163.693
Failure to report child pornography.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) “Computer
technician” means a person who repairs, installs or otherwise services a
computer, computer network or computer system for compensation.
(b) “Processor of
photographic images” means a person who develops, processes, reproduces,
transfers, edits or enhances photographic film into negatives, slides, prints,
movies, digital images or video.
(2) A processor
of photographic images or a computer technician who reasonably believes the
processor or technician has observed a visual recording of a child involved in
sexually explicit conduct shall report the name and address, if known, of the
person requesting the processing or of the owner or person in possession of the
computer, computer network or computer system to:
(a) The
CyberTipline at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children;
(b) The local
office of the Department of Human Services; or
(c) A law
enforcement agency within the county where the processor or technician making
the report is located at the time the visual recording is observed.
(3) Nothing in
this section requires a processor of photographic images or a computer
technician to monitor any user, subscriber or customer or to search for
prohibited materials or media.
(4) Any person,
their employer or a third party complying with this section in good faith shall
be immune from civil or criminal liability in connection with making the
report, except for willful or wanton misconduct.
(5) A person
commits the crime of failure to report child pornography if the person violates
the provisions of this section.
(6) Failure to
report child pornography is a Class A misdemeanor. [1987 c.864 §7; 1991 c.664 §10;
2011 c.515 §§8,11a]
163.695 [1987 c.864 §8; 1991 c.664 §11;
1995 c.768 §7; repealed by 2001 c.666 §56]
163.696 [2001 c.666 §49; repealed by 2005
c.830 §48]
INVASION OF PRIVACY
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case:
State v. Stoneman, 920 P.2d 535 (Or. 1996).
State v. Stoneman, 920 P.2d 535 (Or. 1996).
· cites it 4× “[16] Another provision, ORS 163.693 (1987), penalized failure to report visual recordings of children under the age of 18 engaged in sexually explicit conduct by persons involved in processing and producing them, [17] while ORS 163.”
State v. Carey-Martin, 430 P.3d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“670 as describing the most serious of a group of related offenses that concern the visual recording and observation of children engaged in sexually explicit conduct that also include encouraging child sexual abuse, ORS 163.”
State v. Porter, 249 P.3d 139 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“Failure to report child pornography, ORS 163.693, *34 applies when a person processes or produces a photograph depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child but fails to report it to law enforcement agencies.”
Anselmo v. Target Corp., 340 Or. App. 21 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“1 1 At that point in the proceeding, the trial court denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment directed to the negligence claim and with respect to defen- dants’ statutory immunity defenses under ORS 163.693(4) and ORS 419B.025, finding that material issues of fact…”
Anselmo v. Target Corp., 340 Or. App. 21 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“1 1 At that point in the proceeding, the trial court denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment directed to the negligence claim and with respect to defen- dants’ statutory immunity defenses under ORS 163.693(4) and ORS 419B.025, finding that material issues of fact…”
State v. Porter, 249 P.3d 139 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“Failure to report child pornography, ORS 163.693, applies when a person processes or produces a photograph depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child but fails to report it to law enforcement agencies.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.693(4) — 2 cases
Anselmo v. Target Corp., 340 Or. App. 21 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“1 1 At that point in the proceeding, the trial court denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment directed to the negligence claim and with respect to defen- dants’ statutory immunity defenses under ORS 163.693(4) and ORS 419B.025, finding that material issues of fact…”
Anselmo v. Target Corp., 340 Or. App. 21 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“1 1 At that point in the proceeding, the trial court denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment directed to the negligence claim and with respect to defen- dants’ statutory immunity defenses under ORS 163.693(4) and ORS 419B.025, finding that material issues of fact…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.