...there was an article in the Guardian (UK broadsheet) saying the site in question (Candyman or something?) was non-'hard core', the equivalent of those 'art' sites.
I find the law very confusing in the UK about this issue, the US because of it's history of free speech I assume, makes a little more sense.
When I was at Art school in the UK, in lectures and things I saw the work of several photographers who had shot naked children. Does that make me, or my lecturers pedophiles?
There have also been arrests in the UK for child porn when the images involved didn't have nude children, or were taken from conventional media, like TV adverts, and magazines, apparently the collecting of such images made them porn.
With such a bizarre legal concept in force it does worry me working in the porn industry, and is why I stick as far away from the teen bracket as possible - I imagine it's not impossible, for instance, that if a pedophile in the UK was arrested and found to have images from your website that appeared to be underage - even if you produced the evidence they were legal - they could be bracketed as part of his child porn collection, and from there it's only a relatively short mental (if not legal) hop to prosecution of the 'producer' of these legal images.
Apologies for the slightly rambling monologue, I have the most awesome hangover.
Guardian article