Laws for topless toddlers in photography?

I recently just got into photography and have a question that i cant seem to find an answer to. I am wondering if anyone knows the laws of topless toddlers in photography. I have been told by some that boys can be topless at any age but girls cant be after the age of nine months. Is this true. Would it really be considered pornagraphy if i took a picture of a baby girl in a diaper. I personally wouldnt do it for any child over two but under i would not understand how it could be bad.

That's ridiculous! I let my daughter go topless in the summer after her toddler years. Who cares if a child swimming in trunks is a boy or girl if they haven't developed breasts yet?

In the US, obscene speech and images are not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Most states have laws outlawing obscene and pornographic material. To be constitutional, these laws must comply with the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has a fairly vague standard of what is obscene, which is generally known as "I know it when I see it" standard. Obscene materials appeal to the prurient interests. Therefore, a nude picture of a three year old girl is only obscene if it is sexual. Pictures of nude children taken for artistic, medical, or other purposes are generally not obscene. I cannot see how a law banning photographs of topless girls over the age of 9 months would be constitutional. It would necessarily ban medical, artistic, and family photos, and thus violate the First Amendment right to free speech.

I am not sure where you live but two very famous photographers you need to do research on is Jock Sturges and Sally Mann, both whom use nude minors in their photography. Sturges work has been challenged in court, and he won each time on grounds that his work did not constitute pornography or child pornography.

In order for something to be considered pornographic is needs to be sexually explicit or prurient in nature.

A picture of a toddler in diapers hardly fits that parameter.