digitally, and gone over its lines to reproduce them exactly. Words mean things. If you look at an image and then reproduce its lines freehand, it doesn't mean you traced the image, it means you are a badass artist.
No.24171
>>24159
I'm not sure what we're arguing about anymore. It's not a bad thing that artist traced some lewd irl photos, i think it's pretty funny.
>It necessarily means that you have layered a pre-existing image beneath your drawing medium, either physically or digitally, and gone over its lines to reproduce them exactly
Not "exactly". You just do the linework and then draw it yourself to make anatomy look more realistic, or in this case, as a fanservice for cp viewing audience. Look up the Prism manga debacle for example
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2012-06-01/prism-yuri-manga-put-on-hold-due-to-similiarities-to-photos
The resulted image doesn't look exactly like irl picture.
No.24173
>>24157
Yes it does. It mean you trace over it. The difference is the SJWs claim it will produce more CP if artist want to trace it, even though they don't. Again, you can't even prove it's even referencing any drawing since the only link is a pose, a common pose in many drawings.
No.24175
>>24159
It means you have no creativity, nor body proportion awareness, neither can't in lighting and coloring, A.K.A. cheap bad artist.
>copy the exact trace and contour
>copy the exact proportion, position, size, angle, shadows, colors, background, objects and objects details
>"hurr, is only a reference"
You are a idiot, accept it and stop posting.
Or I'm the idiot here and you are only shitposting in a reverse psychology attempt so I or others can post the original photos, but I will not.
No.24178
>>24173
You're an insane man. Go look at that link i gave you. And what is this rambling about SJWs and belief that loli artists encourage production of CP? Literally first time i heard about it. Basically, what this guy said >>24175
You also have to remember cheesy pizza is really easy to obtain in Japan and it's to this day decriminalized. It's just a bit of fanservice from the artist. Maybe it's even a bit of meta commentary on Comic LO since they always have these sweet sfw covers while containing explicit stories that sometimes involve child rape and molestation.
No.24202
>>24157
>Do you know what traced mean? It doesn't necessarily mean a drawn copy of irl picture. Just tracing the pose and making sure the anatomy is exactly how it was in the reference picture would make pictures "traced"
Tracing is when you superimpose a photograph over your own drawing and trace the photo.
No.24205
>>24175
>exact
Except it isn't exact. Look at >>24127 and compare, they aren't precise or "exact" mirror images. There are proportional differences. Again, words mean things. Nobody is saying it isn't obvious that the artist was looking at one while drawing the other. In fact, that's what we're saying. It's obvious that the artist was LOOKING at one while drawing the other, and while the artist was thorough as to what details to include, it remains that drawing from a reference and tracing are two distinct things.
No.26430
>>24100
i feel like these are just drawn pictures of real life girls
No.26443
>>26430
They are cartoonized imitations of rather well-known photographs. Even the colors are taken directly from the original images. It's not a secret. It's what this artist is best known for.
No.26507
No.29368
>>24099
Who is this artist and did he ever get caught? What does Comic LO do? Did they support it?
No.29371
>>29368
It's a parody so i don't think Comic LO cares. Caught? Japan barely cares about CP, let along tracing it for fun.
Here's his info https://danbooru.donmai.us/artists/12761
It seems like someone found about about traced pics and reported them across image hosters and they were removed. So save them.
No.29372
>>29368
Caught what? You can't prove he downloaded traced them, at best all you can say is he has seen the original pic and referenced them. There are only a few countries where just looking is arrest-able. As for people saying japan doesn't care about CP that is a lie/rumor, like the people who say the age of consent is 13 in Japan, it is illegal to process and distribute CP.
No.29378
>>29372
You're right, it became illegal, but it's not enforced at all judging by a few anons living in Japan i chatted with. Digital copyright infringements are more sought after than CP downloaders. Besides, when this guy drew these CP was legal to posses.
No.29379
>>29378
No it wasn't. CP in Japan has been illegal as along as it has been illegal in the west. And it is enforced.
No.29381
No.29388
>>29385
What loli is this?
No.29398
>>29381
>literally the first sentence say all CP is illegal to own, distribute or sell
>>29382
Not true, wan only a a bit over two hundred years ago it was still legal to marry and have consensual sex with girls around 10-12(as you just said yourself). Going after pedos is a fairly new thing, it's the current witch hunt. Hell you could still buy CP in the US up till the 1970s at newspaper stands.
No.29403
>>29398
Anon, are you retarded or something? Do i need to fucking quote the wikipedia article for you? Trust me, i'm an expert in these things, and when CP becomes illegal somewhere in the world, be it 2D or 3D i'm notified.
>However, there were no laws regarding the simple possession of any kind of pornography in general (which included child pornography, with no intent to sale or distribute). On 4 June 2014, a bill was approved to be passed to ban the possession, closing this loophole in the nation's child pornography prohibition law, although it does not apply to manga and anime.[3][4][5] The bill passed on 18 June.
And here's your quote
>CP in Japan has been illegal as along as it has been illegal in the west
People should put more thoughts into making posts on such slow boards, because every post matters. Come on anon, step it up.
No.29406
>>29403
The first part that states the law forbids the possession on CP trumps it. It is illegal. That bill is simply erasing that old law that does not apply in any district of Japan anymore. You are cherry picking what it is saying.
Also is you check out some real legal sources you'll see this. Wikipedia is shit since literally anyone can change anything on the pages. Check more than just the first Wikipedia result on google.
No.29407
>>29379
>CP in Japan has been illegal as along as it has been illegal in the west. And it is enforced.
No, it is not. Japan is more libertarian and does not have christian XX century culture to be so.
It's retarded and money spend to arrest possession or distribution, they only care, if much, to sexual abuse, but it's not a witchhunt using all means possible like in western countries. Even with western feminists trying to change that.
The police have other serious things to care, and yet they are not a police state like US, the budget is low.
No.29413
>>29407
You seem to think it's been illegal in the west for a long time, it hasn't. It's only been so for decades, same for japan. And japan has much less to worry about, they have much less crime over all.
No.29422
>>29419
>>29421
You are obsessed with posting that over and over again while spouting your autism about killing. This is all irrelevant to what is being talked about.
No.29428
>>29406
>The first part that states the law forbids the possession on CP trumps it
Fuck i'm mad right now. Didn't expect to get coming to /loli/, so if you're trolling or pretending to be retarded good job, it worked.
The first paragraph of the wikipedia page says the laws that are CURRENTLY in effect. it's on overview. The second paragraph speaks how they came to be. The possession of child porn became illegal in 2014, there are sources that that article references. I've been on the internet during that time and i've witnessed a mini shitstorm in darker parts of the internet.
I'm just gonna repeat one more time - there were no laws prohibiting simple possession of any pornography till 2014, then they changed it. It's fucking simple. I don't understand how you can't fucking process simple information such as this.
No.29429
>>29428
And every district in Japan has laws that forbid possession of CP, making it illegal, if it was legal there would be a constant flood of CP in and coming out of Japan and there isn't because it's illegal.
No.29431
>>29429
Yes, it's fully illegal now. It wasn't a year ago. I'm replying to the guy who said
>CP in Japan has been illegal as along as it has been illegal in the west
Japan is really late to the party about banning possession, it wasn't illegal "as long as it was illegal in the west". Distribution and production was, possession wasn't.
No.30235
So are there actual proof of the real Comic LO using traced pictures or real references to CP?
No.30236
>>30235
Not really but I can tell by the pixels as I've seen a lot of traced cp in my time.
Seriously though the anatomy and everything is spot on for actual kids and typically loli artists take many liberties in how lolis are shaped if they aren't tracing
No.30237
>>30236
So Comic LO isn't using the real thing then
No.30238
>>30237
Well theres many artists in comic LO, and you can definitely see the differences between the ones suspected of tracing and the ones that aren't.
The cover art for LO looks almost blatantly traced in my opinion
No.30239
>>30238
The cover art shown in this thread is not official
Which ones do you suspect of tracing?
No.30240
>>30239
I'm talking about actual covers, not some of the ones in this thread.
I mean even the COLORS look like they were taken from a real image, its hard to say that they don't look traced.
No.30241
>>30240
But this is all your opinion though
What about this then? >>30198
What are hints of tracing and not tracing from actual proven ones?
No.30242
File: 1444633902209.png (1.09 MB, 823x1000, 823:1000, 7c3de37683134220bbe76da8eb….png)
>>30241
I'd suspect the artist in the thread you linked of tracing too, and if I'm honest some of the lolis there remind me of images I've seen of real girls.
I don't have a magical CP hat to pull definitive proof out of, but it definitely feels fishy to me when compared to an image like pic related which obviously takes many liberties in how the body is shaped and detailed.
No.30243
>>30242
Is it possible you could be wrong of some of them because you don't sound that sure of it.
No.30244
>>30243
I don't sound too sure of it because I'm not sure of it and never said I was. I clearly said this was just my opinion and that I have no evidence to prove I'm right.
No.30250
>>30244
Do you know artists that DO trace the real thing?
No.30251
>>30250
If you were in the hobby, you would already knew a lot.
What are you: cop, journalist or anti?
No.30258
>>30250
They really don't. Tracing makes for really shitty loli pics. That's why they use references, mostly not "CP" but art.
No.30260
>>30259
These two photos are not even close to the same. not traced in the slightest. I don't get why people are so determined to convince people an image is traced that they will pick a random photo of a vaguely similar pose and claim it's proof of tracing.
No.30262
>>30261
Not even close. Just generic pose and normal loli proportions. Nothing naive, just you basing it no nothing, you just want it to be true so you can get off to it more. Why would the artist traced only the legs and ass? Make zero sense and is purely coincidence.
No.30263
>>30262
I'm basing it on the fact that I can lay one image over the other and their butts are exactly the same, theres no way that could be coincidence.
I wasn't the artist so I can't tell you why he decided to stop tracing halfway through, but its just a fact that part of it was traced.
Tell you what, you go out and find a loli image and a real picture that was taken after the loli was drawn and fit them over eachother perfectly and I'll concede it was purely coincidence.
That won't happen though because thats fucking ridiculous.
No.30265
>>30263
All it is is the size of the images was changed until only the legs lined up. It's a false cause fallacy. That's why all the rest of the images are not even remotely close. Even their height is off by a lot. They pose is vaguely similar but still different, it's just a generic hand on hip pose. it was never traced, look at the two images in their original resolution and they lone up 0%.
>I wasn't the artist so I can't tell you why he decided to stop tracing halfway through
Nice cop out, a moment ago you proclaimed it "100% proof that it is traced"
>go out and find a loli image and a real picture that was taken after the loli was drawn and fit them over each other perfectly and I'll concede it was purely coincidence
far form impossible, I've seen people do this with ruslte's work when idiots claim it's traced and then people point out how the loli image was drawn first. But as un-provable as your own claims.
No.30266
>>30265
So what if the resolution isn't exactly the same? I've traced things before to get used to my tablet and I changed the resolution of the things I was tracing too. If something as simple as changing the resolution fooled everyone into thinking my traces were legit I'd be a fucking 10/10 loli artist right now.
I never claimed it was 100% traced, and go ahead if its so easy for such an amazing coincidence to happen show me.
Its far from impossible so why not do it and prove me wrong?
So far all you've said is "NU UH NU UH" why not just do the very possible thing that would make me concede?
No.30268
>>30266
>So far all you've said is "NU UH NU UH" why not just do the very possible thing that would make me concede?
The irony.
I don't have to make you concede, you are making a false claim you can't prove. You have to prove your claim and can not. The resolution matters because if it was traced you wouldn't have to change the image sizes to force the line up. I never said you said it was 100% traced, please learn to read, I said you claimed it was 100% proof of tracing. Everything about the two photos in their original form are different, nothing lines up, If you have to alter the photos to force a line up it is meaningless. Burden of proof is on oyu and you have zero proof. It is not traced and you are forcing the line of up mages then changing your claim and saying he only traced the bottom 10% of the image and made the rest different just because. You have nothing and are grasping at straws.
No.30270
>>30268
>please learn to read
The irony.
>The resolution matters because if it was traced you wouldn't have to change the image sizes to force the line up
So what if the resolution isn't exactly the same? I've traced things before to get used to my tablet and I changed the resolution of the things I was tracing too. If something as simple as changing the resolution fooled everyone into thinking my traces were legit I'd be a fucking 10/10 loli artist right now.
>changing your claim and saying he only traced the bottom 10% of the image
I never claimed it was 100% traced
>Everything about the two photos in their original form are different, nothing lines up
Now you're just flat out lying.
>Burden of proof is on oyu and you have zero proof.
