To me this doesn't sound like it's "child pornography" and was probably an attempt at art. I haven't seen any of his photographs, but based on a google search it appears that he does pictures of urban settings, people and pets.
Have you guys ever heard of photographer Spencer Tunick?
http://www.spencertunick.com/ (Warning - link contains nudity, but most definitely not porn)
Spencer does a lot of public nude photography, though his shoots are usually at off hours (mostly to keep the gawkers away) and can involve hundreds or thousands of nude people (of all ages). Some involve individuals or small groups. Spencer's photogrpahs are installed at major muesums around the world. Of course, he is a very established photographer, but there was a time 10 or so years ago that he wasn't, and even the NYPD tried to arrest him (charges where later dropped). Today, his photographic events are a pretty big deal in many large cities and they are usually done with location permits (just like if a movie was being filmed). Maybe Dallas's River Walk would be a good location for one ;-)
Also, children have been used as nude models over the ages by artists, but the PC element would brand an artist like Michealangelo or Leonardo Da Vinci a pervert and throw them in jail for 10-20 years today. Next time you see a classic chirstmas decoration of a partially dressed angel cherub, remember that some child likely posed for the original representation of that ornament. Is the sculptur who created that a pervert? Does that make the owner of it a pervert?
God created all of us and the human body is something that is reflected in religious paintings over the years. If you go to the Vatican, you will see paintings that would likely be considered pornography by some in the US, but they are really a celebration of humanity and goodness. I'll leave it up to an Art History major to touch on the rest of the symbolism.
But as the article says, it was in Dallas TX and not in NYC (where I'm from).
I would argue that nudity and pornography are not necessarily the same thing. There is, of course, an overlap, but pornography is intended to arouse the carnal appetites, to go straight to the crotch.
Nudity may be merely high class porn, but it's the type of thing you can see in a museum, while porn has a place in the back room if it's antique and otherwise no place in the museum.
Hard to draw the line but you "know it when you see it."
I am thinking at the moment of lascivious Greek pottery, showing satyrs and other males in a "rampant" state as was used by an earlier poster, some chasing nymphs and hetarae, some chasing each other.
Back in the old days you could get away with almost anything as long as you printed it in Latin, Greek, or another foreign language that only the toffs could read.
Stuff that was aimed at the ordinary blokes in the gutter wasn't protected.
These days almost anything goes, but there are still limits.