Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,548   Posts: 1,544,538   Online: 1008
      
Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 48910111213141516 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 152
  1. #131

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,064
    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.

  2. #132
    Worker 11811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,620
    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/

  3. #133
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,276
    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.

  4. #134
    Worker 11811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,620
    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/

  5. #135
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,276
    Images
    12
    No one disagrees.

  6. #136
    Stephen Frizza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,380
    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.

  7. #137

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,029
    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?

  8. #138

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    610
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Worker 11811 View Post
    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.
    A store owner is free to call the police if they suspect shoplifting. In fact, at least in the USA, that's the only thing they can do. They're not allowed to detain or search you.

    As for obeying a law "correctly", I state again that calling the police to report that a law may have been broken is not improper behavior. Citizens are not required to be legal experts; if they're unsure, they're allowed to ask law enforcement to investigate. If the lab made a habit of reporting things that a reasonable person would not, the police can deal with that, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

    Clearly it's the investigators who screwed the pooch here.

  9. #139
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,334
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Frizza View Post
    ... 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.
    Wait, why wouldn't you print that? This intrigues and confuses me.

    So you'll print for example, a picture of someone's butthole, penis, vagina, but not vagina giving birth?

    What about a penis or phalanges inserted into an orifice?

    Just covering my bases I'm not saying this would be normal but for example the adult industry photographs such things and they have to send the images for processing somewhere, (or used to when they shot film) so why is giving birth objectionable.


    ~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  10. #140

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,064
    Having watched a vagina giving birth twice, I understand why he wouldn't print it. It has little to do with any sexual implications of said organ.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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