(Image: Private Media)

Leslie Cannold has had enough of being even-handed and presenting Both Sides Now. She wants to cut to the chase: what’s the right way to go? In Everyday Dilemmas, Dr Cannold brings her ethical training to your problems. Send your questions to letters@crikey.com.au with “Dear Leslie” in the subject line. She might even reply…

Note: this article discusses child exploitation material.

Dear Leslie,

So the baby — now 30 years old — from Nirvana’s Nevermind album cover is suing, claiming child exploitation. I’ve got so many photos of my toddlers swimming naked and in the bath and generally having a wonderful time, but I had no idea that this could be an issue. Should I just go ahead and delete them all? I don’t want my kids growing up with a complex — or me getting arrested.

One Time Normal Dad (you’d better withhold my location)

Dear One Time Normal,

I feel for everyone involved in this distressing situation. This includes former baby (now young man) Spencer Elder, and the 15 people — including the photographer and all surviving band members — he is suing for $150,000 each for what the lawsuit claims is “knowingly producing, possessing and advertising commercial child pornography” for profit.

You’re asking whether this case has implications for you, and the countless other parents who have digital images of their naked children frolicking in the bath or toddling without a nappy at the beach (as doctors used to recommend to resolve rashes). Did you do the wrong thing by photographing your youngsters? Are such images — or are they now pornography? — destined to cause trauma to your offspring should they see the light of day?

Let’s take ‘em in turn.

There are no legal implications from Mr Elder’s suit for parents who have innocent photos of their naked child. This is not just because the suit is US-based but also because, according to Law360, child pornography statutes “typically do not apply to more innocent photos of nude children, like an image of a child at home in the bathtub”.

This cuts to the chase regarding your second concern: that the innocent bath and sprinkler shots of your now-grown children are porn. They aren’t. Not according to US law, which says that for child nudity to be porn the genital or pubic area of the child must be “exhibited” in a way that is “graphic” or simulated to appear “lascivious.” Nor in Australian law where child porn is defined as “the production, dissemination, access and possession of material depicting abuse and/or sexual exploitation of children”.

All of which means you haven’t done anything wrong by taking the photos and run little risk of your kids being traumatised by their existence as long as you don’t post them. Not to any media channels at all, I’d suggest, but at least not to any without your child’s explicit permission.

Why? For at least five good reasons that include the long tail of digital detritus that follow people around and could shape a young person’s future prospects and relationships, the fact that it’s their image and they have the right to control it, and the ever-expanding opportunities for the bad, mad and sad to co-opt everything available online about an individual for ends that aren’t good.

But if you are desperate to sharent, then permission-seeking from children aged three to four and upwards is imperative. Why? Because kids this age are old enough to be self-conscious and express a view — often negative — about what others see about them online.

Plus, demonstrating such permission-seeking is modelling best practice, since that’s what you’ll want them do when they start posing details to their own accounts about you.

Good luck!

Send your dilemmas to letters@crikey.com.au with “Dear Leslie” in the subject line and you could get a reply from Dr Cannold in this column. We reserve the right to edit letters for length and clarity.