This opinion was issued following remand, after an opinion by the Supreme Court that the evidence was sufficient to show the sexual photographs of defendant’s nine-year-old daughter posted on the Internet were produced for commercial purposes in violation of Penal Code section 311.4. The Court of Appeal concluded that it was bound by the decision of the Supreme Court on this point under principles of precedent. The appellate court also concluded the evidence was sufficient to show that the defendant used duress to commit aggravated sexual assault on a child (Pen. Code, secs. 269, subds.(a)(3) and (a)(4)) and forcible lewd act on a child under 14 (Pen. Code, sec. 288, subd.(b)(1)). The primary evidence presented was a videotape defendant made of him directing his daughter to engage in various sexual acts, both alone and with him. She testified she was not afraid of her father, that he began a sexual relationship with her about nine months earlier than his arrest, and he would hurt her “just a little bit, but not too much.” He told her not to tell anybody because he would get in trouble and go to jail. She was sometimes sad and sometimes mad about what he did to her. It was clear from the videotape that the victim was reluctant to engage in the activities and did so only out of compliance with parental authority. She also complains on the tape he is hurting her, and defendant responds he is not hurting her, that he is not yet finished, or sometimes alters his activity. She also received gifts or money from him when they were alone.