NSFW) If a photoshopped picture of an underage celebrity's face is on the naked body of an over 18 person, would it be child porn?

There is tons of porn of people who look young, and dress like young people, but it always will mention that they are 18 because child porn is illegal. Thus, since it is said that they are over 18 the publishers can not get into trouble for child porn because they are over 18, and nobody who wants big money in the porn industry will use real child porn.

In simplest terms, no, it is not, because they have to mention the person is over 18.

[mod says] Please wait until a question has a legitimate answer or two before joking around. Thanks!

I, too, have seen pictures such as you suggest, some of them where I know the HEAD on the picture is of someone that first, would never have posed for such a thing, and second, couldn’t possibly be old enough to pose for such a thing. I think these cut/paste pictures are usually done on generally available nude pictures, which seem to be on bodies that are…probably…old enough to be legal. I can’t see how that could ever be considered child porn, since they’re fake, and anyone could produce one of those. I don’t know the law(s) about it, though.

Yeah, I heard a story about a local guy that photoshopped “Hannah Montana”‘s head onto nude pics, and he was arrested for child pornography. Dont do it, it’s freaky anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#Artificially_generated_or_simulated_imagery

Yes, it is considered to be child pornography.
It is a picture that seems to be a child, yet with porn content. It doesn’t matter if it is faked.

I just wonder at all why they are allowed to do this. If you take a girl of 18 or 19 because she LOOKS under-age to me this constitutes child porn regardless of age. And why men like that look says a lot about them.

@filmfann So, if someone completely CGI’d child porn it would be illegal even though no children actually participated?

Not that I approve of this behavior, but it’s a lot BETTER than actually subjecting real children to sexual abuse. To me, there should be a legal distinction between the two types of porn, seeing as how one type psychologically traumatizes a kid for the rest of their life while the other is just really creepy.

we’re pretty much one step away from throwing anyone who ever photographs a child for any reason into jail and labeling them a sex predator for life, so I can’t imagine why anyone would think this would be a good idea.

@tinyfaery Yeah. Also, a drawing of what could be considered to be a child in what could be considered to be a sexually suggestive pose would likewise be illegal.

TBH I think it’s insane.
I mean it is one helluva creepy fetish, but if there are no actual children involved….
did someone say thoughtcrime?

We live in a bizarre world.

Eew, I hope so.

Ah you changed the question… I think it would count.

@tinyfaery correct to both comments

In this society yea probably