Nude Photos Of Minor Taken By Stepdad…

[julieljones]

If my stepdad took photos of me naked after the shower while I was a minor, is this considered child pornography by law?

[-SharonA-]

Deffo!

[bobbinwales]

Depens on age and how it's used. There's quite a few of me in the bath when I were only 1 or 2 years old and some naked on beach at same age

[ichkeria]

No it isn't pornography of course. But you would not want them brought to the attention of the law, I would have thought.

[Buenchico]

Assuming that you're in the UK (where this website is based), then the actions of your stepfather contravene the provisions of Section 1 of the the Protection of Children Act 1978:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/37/section/1

Section 1(3) though states: "Proceedings for an offence under this Act shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions". That provision is put there to prevent the prosecution of, say, a mother who takes perfectly innocent snapshots of her toddler in the bath.

So, in the case that you refer to, it would be up to the Director of Public Prosecutions to determine whether or not to launch a prosecution, based upon an assessment of why the photographs were taken. (i.e. taking photographs of you happily playing naked after showering while still a toddler, simply to please your mother, probably wouldn't lead to a prosecution. Taking photographs of you naked in your teens for sexual gratification, and/or to distribute to others for their gratification, most definitely would).

[Prudie]

Pornography means explicitly sexual, a photo of a naked child is not in itself sexual so I'd say no. It really depends why he did it.
People certainly find this site to ask the most unusual first questions.

[Buenchico]

Just for clarification:
UK law makes no reference to either 'pornography' or 'obscenity' in regard to photographs of minors. They simply need to be 'indecent' to contravene Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (with the definition of what is, or is not, 'indecent' being one for a jury to determine in the event of a prosecution where the defendant pleads 'Not guilty').

That's far stricter than in most other countries, where images of simple nudity (without any sexual overtones) often don't fall foul of the law.

[Peter Pedant]

well yes, against the law
as that was what I was accused of
( surprisingly I was able to show I had taken NO photos that you cd complain about - to my accuser's Great Discomfort. Light, I showed, does not go around corners or vault 6' fences. Oh and I said I cdnt fly or hover either)

Clearly we didnt get to charges altho I thought making indecent photgraphs was the obvious one. - er that I cdnt be accused of.

Dr Fielden did this, and was convicted of voyeurism
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-48501791


so yeah it is against the law.

But remember you do sort of have to prove your case. "He did you know. I am SURE of it" isnt really good enough. "He took them and then he must have deleted them" isnt really a goer either.

a visit to the police is in order. ( so long as it wasnt a box brownie in 1957 and so on).

There seems to be some idea on this site that you can take photos of naked children and say " I can do this you know".
You cant. If the facts are as stated: police

[Toorak]

Why would your stepfather want to film you naked? That sounds like the early stages of grooming to me.

Making and/or distributing indecent images of children is a criminal offence. Whoever has been affected should contact the police with as much evidence as possible.

[Peter Pedant]

agree toorak
on facts stated, this is a child protection issue

oh, there is an if... then clause
if it didnt occur, then of course there is no liability