Does federal law consider simulated or computer-generated images as child pornography and when (e.g., 18 U.S.C. 2256)?

1. What the statute actually says: text that expands to images made by computers

Congress’ definitions in 18 U.S.C. § 2256 treat “child pornography” as “any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture” of sexually explicit conduct where certain elements are met ^[1]. The statute explicitly lists “computer or computer-generated image or picture” in the statutory definition ^[1]. That plain-language definition brings nonphotographic digital and generated images within the reach of the chapter when they meet the statutory criteria for sexually explicit depictions ^[1].

2. When a simulated or generated image becomes illegal under federal law

A computer-generated image becomes covered if it depicts “sexually explicit conduct” as defined in the statute — including “actual or simulated” sexual intercourse and “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” — and where the image depicts a minor (a person under 18) or was created/adapted to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in such conduct ^[1]. The statute thus reaches both depictions of actual minors and certain images that simulate or appear to show an identifiable minor ^[1].

3. How prosecutors and Congress have reinforced coverage of simulated images

Congress has armed criminal provisions like 18 U.S.C. § 2252 and § 2252A to prohibit production, distribution, possession and related acts involving material “constituting or containing child pornography,” with provisions applying to images transmitted or stored using interstate commerce or computers ^{[2] [4] [3]}. Section 2252A specifically notes that no affirmative defense under a particular subsection is available where the case involves child pornography as described in § 2256(C), signaling legislative intent to limit defenses when computer-generated images are alleged to be adapted to depict an identifiable minor ^{[2] [3]}.

4. Litigation history and the post-1996 landscape: limits and changes

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 initially tried to sweep broadly, including some purely virtual images. Courts addressed parts of those provisions; cases and subsequent statutory revisions narrowed and rewrote language to target images that are made to appear to depict identifiable minors. Contemporary statutory language and later statutes (e.g., additions around § 2252A and record-keeping rules) reflect Congress’ response to judicial rulings and attempts to preserve prosecutorial reach against images that meaningfully emulate minors ^{[5] [3]}.

5. How enforcement treats “lascivious” and “simulated” conduct in practice

Federal guidance and jury instructions treat “sexually explicit conduct” to include “actual or simulated” sexual intercourse and “lascivious exhibition” of genitals or pubic area; courts and prosecutors may therefore evaluate generated or simulated materials under the same statutory frame used for photographic depictions when a minor is implicated ^{[6] [1]}. The Department of Justice’s public guide underscores that a naked or sexually suggestive picture of a person under 18 can be illegal even if state ages of consent differ, reinforcing a broad federal standard for depictions of minors ^[7].

6. Where sources and statutes leave questions open (and why that matters)

The supplied sources show Congress intended to cover certain computer-generated images, especially those made to appear to depict identifiable minors, but they do not enumerate every borderline factual scenario (for example: wholly fictional-looking characters who are ambiguous in age or images that mix adult and youthful features). Available sources do not mention exhaustive tests for ambiguous virtual characters or precise limits for “identifiable” in every context; courts and prosecutors will apply statutory text to the facts of each case ^{[1] [5]}.

7. Practical takeaway and competing viewpoints

Statutory text and subsequent provisions make clear that computer-generated images can be child pornography under federal law when they depict sexually explicit conduct by a minor or are adapted to appear to show an identifiable minor ^{[1] [3]}. At the same time, litigation history (including challenges to earlier, broader language) shows there are contested lines between protected expression and criminalized depictions, and Congress has tailored language to survive those challenges ^{[5] [3]}. Readers should consult counsel and current case law for high-stakes situations because statutory language interacts with fact-specific judicial interpretation ^[5].