Seems like it’s child pornography as well.
You have to define “pornography” first. Which this clearly does not full under. Exploitation probably. But it’s legal to take videos/pictures of people without their consent in Oregon. Isn’t it?
It sounds like the prosecutor is the one that dropped the ball. Charged him with a crime he didn’t commit, instead of charging for the crime he did commit. If I walk up to your kid and belt him in the mouth, I will be found not guilty of jaywalking, tax evasion or sexual assault. The judge may have been in the right on this one.