Compared to you I'm bathing in proof, you still have yet to show a single bit of evidence that coincidences like that are "far from impossible"
No.30271
>>30270
So you have nothing left and are just repeating yourself and can't even follow up to refute me? Got it. Ypu are bathing in zero proof, your altered photo is not proof. You can't understand the technical part of the point of you altering the photo so it shows you have no idea what you are talking about. You still fail to understand English since I will state ,once again, I never said you said it was 100% traced, I spelled that out and you are repeating it as a defense to avoid looking like an idiot. You have dug you self in a hole and can't get out and are deflecting as a defense. It's not traced and you sad attempt to alter the images only makes you look sad.
No.30272
>>30271
I can refute you by just repeating myself, you still haven't acknowledged the fact that the image doesn't have to be the exact same resolution.
You still haven't acknowledged how I somehow changed my claim by saying only part of the image was traced.
You still haven't acknowledged that you're the one who hasn't shown any evidence at all yet I'm just supposed to accept your opinion as gospel truth.
No.30273
>>30272
No you can't and not they don't. repeating your claims you can't back you refutes nothing. They are different sizes until you alter it and force the line up. The image is not traced and you can't prove it, you are just using a false cause fallacy and using the logic of a religious retard says "disprove me or I'm right", you can't disprove a negative. The fact you have to alter the photos to force a lone up is all the proof that is needed that they are not traced, traced images line up with out alteration. The fact you can't prove your false claims is proof they you are wrong. You just keep digging that hole and defecting, the more you defect the more right you prove me.
>You still haven't acknowledged that you're the one who hasn't shown any evidence at all yet I'm just supposed to accept your opinion as gospel truth
Again with the irony. This is your entire attempt at an argument summed up.
No.30274
>>30273
You still can't grasp that the person who traces the image changes the resolution of it themselves after I've said it three times now.
And you wonder why I sound like a broken record.
No.30276
>>30274
If that was the case then changing it back to what it was before would make the line up 100%, they still don't line up 100%. You changed them to force only one small part of the images line up while the rest don't. Shows you have no idea how digital images work. You are no parroting me to deflect more. You did not once say anything about the artist changing the size/resolution. All the straws are gone, you can stop grasping, but I imagine you'll just move the goalposts.
No.30277
>>30276
They don't line up 100% because they weren't traced 100%, the fact that part of the image lines up perfectly is the proof that part was traced, the rest wasn't.
>You did not once say anything about the artist changing the size/resolution
>>30270
>>30266
>I've traced things before to get used to my tablet and I changed the resolution of the things I was tracing too.
No.30280
>>30277
You mentioned YOU doing it, not this artist for these images, which stands that if he/she changed it changing it back would mean they would line up. Which they don't. And I see you're back to the cop out of "the artist decided to trace only the legs", you already grasped that straw, so try again. When you force the legs to line up nothing else comes close to lining up. Show they do not share the same starting reference point.
No.30282
>>30280
>I've traced things before to get used to my tablet and I changed the resolution of the things I was tracing too.
>I changed the resolution of the things I was tracing too.
TOO
I don't think you should accuse others of not being able to read.
The artist stopped tracing at the waist, if I had to guess I'd say the artist wanted the character to be looking at the viewer and not to the side like the image he was tracing so he had to alter the body so they didn't look like they had an owl head.
Why you think the image has to be completely traced or its not traced at all is beyond me.
I tricked someone into thinking I was actually a good artist by tracing one image from the waist down and a similar image from the waist up.
Tricks like that along with flipping the image horizontally as I mentioned earlier are ways people hide the fact that they've traced.
No.30283
>>30282
>too
that is irrelevant since it is yet another claim you can not prove. You already said you can't speak for the artist yet are now trying to speak for him and say he changed the resolution of the image. And yet again making a false claim, altering your original claim to "he only partially traced the legs" now just to fit your argument and make you look half right. No matter what you can't prove it and the fact that only the legs and nothing else line up only AFTER an alteration of the images shows it is not traced. 99.9% of loli is not traced and only a few that are can be prove traced. A references or parody is not traced. You have mo leg to stand on and are chastising any one not willing to believe you based on nothing.
No.30284
>>30283
Good job moving the goalposts, but the fact that he changed the resolution is obvious considering you have to change the resolution of the image and then they line up perfectly like puzzle pieces, that doesn't just happen by coincidence.
I've already proven it, I was just under the assumption that you were misunderstood in how I did so, but now that you've said "99.9% of loli is not traced" I can see that you'll never admit any loli image is traced.
You're one of those people who tries to completely disconnect lolicon from real children and part of that delusion is denying that any lolicon is actually traced, because that would be admitting some kind of connection between the reality in the fantasy.
