No they aren’t.
“They are, if the article is to be believed, rather sexualized depictions of topless and naked under-age girls.”
The question seems to be how much benefit of the doubt can be given in regards to whether the pictures were ‘sexualised’ or not, ie would qualify as child pornography by todays legal standards.
Id bet viewing them would probably settle the issue one way or the other fairly quickly, but have no interest in being the person to do that. My guess is that they wouldnt or a legal case would be in the making? In that case my sympathies are with them, but not viewing them till they are deceased and restricting access to scholars seems like a pretty reasonable middleground in that situation.
If it was my child and a ex-wife as the artist with no legal recourse though (due to some kind of legal loophole that hopefully doesnt really exist), temptations for accidental fires would be very high on my mind regardless of whether its ‘really’ child pornography or not or whether they were ‘really’ abused or not.
Otara
One thing I recently learned is that child nudity, not being used for sexual purposes, is not child pornography. Unfortunately, the people who decide if it is being used for sexual purposes are the court.
So here’s my solution: take it to court. If it’s really child pornography, merely possessing it illegal They can keep it only for the eyes inside, and even censor it to some extent.
All this prejudging without evidence is silly.
You didn’t know that? Did you used to think that all nudity was pornography?
My mom has a picture of me at like two years old, naked in the tub. I wish the police would come take it away. 
“Almost all students in the U.S. receive some form of sex education at least once between grades 7 and 12; many schools begin addressing some topics as early as grades 4 or 5.”
That’s true.
But that isn’t.
You’re out of line here, Cyningablod. You can’t call another poster a troll unless you’re posting in The BBQ Pit. If you’re going to participate in this thread, you need to stick to the issues instead of saying something is wrong with Sage Rat. Don’t do this again.
You must have gone to schools of a different sort than I. I’ve never been to a school where any of the classes preferred that the students remain entirely mute.
If the women in question want the tape turned over to them, then the decent thing to do is to turn it over to them. You can yammer on until your face turns blue about Art and Culture and What This Means For the Human Condition but the only people whose votes should matter are the women who were videotaped in states of undress under duress. And the fact that people are actually arguing against this boggles my mind.
Seriously? Were you required to talk in class about how your body is developing and show them the progress? You went to a creepy school.
Edit: Were you encouraged to talk in class about how your body is developing and show them the progress? You still went to a creepy school.
Our sex ed consisted of watching videos and reading chapters from a book. We didn’t have to get in front of the class and talk to each other about our developing sexuality. What schools have you gone to? Because I’m confident that my school was very typical.
Your honor, it’s art and I can prove it. I have a whole portfolio of similar pictures.
I honestly kinda wondered if I might be. That ambiguity is mainly why I decided to stop actively participating in this thread. So, point taken. My apologies to Sage Rat and to others.
I do try to keep my posting strictly on the up-and-up, but am not always successful.
This is just icky. NYU, and before that Larry Rivers, wants to have to things both ways.
When the women (girls at the time) complain that whey don’t want to be in the films they are told that they are prudes. NYU and Rivers want them to believe the films aren’t important enough for them to care about the contents.
But when the the women ask for the films they (the films) suddenly take on a whole new meaning. They are ART and therefore sacred, with deep cultural meaning.
So which is it NYU? Are the films puffery that nobody should care about, even the young girls involved, or do they have deep meaning? Either way, the women should have control over them. Unless NYU just likes having some hot kiddy porn that they promise to not show to the public. You know, they will just keep it in their archives so that certain people, the kind of people who can truly appreciate real art, can enjoy. Ick.
In related news (:)), the Swiss have just refused to extradite Roman Polanski to the United States.
It might not be abuse when your dad has a copy of videos of your underage tits. It’s definitely abuse when somebody else gets them.
Somebody else has them.
It’s abuse the nano-second the daughter says the pictures were taken against her wishes. without any feedback from the daughter the collection’s director should be charged with handling child porn. It’s ILLEGAL to posses the pictures.