Based on a Google search and the following link, no.
Google defined child porn using the term “sexually explicit conduct”, involving a minor, fair enough, gotta look deeper.
Cornell has a legal definition of sexually explicit conduct for us, which basically breaks it into 5 categories, actual sex, bestiality, masturbating, specific kinds of abuse, and displays of various body parts.
If this would be CP, it’d have to be some kind of abuse or the display, and I don’t think anything Nick aired would count as “masochistic” or “sadistic”. The body parts listed are also specific and don’t include feet.
So, in the US, it’s just really creepy, not CP. the fact we have to delve this deep to determine it’s not CP is pretty telling on its own, though.