The Act defines an indecent photograph broadly without defining the term "indecent"
It is possible for pornography to be considered indecent and not indecent in multiple cases - just because of the opinion of the judge and/or jury (where relevant).
On a personal level, I would consider "pornographic" to be something that's intended or designed to arouse sexually (in either a normal or perverted individual). Regarding the Virgin Killer cover, it appears to be a simple nude - no worse than paintings or sculptures of cherubs, though certainly contentious in our panic-driven culture.
The Protection of Children Act 1978 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Children_Act_1978 ) says:
It is possible for pornography to be considered indecent and not indecent in multiple cases - just because of the opinion of the judge and/or jury (where relevant).On a personal level, I would consider "pornographic" to be something that's intended or designed to arouse sexually (in either a normal or perverted individual). Regarding the Virgin Killer cover, it appears to be a simple nude - no worse than paintings or sculptures of cherubs, though certainly contentious in our panic-driven culture.