Is it illegal to superimpose a face of a minor onto a picture of a naked body?

[jonugo]

If someone superimposes a pic. of a minor's face on a pic of naked body and distributes it via email and text/mms, is it criminal or can one sue?

The girl went to a pool party, she is 14, another boy there took her picture and superimposed her face onto a picture of a naked body and distributed to just about everyone at the school via email and cell phone messaging. Both the girl and boy are minor's. The boy did this without the girl's consent.
What can be done?
Can the boy be charged with a crime?
Can the girl's family sue the boy for defamation of character? anything?

 

[Zigner]

What state are you in?

 

[Proserpina]

What state are you in?

I'm going to go with "panic"...

 

[jonugo]

I'm in Pennsylvania. The police are saying the boy did nothing illegal. That they can't arrest him.

 

[CdwJava]

Unless the naked images went to minors, there may NOT be anything that can be done.

It is illegal to peddle in kiddie porn (which involves naked minors), not to peddle in adult porn ... though sending it to minors might be a problem.

 

[xylene]

Correct me if I am wrong

Unless the naked images went to minors, there may NOT be anything that can be done.

It is illegal to peddle in kiddie porn (which involves naked minors), not to peddle in adult porn ... though sending it to minors might be a problem.

I always thought

Kiddie porn can still be kiddie porn even if:

The model is actually of age but the image meets other criteria (sold as kp etc..)
and or
There is no model and the images are created synthetically

 

[tranquility]

The federal statute covering even drawings, requires the image to be more than naked. There needs to be an obscene component.

Child Pornography - Laws

 

[JakeB]

Title 18 Section 2256 of the United States Code:

(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

Parts of Section 2256 have been ruled unconstitutional, but so far as I know subsection (C) is still good law. The issue will need to be researched to be sure, however.

There may also be a civil cause of action under an invasion of privacy theory, so it may be worth consulting with an attorney.

 

[JakeB]

The federal statute covering even drawings, requires the image to be more than naked. There needs to be an obscene component.

Child Pornography - Laws

In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court wrote:

Section 2256(8)(C) prohibits a more common and lower tech means of creating virtual images, known as computer morphing. Rather than creating original images, pornographers can alter innocent pictures of real children so that the children appear to be engaged in sexual activity. Although morphed images may fall within the definition of virtual child pornography, they implicate the interests of real children and are in that sense closer to the images in Ferber. Respondents do not challenge this provision, and we do not consider it.

That was in 2002. Has it since been considered?

 

[BOR]

I guess PA has no law against "simulated" nudity??

There quite facially appears to be a Tort here, as said, invasion of privacy, +
embarrasment/humiliation, etc.

 

[quincy]

JakeB quoted the right section of the U.S. Code.

Review US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 98-30546 and No. 98-30547, United States v Matthew Carroll and United States v Robert Randall Reinhart. Carroll and Reinhart used photographs of naked bodies and cut and pasted minors faces onto these bodies (this was the least of what they did). The Court said the photographs were sexually explicit under §2256. Although the Carroll/Reinhart cases have facts that differ in many significant ways from the situation described here, there are a few similarities. The Court decisions are worth a read. Both Carroll and Reinhart were convicted of sexual exploitation of minors, and their convictions were upheld on appeal.

The creation and distribution of a naked photograph which includes a recognizable image of a minor invades the child's privacy and can affect the child's reputation. This is true even when the minor's body is not used in the photo but the photo has been altered to give the appearance that the naked body belongs to the minor.

The boy can be charged with a crime, and the parents of the minor girl can bring civil actions against him for both invasion of privacy and defamation.

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

Inasmuch that this essentially idiotic prank compares to the child raping kiddie pornographers referenced in the case law like an atomic bomb compares to a firecracker.. there is little hope of a federal prosecution in this case nor is that even in anyway sane administration of justice.


Hopefully someone is aware of pennsylvania's laws criminally.. and can advise you. I would think you dont really actually need to know pennsylvania's laws. You can call the police to come take a report and they will tell you.

I'd say that it could be civilly actionable in theory, but not really in practicality - there is no real carrot for an attorney to pursue this on contingency basis. But if you pay an attorney a lot, they'll sue just about anyone for you. Always worth a shot to ask one though.

 

[quincy]

StevenJ, I have a feeling that the parents of the girl whose face was pasted onto a naked body for distribution to "just about everyone at the school" are not finding this just an innocent prank nor a mere "firecracker." But, of course, I could be wrong.

Last year, Pennsylvania prosecutors charged 6 teenagers with creating, distributing and possessing child pornography under Pennsylvania state laws, this for "sexting" nude photos. Pennsylvania is not the only state to prosecute teens under state child pornography laws for the distribution of nude photos of themselves or others. In addition, parents in several of these states have filed civil suits against the teen "distributors" of these nude photos.

So, in reality, it happens. It is not just theory.

Most states have no laws in place yet to specifically address the expanding problem of minors sending nude photos of themselves, or of their girlfriends/boyfriends, to others. All states, however, have child pornography and obscenity laws, and the sending of nude photos of minors (even morphed photos) to others falls within the boundaries of these state laws.

Although most of the teens in most of these cases in most of the states where these cases have arisen (Michigan has had several) usually wind up getting convicted on reduced charges or all charges are dismissed after the teens satisfactorially meet terms of a diversion program, some have wound up with criminal records because of these "pranks." Almost all have wound up with press coverage that can haunt them in the future when they look for colleges to attend or jobs.

The case law cited, by the way, was for the purpose of illustrating how Section 2256 of the U.S. Code is applied. If you read the cases, you know that one of the reasons that the law applied was that the pornographers were involved in interstate trafficking of child pornography. You will also know what happened with the boy whose face was cut and pasted onto the naked body of another boy.

To understand why the photo described in this post is legally worrisome, you may want to look at Pennsylvania's definition of "lascivious" and at Pennsylvania's false light and defamation laws.

Jonugo asked in his original post if the boy can be charged with a crime and if the girl's parents can sue. The answer to both of those questions is yes. Whether anything at all will happen or not, however, is a question mark.

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

Well I would certainly agree that a discussion of Pennsylvania laws would be much more appropriate and better serving for the OP.. and I have little doubt that there is remedy.. I was just saying lets not make a federal case out this

 

[quincy]

Yes, I doubt if this would be a federal case.

And any case could actually hinge most on the parents of the girl and how actively they seek legal recourse against the boy and how strongly they press the state to file charges.

I think what really needs to happen is that all kids need to be better educated in the laws that affect them - perhaps adding this to school curriculums (and I can hear a bunch of teachers groaning right now ).

Right now most schools have "health" classes that inform students of the dangers of drinking and smoking and using drugs. Perhaps a law course instructing kids in the laws of the internet (to hopefully prevent these students from cyberbullying and posting material on their Facebook pages that will affect their college and employment lives in the future) and perhaps a course outlining students' rights under the law (free speech issues) and perhaps a course dealing with the uses and abuses of cell phones and computers.

Although all of this could, and probably should, be taught by the parents of children in their homes, I think a lot of parents are failing miserably in instructing their children in these areas.

Off my soapbox now.