>>3370695Busybody, here. What the fuck do you want?
This image does not violate any American criminal law that I am aware of.
This image isn't even pornographic, by any legal definition.
It may violate a tort law of privacy, the burden of which depends on the plaintiff, who would presumably be the young lady in the image or suitable representative.
This image, aside from being associated with many various chans and archives, is associated with a website that appears to imply that the woman is a "star" in pornography.
http://namethatpornstar.com/all-requests.php?page=36250