A high court ruling in Spain has confirmed a lengthy prison term for a San Sebastián photographer named Kote Cabezudo. The decision, issued by the Supreme Court, preserves a sentence of 28 years and two months after he was found guilty of multiple offenses involving seven models in Guipúzcoa. The ruling underscores serious criminal conduct that extended beyond a single incident, affecting several victims over an extended period.
The Criminal Division affirmed the previous conviction handed down by the Guipúzcoa State Court. It rejected the photographer’s appeal against the verdict, which included charges of sexual assault, another form of sexual abuse, six charges of child pornography, and two related fraud accusations. The appellate panel emphasized the severity of the crimes and the agreement below that the evidence supported each charge beyond reasonable doubt.
As part of the judgment, victims were awarded a total compensation of 116,000 euros. The court also recalled the framework of sentencing in Spain, noting that the maximum time in prison for the offenses involved is capped by law at 20 years for some categories, although this cap can intersect with other penalties and continuations depending on the cumulative nature of the offender’s acts. The court clarified that the yes-law reductions proposed by the defendant would not change the overall length of the penitentiary term currently in effect.
The defendant contested the charges by arguing that his conduct did not fit the definition of child pornography and that the models were aware of their parents’ professional connections and consented to the photographs. He asserted that the images were taken from an artistic and sensory perspective without sexual intent, and that the models gave their express prior consent. The court, however, determined that the material in question extended beyond simple nudity and encompassed candid close-ups that directly meet the legal definition of child pornography in the jurisdiction.
According to the court’s assessment, a primary sexual intent was evident, which outweighed any potential professional or artistic interpretation. This aspect was deemed critical in distinguishing legitimate artistic work from criminal exploitation, particularly given the intimate nature of many of the images and videos produced.
During the proceedings, the judges warned that if similar photographs appeared on the defendant’s online platforms, the same considerations would apply. A cautionary note accompanied the ruling: “Disclaimer: All models are over 18 years old.” The court stated that this disclaimer would not absolve the defendant from liability when the evidence established non-consensual or exploitative conduct, and the use of such material would still be subject to criminal penalties where appropriate.
Another facet of the case involved accusations of sexual assault against one victim, including the recording of video and photographs during explicit sexual activities. The court found that the actions, whether or not framed by a contractual context, demonstrated a pattern of coercive behavior that violated the victim’s autonomy. Even when the accused held a position of authority over the filming and initially obtained consent, the record showed that he employed physical coercion to push boundaries beyond consent, which constitutes sexual assault under the law.
A separate count of sexual abuse pertained to a second model who was photographed nude. The defense asserted that the model continued to participate in shoots out of obligation or financial motivation, but the court noted that the model had verbally and financially opposed the inappropriate touches. There was no evidence of prior or continued consent to the described acts, and the judges concluded that the photographer committed actions that exceeded what the models had agreed to do.
The judges underscored that consent given in one context cannot be retroactively extended to cover aggressive conduct that was not part of the agreed scope of the work. The ruling thus consolidates the view that coercive actions in the context of intimate visual production can be criminal even when there is initial consent or professional involvement. The decision marks a firm stance against sexual exploitation in the creative industry and affirms the protection of vulnerable participants in photo and video projects.
In reviewing the case, the court reflected on the potential harm to survivors and reiterated the principle that professional acknowledgment or artistic framing does not nullify criminal behavior. The verdict stands as a reminder that the consequences of sexual exploitation extend beyond personal harm to affect broader social trust in professional communities and artistic endeavors.
Overall, the ruling confirms the conviction on all counts and upholds the substantial penalties imposed. It reinforces the need for rigorous standards of conduct in the artistic field and signals to the public that the justice system treats such offenses with the seriousness they demand. The case continues to serve as a touchstone for ongoing discussions about consent, exploitation, and the responsibilities of photographers and studios in safeguarding participants.
Notes accompany the decision to clarify how similar cases would be treated if encountered elsewhere. The court’s careful parsing of consent, coercion, and the depiction of intimate acts illustrates the importance of clear boundaries and the enforcement of rules designed to protect models from harm in every jurisdiction.