Nope, in the same way someone amassing photos from children’s beauty pageant wouldn’t constitute CP.

No clue why people are saying that if the collection is big enough it eould be CP. Thas is not (to my knowledge) how we define CP.

I quickly read this, which is a spanish article on the legislation on Chile comparing it to the rest of the world. You probably could google translate it if you are really interested. It talks about international definitions, other country drfinitions then the Chilean law and finally about how vague the terms used usually are and how to interpret.

https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-33992014000200001#:~:text="Por pornografía infantil se entiende,niño con fines primordialmente sexuales."

From my read, CP laws usually focus on minors being used in materials that show them either doing sexual activities or that are meant for sexual excitement. Even nudity, by itself, is not CP (imagine you take photos of a nude child for a medical archive). Some other commonly seen requisites are that what is shown is primarily sexual and that the objective is the satisfaction of sexual desire. Some even separate plainly erotic content from sexual ones, but that is a big discussion in of itself and I don’t know if it is relevant to US law.

Point being, nope, I don’t think this conduct would constitute CP under US law (or any other for ghe matter) because it is not something that constitutes “explicit sexual conduct”

One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of legal systems superstitiously assume that you can “guess” someone’s motivations, “intentions” (whatever this means) and similar. So cases like this often fall into a grey area, since they may or may not depend on the “intention” of who’s producing those scenes.

At least the UN definition defines CP as “any representation, by whatever means, of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes.” I may be wrong but I do not think that the fetish itself counts as “explicit sexual activity”, nor that the target of the fetish (foot) counts as “sexual parts of a child”.

I think intent is hard to prove here. But it’s not out of the realm of possibility either.

https://www.tmz.com/2021/07/03/nickelodeon-dan-schneider-denies-foot-fetish-kids-old-shows/

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/08/dan-schneider-accused-of-disgusting-controlling-behavior-while-at-nickelodeon

Based on a Google search and the following link, no.

Google defined child porn using the term “sexually explicit conduct”, involving a minor, fair enough, gotta look deeper.

Cornell has a legal definition of sexually explicit conduct for us, which basically breaks it into 5 categories, actual sex, bestiality, masturbating, specific kinds of abuse, and displays of various body parts.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?def_id=18-USC-821371409-1416780790

If this would be CP, it’d have to be some kind of abuse or the display, and I don’t think anything Nick aired would count as “masochistic” or “sadistic”. The body parts listed are also specific and don’t include feet.

So, in the US, it’s just really creepy, not CP. the fact we have to delve this deep to determine it’s not CP is pretty telling on its own, though.

Probably not. You would have to prove that those scenes serve no other purpose besides sexual titillation. I haven’t seen them (and have no interest in looking for them), so I can’t say for sure, but that would be a significant burden to overcome.

You could argue than anything could be sexual to someone. I think the intent behind it has to be provable as being sexual. And you’d struggle to do that.

Lol when the fuck did Nickelodeon ever sexualize teenagers feet? I can’t even imagine what show that would be

I feel like the individual scenes in media wouldn’t be, but a collection of them together probably would get the collection treated as such.

How much do you know about the producer largely responsible for those scenes, Dan Schneider?