I mentioned that Commons seems to be holding some child pornography.
The policy.,
The images are pornographic, but fall under an implied exception:
QUOTE
and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Those images, it must be asserted -- or they'd be immediately deleted -- have such value.
Again, Tisane could possibly host actual child pornography, if for such value (his concern is, in fact, political), and it would still be legal. He has not gone that far. None of his images were pornographic, legally.
(the classification of those images as erotica, those which portray, explicitly, sexual conduct with children, is possibly misleading -- except that this is a broader usage of "erotica" than the legal usage.)