Federal prosecutors say a gymnastics instructor who worked at facilities in Rhode Island and southeastern Massachusetts photographed children where he worked, then used artificial intelligence to turn those photos into realistic sexual images and videos. Joseph L. Mello III, 38, of North Smithfield, Rhode Island, was arrested Monday, November 9, 2026, on a federal criminal complaint, NBC10 Boston and Fall River Reporter reported, citing the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Rhode Island.
Mello is presumed innocent. No facilities have been named. The case raises a question parents are asking more often: if a picture is made by AI, is it still a crime? Under federal law, when the images show real, identifiable children, the answer is yes. Here is what Mello is accused of, what the law says, and what happens next.
What prosecutors allege
- The charges. Mello is charged with attempted production of child pornography, receipt of child pornography, possession of and access with intent to view child pornography, and production of obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children, both outlets reported.
- The dance studio. According to the affidavit supporting the complaint, Mello filmed a child who was undressing in a bathroom and changing area at a dance studio where both took classes, and attempted to create child sexual abuse material with the footage, Fall River Reporter and NBC10 reported.
- The AI images. The complaint alleges Mello photographed children at the facilities where he worked and used AI image and video tools to create “realistic images and videos depicting these children engaging in sexually explicit conduct, including sex acts with Mello,” both outlets reported. NBC10 reported the complaint names programs including Grok and SwapX.
- Other material. He is also accused of possessing child sexual abuse material showing children abused by others, NBC10 reported.
- A prior case. Mello was arrested in Rhode Island on April 15, 2026, for video voyeurism, and that case is still pending, both outlets reported.
“This case is a disturbing reminder that rapidly evolving technology can be weaponized to exploit children,” First Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles C. Calenda said, according to both outlets. “While the technology may be new, the harm is not,” he said, Fall River Reporter reported.
Is AI-generated child abuse material illegal?
We read the federal statutes at govinfo.gov and the Supreme Court’s decision on CourtListener.
- Real children, altered images. The federal definition of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8), includes any visual depiction, including a “computer-generated image,” that “has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” Prosecutors do not have to prove the child’s actual identity, under § 2256(9)(B).
- Images that look real. Section 2256(8)(B) also covers a “computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” “Indistinguishable” means an ordinary person viewing it “would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor.”
- Obscene images of any kind. A separate law, 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, makes it a crime to produce, distribute or receive “a visual depiction of any kind,” including a drawing or cartoon, that depicts a minor in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene. “It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.”
What the Supreme Court said about “virtual” images
In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), the Supreme Court struck down a version of the federal law that banned any image that “appears to be” a minor in sexually explicit conduct, including images “produced without using any real children.” The Court held that provision “overbroad and unconstitutional.”
But the Court set apart images made from real children. Pornographers “can alter innocent pictures of real children so that the children appear to be engaged in sexual activity,” the Court wrote, and those morphed images “implicate the interests of real children and are in that sense closer to” traditional child pornography. That provision was not challenged, and the Court did not rule on it. It is the same category, real children’s photos turned into sexual images, that prosecutors allege here.
What the charges carry
The outlets did not report the specific statutes in the complaint. In general, under federal law:
| Offense | Statute | Prison range |
|---|---|---|
| Production of child pornography, or an attempt | 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e) | 15 to 30 years |
| Receipt of child pornography, or an attempt | 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(1) | 5 to 20 years |
| Producing or receiving obscene depictions of minors | 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a) | Same penalties as § 2252A(b)(1) |
Higher ranges apply to anyone with a prior qualifying conviction. These are statutory ranges, not predictions. A complaint is a charging document; a grand jury indictment would usually follow if the case goes forward.
What happens next
- Detention hearing. Mello made an initial appearance Monday in U.S. District Court in Providence before Magistrate Judge Rebecca Aitchison and was held pending a detention hearing set for Thursday, November 12, Fall River Reporter reported. NBC10 reported the hearing is at 1 p.m.
- More victims. Investigators believe there may be more victims and witnesses and are reviewing reports of Mello’s contact with other minors, both outlets reported. Parents whose children were in close contact with Mello, or who know of him photographing or contacting children, are asked to email Homeland Security New England Victim Assistance at HSINewEnglandVictimAssistance@hsi.dhs.gov.
Frequently asked questions
Is it illegal to make AI child sexual abuse images?
Under federal law, sexual images created or modified to make an identifiable real child appear to engage in sexually explicit conduct are child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8). Obscene depictions of minors are also illegal under § 1466A even if no real child exists.
Who is Joseph Mello?
A 38-year-old North Smithfield, Rhode Island, man who worked as an instructor at gymnastics, dance and cheerleading facilities in Rhode Island and southeastern Massachusetts, according to federal prosecutors as reported by NBC10 Boston and Fall River Reporter. He is presumed innocent.
Which facilities did Mello work at?
Prosecutors have not named them.
How do I report concerns about Mello?
Email Homeland Security New England Victim Assistance at HSINewEnglandVictimAssistance@hsi.dhs.gov.
Sources: NBC10 Boston and Fall River Reporter, November 11, 2026, citing the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Rhode Island. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A, 2251, 2252A and 2256, read at govinfo.gov. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), verified and read on CourtListener. General information, not legal advice.