Awesome photo for a 14 y.o. to take.

appears to have been debunked. hoax.
we WANT to believe because it's so horrid.

I'm not 100% sure it is a hoax.

1) The first piece of evidence is that her domain has a "registrant name of Greg Hill, living in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, USA"
That's pretty circumstantial, and if you look at the photrographs they do seem to be British in nature.

Saying that, I've not been able to find a site which publicises "Body Magic" using her photo.

Medium Format: Links to where this has been debunked?

There are links found in Flickr comments from original link:
from www.beikey.net

Take a good look at the images posted on Lara’s website and ask yourself if this is the kind of quality and quantity you’d expect from a girl between 14 and 17 years. Whose fantasy life is she living?

Without commenting on the specifics of this particular "case", I'd like to say that I've always hated when someone uses this argument to "prove" something is false.

I'm more outraged that a porn dvd didn't feature the covergirl in the movie. What happened to standards!

that beikey article is hopeless

Right, that beikey article is hardly a solid debunking of anything. But porn being a red flag industry, I really rather doubt anyone would be foolish enough to use an unlicensed photo on a DVD for sale and other distribution. If someone claimed to be the rights holder and licensed the photo for use, there'd be a paper trail and a lawsuit all ready.

As for it being "too good" for a fourteen year old's self-portrait, that's silly. I've seen twelve year olds using good cameras take really good photos. Shoot 1000 frames, you get some real beauties.

Well, I think there's good reason to be a bit skeptical, starting with the fact that if she were really 14 and on a porno DVD cover, wouldn't any lawyer jump at the chance for a sizable settlement? Just look at the Girls Gone Wild case for precedent.

Not to mention that, all logic aside, the FBI would love a reason like this to raid a DVD vendor.

How it happened could easily have been a shady el-cheapo photo licensing shop that the DVD company ill-advisedly used, which doesn't absolve them of anything but does point to the risks in putting professional stuff online.