What was Justice Michael Adams high on???

"... The mere fact that the figure depicted departed from a realistic representation in some respects of a human being did not mean that such a figure was not a 'person'."

So, if they are people, that means that when The Simpsons reaches its 18th year of existence, production of new cartoons featuring Bart, Lisa, Maggie or whoever else, will ipso facto become legal. That also means that while recenter cartoons, like, say, the PowerPuff Girls, are going to be illegal for longer, older cartoons, like, say, the Flintstones, are already legal - so that you can draw Pebbles as you always fantasised :p

...and that's just the beginning. If I was Matt Groening, I'd be right now trying to get Aussie citizenship for any of the characters, proving by the stories that they have been a resident for any number of years.

Canadian law, and other laws banning non-photographic representations, is very clear that they are prosecuting depictions, by using language like "appears to be", "looks to be", "is said to be", which make clear that the content is illegal but the character is not considered a person in an analogous manner to in respect of both the Commonwealth and the NSW offences, the word 'person' included fictional or imaginary characters ... in Adams' ruling. Therefore, Canadian law, UK pseudo-photograph law, and similar laws, are legally coherent and enforceable. But this is simply nuts - this judge does deserve to be in a mental institution, as obviously his capacity for rational legal thinking is zero.