19

The Coroners and Justice Act of April 2009 (c. 2) created a new offence in England and Wales and Northern Ireland of possession of a prohibited image of a child. This act makes cartoon pornography depicting minors illegal in the UK. This Act did not replace the 1978 act, extended in 1994, since that covered "pseudo-photographs"—images that appear to be ...


13

It is not illegal to view pornography. It is illegal to possess or receive certain kinds of pornography, namely child porn, under 18 USC 2252 and 18 USC 2252a (there is a subtle legal difference between "child pornography" and "visual depiction (which) involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"). In order to view anything on the ...


9

Context is important. There is no law against taking a picture of a child who is entirely naked or exposing certain body parts. The laws in question such as 18 USC 2251 refer to the fact that the minor "engage[s] in, any sexually explicit conduct". Sexually explicit conduct is defined in 18 USC 2256, and would include "lascivious exhibition of the genitals ...


8

That definition still applies, at least in federal law. Under 18 USC 2256: “child pornography” means any visual depiction ... indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct But the First Amendment limits its applicability in cases like Sabrina. In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), the Supreme Court held ...


7

In England and Wales, indecent 'pseudo-photographs' of children were made illegal by s84 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This amended s1 Protection of Children Act 1978 to criminalise the making, distribution, possession or publication of such images. 'Pseudo-photograph' is defined by s7(7) PCA 1978 as— ... an image, whether made by ...


7

Virtual child pornography "pandered" as real is illegal in the U.S., and the law forbidding it was upheld by the Supreme Court in United States v. Williams (2008). The Court explains the distinction: An offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker ...


6

The US child porn law is Chapter 110 of Title 18. It refers to a "minor", defined as anyone under 18. Sexually explicit conduct is defined, which you can read about. Regarding distribution (not production), 18 USC 2252 (A)(1) identifies as an offender anyone who knowingly transports or ships using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce ...


6

According to a blog post (written by a lawyer who actually has had multiple people ask about that), it depends on several things. The gist is that they're not getting away with this "brilliant plan" unless they take so many steps to make it look legitimate that it will, in fact, become a legitimate porn production enterprise — in which case, why bother ...


5

The situation described could lead to a suit for "Intrusion of solitude" or "invasion of seclusion" one of the torts classed under "Invasion of privacy" The state of Michigan recognizes this tort, and in Tobin v. Mich. Civil Serv. Comm‘n, 331 N.W.2d 184, 189 (Mich. 1982). the Michigan Supreme court said that the elements of this tort are: (1) the ...


4

In New South Wales, Australia this would make you a sex offender and, if convicted, put you on the sex offender's register for life. It doesn't matter if the child pornography is of you and it doesn't matter that you are now an adult and can give consent - the fact is that it is child pornography and the distribution of that is a crime under the Crimes Act ...


4

I assume these are digital photos that were electronically transferred (not prints physically delivered). If they were prints physically delivered, he owns those prints, since you used to own them but you unconditionally transferred ownership to him by giving them. No backsies under the law. The photos are protected by copyright law, which means that the ...


3

If she was underage at the time then the making, possession and distribution of the video is a crime irrespective of how old she is now. See https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography


3

According to this chart i googled and the associated table, child porn is actually not explicitly illegal in most of the world. Basically, a bunch of countries in Africa, and a couple in Latin America and Asia, don't appear to regulate kiddie porn at all. A couple of others (like Argentina, Russia, and South Korea) allow possession, but not distribution. A ...


3

People aged 19 and 18 are "teens" and legally permitted to perform in pornographic videos. That's how it's legal.


3

18 U.S. Code § 2252 defines a crime and punishment for knowingly transporting, or reproducing for distribution by any means, visual depictions involving the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Here are some sample jury instructions that rephrase this and give definitions for each of these terms. Here are some others (at p. 469). This law ...


3

Yes, it's legal. To be illegal, the photographs would have to be obscene or pornographic. Nude people, ordinarily photographed, doing non-sexual, non-excretory things are neither. However, I would strongly advise caution, particularly if you plan to display or share these photographs. There are definitely cases of people who have been charged with sexual ...


3

In NSW Australia this is covered by Division 15A of the Crimes Act 1900 which deals with Child Abuse Material. Under Section 91FA a "child" means a person who is under the age of 16 years - the situation you describe would be between consenting adults in NSW. Assuming Jane is 15 or less, however, prima facie the image would be child abuse material and under ...


3

Note that "pedophilia" is a psycological or social term, and not a legal term. What laws prohibit is the creation, distribution, and possession of child pronography Under 18 U.S.C. § 2251- Sexual Exploitation of Children: Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other ...


3

The copies of the photo that you gave to him continue to be his. He is allowed to keep them, and there is probably no way that you could legally compel him to delete or destroy them. Unless the pictures can be classified as "hardcore pornography," they are within the ambit of First Amendment protection. I don't see -- and the article doesn't explain -- how ...


2

As discussed in Sexting and age, in NSW there are a number of defences, the most relevant being: Innocent possession:the defendant did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that he or she possessed ... Approved research: was necessary for or of assistance in conducting scientific, medical or educational research that has been ...


2

Solicited Photos In Canada the situation that you put forth is actually completely legal. If the two people are in a legally permitted relationship, then they can legally share pictures as long as they stay private (the other person doesn't share them with others). 116 - Thus, for example, a teenage couple would not fall within the law’s purview for ...


2

In the U.S. Short Answer Yes, Joe can get into trouble. No, it does not matter if Joe requested the pictures. and... Yes, Jane can also get into trouble. In the U.S., child pornography is a federal statutory offense and carries strict liability. The criminal threshold is "sufficiently suggestive" images of minors under the age ...


2

The relevant US law is 18 USC Chapter 110. The law forbids minors depicted as engaging in "sexually explicit conduct", or forbids "child pornography", the latter section also defining "sexually explicit conduct". A minor appearing in a movie containing porn is not prohibited.


2

One relevant US law is Title 18 Chapter 110. Using real children in porn is against the law, as is most anything connected to it (permitting children to do it, distributing, buying...). Under the definitions (18 USC 2256(1)) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years. The possible hook for cartoons is via the definition of “child pornography” ...


2

I have a fairly unusual view on this issue. I worked for an Internet company that not only dealt with User Generated Content on our own servers, but also browsed the web looking at other sites quite a lot. This gives me an odd perspective. There is a US law called 18 USC 2257, and I fully expect Europe has similar laws. It requires any porn provider who ...


2

"Pornography" is used restrictedly to refer to child pornography: see this analysis: I assume the question is not about child porn. Section 163 of the criminal code outlaws production and distribution, but not consumption of obscenity. While ordinary sex films are probably not deemed to be obscene, any publication a dominant characteristic of which is the ...


2

First of all, Sally can't charge Bob, or anyone else. She can file a complaint with the police, or with the District Attorney. It may or may not be investigated, and if it is, charges may or may not be brought, and she has no control over any of that, although she may be able to use persuasion or political pressure to influence the decision. In New York, ...


2

Criminal Code section 162(4) is ultimately the answer to your questions, but further judicial interpretation is needed to come up with a definite yes/no answer. Here it is (emphasis mine): Every one commits an offence who, knowing that a recording was obtained by the commission of [a voyeurism offence], prints, copies, publishes, distributes, circulates, ...


2

Reason #1: They are private companies and they set their own terms of service for their users, for general user comfort, ethical or business model reasons. The terms of service users agree to when using such services are legally binding contracts, and that contractual relationship can give each service the power to remove nudity (and user accounts) if their ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible