Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 76,393   Posts: 1,683,345   Online: 661
      
Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 3789101112131415 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 145
  1. #121

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,943
    Awww... what a cute baby!

  2. #122
    winger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    southwest PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,677
    Images
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Lowly View Post
    Thanks Stephen, for summing up my exact feelings.

    If my Jobo E6 processing doesn't work out you may get some new business
    I was going to suggest you look him up since your stuff was getting sent out anyway. I just figured it would get lost in the rest of the discussion.

    And, for the record, I think the lab's judgement was very questionable and the police decision to destroy the slide was actionable. If it was not evidence of a crime, then it should have been returned. If it was evidence of a crime, then it should have been logged as evidence. There's no allowance in the law for items to be destroyed without due process. And this wasn't. My two cents.

  3. #123

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by Worker 11811 View Post
    Yes, but read that law and I think you'll agree that a simple bare bum in a photo does not constitute child abuse.

    In this case, according to the description of the photo which we were given and interpreting the summary of the law which we were shown, I think it's pretty clear that the photo lab AND the police applied that law incorrectly.

    Incorrect, negligent and/or discriminatory application of a law against one person for arbitrary reasons is a redressable offense.

    Yes, this is Australian law but I'll say it again. It doesn't matter if you're in Adelaide or Albuquerque. You can't just make up laws and you can't decide when to apply them. You have to go by what is written.

    According to what I read, the laws in question were interpreted incorrectly, applied incorrectly and, in my opinion, they were applied NEGLIGENTLY.
    If you're going to argue that the law was applied incorrectly, then you must also disagree with the post I replied to, which claimed that this discussion was solely about the rationale behind the law, and its application in this case didn't matter.

    Also, the photo lab doesn't apply the law; their responsibility is to obey the law. As far as I know, calling the police to report what you believe may be a crime isn't a redressable offense if you're wrong. The police, OTOH, have no excuse.

  4. #124

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,943
    Quote Originally Posted by winger View Post
    ... And, for the record, I think the lab's judgement was very questionable and the police decision to destroy the slide was actionable. If it was not evidence of a crime, then it should have been returned. If it was evidence of a crime, then it should have been logged as evidence. There's no allowance in the law for items to be destroyed without due process. And this wasn't. My two cents.
    Unfortunately that is part of the "curbside justice" attitude that exists within policing. It is illegal, imoral, unjust... but happens too often.

  5. #125
    Worker 11811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,628
    moose10101: I agree with the letter and the spirit of the law. I don't agree that it was correctly applied. OP said that the image would have to be greatly enlarged to see naughty parts. I don't believe simple nudity breaks the threshold of sexual display, prurient interest or of sexual abuse of a minor. If that was the case, I think there would be a whole lot of photographers who make "Babe-in-Arms" portraits populating Australian and American jails.

    It is the lab's responsibility to obey the law but it is also their responsibility to obey it correctly. Just as I can not accuse you of shoplifting from my store unless I have proof, I can not accuse you of making illegal, abusive pictures of minors without proof. I don't think the standard of proof was met.

    The problem is that the picture was destroyed so we have no evidence. I have a sneaking suspicion that the cop may have done that in order to cover his ass. Without that picture, it will be very hard to prove a violation of civil right unless you can find a lawyer who can effectively question the police officer and who can investigate the activities of the lab. Difficult if not expensive!

    Stephen Frizza: Question for you... As a lab owner, if you got a photo, similar to the one described in this case, which showed partially nude children, which was not a clear depiction of abuse but was outside your comfort level, what do you think about telling the customer that you won't accept any more business from that customer if he submits another film for processing which contains "gray area" images?

    I'm not saying that I would do that or that lab operators should do that but wondering.
    If I was the proprietor of a store and I noticed that merchandise kept turning up missing every time a certain person came into the shop, I would tell him that he's no longer welcome. It's a privately owned business on private property. I can do that if I have reasonable grounds.

    Does the analogy hold water? Both examples are suspect law breakers. I, as business owner, have the right to ban the suspect shoplifter. I think I would have a similar right in the case of a suspect photographer.

    Again, I am not sure I would do that. I wonder if it would be a reasonable middle ground in a case like this.

    What do you think?
    Randy S.

    In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.

    -----

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/randystankey/

  6. #126
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,464
    Images
    12
    Here in AU, you have the right to refuse business to anyone except on grounds protected by anti-discrimination law, e.g. gender, age, race. As far as I can tell, a lab could refuse business to someone who insisted on making prints of ugly people.

    However, you're forgetting that the law places an obligation on the lab to report certain things. Yeah, they probably stuffed that up, but then it's the police's fault for the bad follow-through.

    Anyway, I think this thread is done. No one's said anything new in the last 5 pages.

  7. #127
    Worker 11811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post
    However, you're forgetting that the law places an obligation on the lab to report certain things.
    The law does oblige the lab to report certain things but I don't believe that this is one of those certain things which they are obliged to report.
    Randy S.

    In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.

    -----

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/randystankey/

  8. #128
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,464
    Images
    12
    No one disagrees.

  9. #129
    Stephen Frizza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,391
    Images
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Worker 11811 View Post
    moose10101: I agree with the letter and the spirit of the law. I don't agree that it was correctly applied. OP said that the image would have to be greatly enlarged to see naughty parts. I don't believe simple nudity breaks the threshold of sexual display, prurient interest or of sexual abuse of a minor. If that was the case, I think there would be a whole lot of photographers who make "Babe-in-Arms" portraits populating Australian and American jails.

    It is the lab's responsibility to obey the law but it is also their responsibility to obey it correctly. Just as I can not accuse you of shoplifting from my store unless I have proof, I can not accuse you of making illegal, abusive pictures of minors without proof. I don't think the standard of proof was met.

    The problem is that the picture was destroyed so we have no evidence. I have a sneaking suspicion that the cop may have done that in order to cover his ass. Without that picture, it will be very hard to prove a violation of civil right unless you can find a lawyer who can effectively question the police officer and who can investigate the activities of the lab. Difficult if not expensive!

    Stephen Frizza: Question for you... As a lab owner, if you got a photo, similar to the one described in this case, which showed partially nude children, which was not a clear depiction of abuse but was outside your comfort level, what do you think about telling the customer that you won't accept any more business from that customer if he submits another film for processing which contains "gray area" images?

    I'm not saying that I would do that or that lab operators should do that but wondering.
    If I was the proprietor of a store and I noticed that merchandise kept turning up missing every time a certain person came into the shop, I would tell him that he's no longer welcome. It's a privately owned business on private property. I can do that if I have reasonable grounds.

    Does the analogy hold water? Both examples are suspect law breakers. I, as business owner, have the right to ban the suspect shoplifter. I think I would have a similar right in the case of a suspect photographer.

    Again, I am not sure I would do that. I wonder if it would be a reasonable middle ground in a case like this.

    What do you think?
    As a lab owner I wouldn't bat an eyelid at the image referred to. my only interest would be is the colour , contrast and density ok and is it printed sharply.
    The innocent images a parent captures of their child in moments of youthful innocence without any sinister intent is a beautiful thing, no different to the works of photographers like sally Mann (whom my I add has also been under scrutiny). My limits would be seeing overt sexual molestation, the unwilling engagement of sexual acts towards minors , and strong acts of pedophilia. I had close insight into an Australian photographer called Bill Henson during a time when he was under scrutiny for his work. and while i think it pushed some limits i don't think those limits should have been those of the lab printing them. In 15 years there is only one thing as a rule i don't and wont print and that is photographs of babies being born.
    "Its my profession to hijack time" ~ Stephen Frizza.

  10. #130

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Frizza View Post
    The innocent images a parent captures of their child in moments of youthful innocence without any sinister intent is a beautiful thing


    ... and how do you know the images were taken by the parent, and not someone else?



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin