IANAL, but reading the news about the internets… This is my understanding:
Simple possession of a picture or video of a child under 18 constitutes child porn. You can argue that it’s harmless baby pictures, or whatever - then let the judge decide if it constitutes harmless, or pornography, or art…
Recall the case in Florida(? IIRC) of the guy who was taking pics of his daughter and her friend around the pool during her weekend visitation. They were about 11 or 12, old enough to have the sense of naughtiness so they mooned him. When the pictures were developed, the lady at the photo processing called the cops because they were “explicit”. I think he got off, but he went broke with lawyer fees and his wife made sure he never saw his daughter again.
Another idiot (who deserved it) in Nevada(?) several years ago ordered videotapes of young girls in tight leotards dancing. He was charged (not his first charge) because one clause in the law says “undue attention focussed on genital area” or some such wording. Apparently the tapes included zooming in on the crotch. The judge ruled that it did not have to be naked to violate the law. He also argued the ad said “perfectly legal” and the judge said the ad could say whatever it wants, you’re the one going (back) to jail.
You can be charged with taking pictures of you and your wife doing perfectly legal things, since you can be married at 16 but can’t take explicit pictures until 18.
I don’t know what statutes these fall under, whether the second one was mail-related or just a possession law. Regardless:
There’s federal law; it makes it illegal to posses the stuff, let alone distribute it or make it. I wouldn’t rely on any state law saying it’s legal. Distributing does not need to happen. If they find it during a legal search, it’s evidence.
Not sure what the statute of limitations or expiry dates are. Obviously if the pictures you took of yourself were taken before the law came into effect, they cannot charge you with making them. Howevr, you still possess them.
Remember the Martha Stewart or Duke Lacrosse lesson; just because they don’t have a case against you won’t stop them from digging into every nook and cranny to find something once they’ve taken an interest in you. The same argument - they won’t waste resources on the trivial - also means that once they’ve dragged out the big guns, even by accident, spent all that money and time and made major public statements, they aren’t going to back off. They’ll find something to convict you of. That’s the whole issue of the 19 kids and the 3 who refused to go along with the case.
When the prosecutor is running for higher office, he’ll want to say “in 2010 I put 10 kiddie porn makers behind bars.” Nobody will notice that 7 were teens sexting and 2 were parents with baby pics.