If someone uses a picture as pornography...then YES! It's pornography! Good or bad, that's what it is. The problem comes with pornography having a bad connotation. People have kneejerk reactions to the word, which shuts off all intelligent thought in regards to the matter and causes falling back on preconceived strong opinions on the matter...very reactionary. The minute genitals become involved, all rational thought goes out the window, and people are ready to ban this and censor that and burn this and that. This makes pornographers very reluctant to admit that something is pornography and not art. I would be fine with pornography simply being called pornography, and this not being a bad thing. It would be a lot easier to stomach than some pretentious pornographer claiming that his or her commercial work is art so that it somehow makes it better.
I have never heard anyone use the notion that the use and not the work itself makes child/adolescent nudes into pornography. People who believe this crap don't care about the use of the "work", whether it be on a gallery wall or in Smut Magazine. To them, smut is smut.
I am not using the terms "art" or "commercial" to judge "quality" in any way.