The proposed new law would cover depictions of child sex abuse that have either been created on a computer or are cartoons, drawings or other "artwork".
The article then mentions several incidents where London Art Gallery owners have been arrested and charged in the past few years for displaying artwork depicting "a photographer's three young children playing while naked" or "a photographer's daughter in the bath". Both were overturned on the basis that "art" is not covered by then current child porn laws.
Presumably, this exhibition of Donatello's David in London is illegal by some interpretations of the law, since it displays a naked prepubescent child in a pose that has been described as "provocative", "sensual" or "a fetishists dream" by art critics. Statues of Zeus abducting Ganymede may fall even more squarely under the wording of the law. While the police have vowed not to prosecute posession of "genuine artwork", what credentials does the average detective have to determine "genuine artwork"? Would they consider a modern sculpture of the same subject with the same care that they would consider one of the classics?
How does this recent law affect the ongoing effort to digitize British art galleries? Does it have far reaching implications for the physical collections of art galleries as well? Does it make British citizens on legally shaky ground merely visting the national museum? How would someone make that determination in light of this new law and the past history of enforcement and raids on smaller galleries? Does this law go too far?"