I think the case law is clear in saying that on its own, by itself, it likely may not fit within the definition of child pornography, but found together, in the context of other materials that may point out the sexual purpose behind that photo, if that was the case, that could be an issue that could be argued.
That issue has arisen in the context of child pornography. The innocent baby being bathed in the bathtub in a picture, is that caught? It's very clear that that would not be. Is it possible that it could be? Again, as I say, in the contextual approach, in terms of all of the factors looking at it, it's very remote that it would be caught.