You can pretend the connection between lolis and kids isn't there all you want but don't let that delude you into thinking 99.9% of lolicon isn't traced, thats ridiculous.
No.30287
>>30284
I moved nothing, just responded to what YOU said, you moved them and I shut you down yet again so you cry about it. And you have moved them, parroting me again, in this post, if I respond to you moving them again you will scream "moving goalposts!." again So sad. Guess that mean you give up and are beaten. Have a nice day :)
It remains not traced in the slightest and no matter how much you alter the photos and warp the end result to fit your argument it will not change.
No.30288
>>30287
I don't even know what the fuck you're trying to say anymore, but if declaring yourself the victor makes you feel better so be it.
A second opinion would be nice, nobody else has to read this retarded argument but if anyone else wants to weigh in on if these are traced or not I'd be interested.
>>30259
>>30261
No.30290
>>30288
I don't declare me a victor, there was nothing to win, you never had any chance spouting all this crap based nothing. You never knew what you were talking about from the start and that's why you got shut down at even sad attempt you gave.
Inb4 you samefag and pretend to be a different person agreeing with yourself.
No.30292
>>30290
You're declaring yourself the victor at this very moment.
No.30293
>>30292
No, just declaring you done since you are out of anything relevant and out of straw to grasp at.
No.30294
>>30293
And just like everything else what you declare is gospel truth, right?
Sure you have beaten me and shut down my shitty arguments and taken all my straws or what ever, do you feel better?
No.30295
>>30294
Nope, that's all you this whole time. I'm loving all the salt too.
No.30296
>>30295
Oh so I'm the one that beat you and shut down all your shitty arguments and took all your straws?
Thanks for finally conceding :^)
No.30297
>>30296
So sad. Now resorting to "I-I was just trolling". I'll leave you to stew in that salt.
No.30298
>>30297
I appreciate your honesty in admitting when you were wrong, it takes a big guy to do that.
No.30432
>>24099
>everyone must comply to BurgerLand laws
Funny thing is Canada, Australia and most of first world yurop are far stricter when it comes to pedo thought crime
No.30484
So how common is this actually?
Do the people who make lolicon art actually use CP for their drawings or are these just a few shitty amateurs?
No.30486
>>30484
Simply using CP as references to get better at drawing lolis is very common, I'm pretty sure having CP is even allowed in japan still so long as you're using it as a reference for art.
I'd go as far as to say theres probably more loli artists that have used CP references than ones who haven't.
As for tracing who knows, most people who trace wouldn't be forthcoming about it for obvious reasons.
Catching them red handed by finding the CP they traced from is the only way to be sure and thats no easy task obviously.
Theres still a lot of traces of popular pictures though like laurabs for example, and counting those alone makes for a pretty sizable amount of traced images.
No.30487
>>30486
How would you know if they were using CP as references?
No.30489
>>30487
He doesn't, he's just making stuff up to further his argument.
No.30491
>>30487
Any artist worth their salt will tell you that you need reference material in order to learn how to draw anything well.
That doesn't mean they'll need a reference for every single drawing they ever make, but to learn how to get it right artists use many references until they can get it right just in their minds eye.
If you want to know for sure you'll just have to ask the artist yourself, but I've never heard of an artist that didn't use references at all, and I'm just talking generally not regarding lolicon specifically.
>>30489
Ignore this, this persons clearly never tried to draw anything in their life.
No.30492
>>30491
Even with that logic, is there any actual proof of them using said content because that still sounds like a baseless accusation with no actual proof they are.
No.30493
>>30492
If you're that desperate to know with 100% certainty then like I said you should be asking the artist you have in mind and not me, I can't speak for them.
No.30495
>>30493
You're the one who said they did with a shitty reason so I don't see how thats "desperate"
No.30496
>>30495
As close to proof as you'll ever get without asking the artist yourself has already been provided in this thread and heres a few more, I don't know what more you're expecting me to do.
No.30497
>>30496
Well no fucking shit
All I expected as a decent answer not a retarded one.
No.30499
>>30497
If someone drawing laurab from one of her sets with anime eyes isn't proof that they used laurab as a reference then I don't know what is.
Do you want fucking jesus christ to descend from heaven to tell you that they drew laurab from one of her sets without knowing who laurab is and having never seen any of her sets or something?
No.30513
>>30511
I'm not clicking that
No.32725
>>30496
someone sauce pls!
No.32734