Scorpions cover is child porn

[Kezotar]

I'm feeling pretty anxious for having googled that album cover. That probably means it was a bit far out there, enough to cause worry. But I wouldn't say it is strictly CP. It was a cover that was approved at some point? You can't sentence people for something that exists legally.

Yeah man. FBI just waiting outside your door.
Sorry, but that's a few years in Jail.

Wish you good luck.
Everyone will know you as a ... Pedophile. Pig.

Jokes aside.
It's not child porn. And if someone actually labels that as Child Porn... Then I do think they might be attracted by it so much to feel it's wrong themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, that's a pretty disgusting album cover. WTF was wrong with people back in the 70's?

It sure is inappropriate. I'm no fan of them, and have no clue how it fits with their songs.

[Deleted]

Yeah man. FBI just waiting outside your door.
Sorry, but that's a few years in Jail.

Wish you good luck.
Everyone will know you as a ... Pedophile. Pig.

Jokes aside.
It's not child porn. And if someone actually labels that as Child Porn... Then I do think they might be attracted by it so much to feel it's wrong themselves.

Ikr? I'm gonna get swatted any second now. RIP my bumhole.

To be fair the same photograph but featuring an adult would be considered explicitly sexual in nature. That it features a child doesn't change the nature of that photograph. Intent may be artistic and innocent but doesn't change the fact that it can be viewed as sexual to some "people".

[Elhaym]

A nude child is not automatically child porn even in U.S. law

For that matter, a fully clothed child in suggestive sexual poses could be deemed child pornography under U.S. law
I recall an ice cream advertisement of a girl bending over (the caption was "lickable" or something) and I always thought to myself, "by the letter of the law this is porn". But apparently it's not a real ad, just a spoof. Still, the spoof is technically porn by my interpretation of the very subjective and vague law

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

It's not child porn. And if someone actually labels that as Child Porn... Then I do think they might be attracted by it so much to feel it's wrong themselves.

Cover was banned in many countries because it violated their child pornography laws. In some countries it could only be sold in sealed black plastic. In others the cover was changed to this:



Regardless, The court ruled that, although the cover could be viewed legally as child porn, because there is a legitimate reason for him to own that album they could not prove he had it for sexual purposes.

[zephid]

They weren't, it's just that I'm a bit, uh, like, a cover being labelled child porn. Lots of people own that cd. Which means...



Which would be kind of really ridiculous if it did result in a conviction, just because you own the album.

Well it is "purely theoretically" which means that it will probably never happen.

[s_bushido]

Intent may be artistic and innocent but doesn't change the fact that it can be viewed as sexual to some "people".

heh, some people find pictures of feet sexual. There's no accounting for taste.

I can easily see why someone would view that cover as porn, but their intention wasn't to exploit the child for sexual gratification, so I wouldn't put it on the same level as those who do.

[AeneasBK]

What. No. That album and cover are both considered classics among music enthusiast.

Does that exclude it then?

[Deleted]

heh, some people find pictures of feet sexual. There's no accounting for taste.

I can easily see why someone would view that cover as porn, but their intention wasn't to exploit the child for sexual gratification, so I wouldn't put it on the same level as those who do.

Of course not. It's still in very poor taste though as they probably knew that some individuals would acquire that album for sexual reasons alone. I personally don't think it's appropriate to take such pictures for any reason, artistic or otherwise. It's like those parents on FB who post pictures of their naked kids on their public wall. Of course they don't intend for it to be seen by pedophiles but you know, it will be found and seen by pedophiles so the brings the question: Why put a child in that light to begin with?

[Megitsune]

Well the album cover is very weird (seriously wtf? why do that?) but I don't consider it child porn. It's an album cover. Even then, if they're going to try to charge someone it should be whoever took the pictures for/made the album cover instead of people who happen to own the album.

[Eon Drache]

I thought child porn inveigled actual children. If its a painting, then it technically isnt (even if it makes me feel unconfortable)?

I wonder if Nirvana's naked baby album cover would be child porn then...

edit: read more into the wiki. Used a model which makes me feel even weirder about it. Although, what about videos where a chid is playing in a tub naked? I assume a wid3er context is used for all these things,

Pretty sure that even animated work of "underage" children is still illegal in the USA. I'm pretty sure. I don't want to type it into google to find out.

[Malta]

Of course not. It's still in very poor taste though as they probably knew that some individuals would acquire that album for sexual reasons alone. I personally don't think it's appropriate to take such pictures for any reason, artistic or otherwise.

Should National Geographic stop photographing children in Africa because they tend to be naked? I'm sure someone somewhere is using those photos negatively as well. Then again, I'm sure someone somewhere is masturbating to a picture of a bowl of fruit...

[Kezotar]

Ikr? I'm gonna get swatted any second now. RIP my bumhole.

To be fair the same photograph but featuring an adult would be considered explicitly sexual in nature. That it features a child doesn't change the nature of that photograph. Intent may be artistic and innocent but doesn't change the fact that it can be viewed as sexual to some "people".

True, but that's because you don't look at a kid and think. I'd tap that.
Kids are not adults.

Again, however you look at things. It wasn't sexual. And isn't. And far from Porn.

[Deleted]

I might be weird somehow but I don't see anything suggestive or sexual in the Virgin Killer cover.

[Deleted]

Should National Geographic stop photographing children in Africa because they tend to be naked? I'm sure someone somewhere is using those photos negatively as well. Then again, I'm sure someone somewhere is masturbating to a picture of a bowl of fruit...

Not the same thing. It's a child posing naked in a way that is meant to be provocative. Think about it. An adult decided this for that child. They didn't randomly find the kid in that pose and just happened to take a picture of it. The kid was hired to pose this way and to have his/her picture taken and published. It's the same as those beauty pageants. While not illegal it's in very poor taste nonetheless because it puts a child in a light that it does not belong in(Intentionally or not).

[Zenotetsuken]

I don't really see the issue with the cover itself. That is like calling the police on someone that posts pictures of their kids in the bath on Facebook or w/e. It's the same thing with the Nirvana cover. If you automatically view a picture of a naked kid as pornographic, YOU are the one with the issues.

[Elhaym]

Don't think anyone has brought up houses of the holy. Maybe led zep is beyond reproach. I personally don't care, just amused that even the uptight people never seem to talk about it.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Well the album cover is very weird (seriously wtf? why do that?) but I don't consider it child porn. It's an album cover. Even then, if they're going to try to charge someone it should be whoever took the pictures for/made the album cover instead of people who happen to own the album.

The person isn't being charged for it.

[arandomuser]

how was that cover legal in the US? is it an actual kid or an adult that looks like a kid?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

True, but that's because you don't look at a kid and think. I'd tap that.
Kids are not adults.

Again, however you look at things. It wasn't sexual. And isn't. And far from Porn.
.

Basic rule of thumb regarding child pornography. If a child is doing something that would be considered sexually suggestive if it were done by an adult...it's child porn.

While the Virgin Killer Cover was never intended as child pornography...the image itself can be and is considered pornographic by many countries laws.

[belfpala]

Shit, I better go burn my copy of Nirvana's Nevermind.