Nope, in the same way someone amassing photos from children’s beauty pageant wouldn’t constitute CP.
No clue why people are saying that if the collection is big enough it eould be CP. Thas is not (to my knowledge) how we define CP.
I quickly read this, which is a spanish article on the legislation on Chile comparing it to the rest of the world. You probably could google translate it if you are really interested. It talks about international definitions, other country drfinitions then the Chilean law and finally about how vague the terms used usually are and how to interpret.
From my read, CP laws usually focus on minors being used in materials that show them either doing sexual activities or that are meant for sexual excitement.
Even nudity, by itself, is not CP (imagine you take photos of a nude child for a medical archive).
Some other commonly seen requisites are that what is shown is primarily sexual and that the objective is the satisfaction of sexual desire.
Some even separate plainly erotic content from sexual ones, but that is a big discussion in of itself and I don’t know if it is relevant to US law.
Point being, nope, I don’t think this conduct would constitute CP under US law (or any other for ghe matter) because it is not something that constitutes “explicit sexual conduct”
Nope, in the same way someone amassing photos from children’s beauty pageant wouldn’t constitute CP.
No clue why people are saying that if the collection is big enough it eould be CP. Thas is not (to my knowledge) how we define CP.
I quickly read this, which is a spanish article on the legislation on Chile comparing it to the rest of the world. You probably could google translate it if you are really interested. It talks about international definitions, other country drfinitions then the Chilean law and finally about how vague the terms used usually are and how to interpret.
https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-33992014000200001#:~:text="Por pornografía infantil se entiende,niño con fines primordialmente sexuales."
From my read, CP laws usually focus on minors being used in materials that show them either doing sexual activities or that are meant for sexual excitement. Even nudity, by itself, is not CP (imagine you take photos of a nude child for a medical archive). Some other commonly seen requisites are that what is shown is primarily sexual and that the objective is the satisfaction of sexual desire. Some even separate plainly erotic content from sexual ones, but that is a big discussion in of itself and I don’t know if it is relevant to US law.
Point being, nope, I don’t think this conduct would constitute CP under US law (or any other for ghe matter) because it is not something that constitutes “explicit sexual conduct”