Sorry, I spoke imprecisely.

The terminology is used outside of legal contexts in ways that transcend borders. To the best of my knowledge, the terms "CSAM" and "CSEM" were coined outside of legal contexts, for the purposes I described above.

That they are used in legal contexts in particular jurisdictions with particular definitions that do not exactly match what I have described does not change what I have described for general usage.

By the very nature of the English language, which has no formal administering body, there is no such thing as an "official definition" of a word in common usage; even dictionaries are descriptive, not normative. It is possible that my experience is not universal; however, I have had enough exposure to the term in a variety of contexts that I am comfortable stating that, at least for a large number of Anglophone people, my description of the situation would read as accurate.

YMMV, void where prohibited, no warranty is expressed or implied, etc.

> The terminology is used outside of legal contexts in ways that transcend borders.

To clarify, the FBI and DHS publications I cited are not actually using the term in a "legal context", strictly speaking. Presently, US federal criminal law does not use the term CSAM; if the FBI or DHS arrest someone for "CSAM", they might use that term in a press release describing the arrest, but the formal criminal charges will be expressed without using it.

> To the best of my knowledge, the terms "CSAM" and "CSEM" were coined outside of legal contexts, for the purposes I described above.

This is where I doubt you – did the people who originally coined the term "CSAM" intend to exclude AI-generated images from the term's scope? You are assuming they did, but I'm not convinced you are right. I suspect you may be projecting your own views about how the term should be defined on to the people who originated it.