If the pixel color is determined to be "skin" 46, the image is sent to a first shape detection process indicated for example as "face detection" of block 48 wherein steps similar to blocks 26 and 28 of FIG. 1 are performed. If the image is detected as a "face" 50, the image is classified as "portrait" and a manual check/inspection is done only infrequently (block 52). If the image is not a "face" 54, the image is analyzed to determine if it is a body part (block 56) i.e., other than a face. If it is not a body part (58), the image is classified as a "landscape", and this type is only inspected occasionally (block 60) i.e. only a small percentage of these images are inspected manually. If the image is a body part (62), a pose detection is done to determine if there is an erotic position (block 64). If it is determined that the pose is not erotic (66), this image is classified as a "swim suit picture" and the result of the detection may be a "parental guidance" notice attached (block 68).
(via bOING bOING)
I wonder how well it would work. I guess it comes down to how good a model of visual eroticism a fixed database of poses is; i.e., can such a database ever encompass all possibilities?
It will obviously take a lot of fact-finding. Reminds me of something I read at the Landoverbaptist.org website a while ago, one of their ministers is a world-recognised expert in homosexual movies, having watched over 5,000 of them in his Godly research into rampant perversion.
Maybe *that's* what Howard was talking about five-and-a-bit years ago...