Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,166   Posts: 1,614,405   Online: 991
      
Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 145
  1. #61

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,260
    Zero tolerance laws/regulations trivialize the very actions they seek to remedy. Consider the boy suspended from school for bringing a GI Joe figurine to a school with a zero tolerance regulation against guns.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  2. #62
    Worker 11811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    ... but it is no more right or wrong than if one were to call the police to report screams coming from the home next door.
    The difference is that there is the real possibility that somebody is in imminent danger of death or bodily injury. In photographs, there is no imminent danger. Even if the person in the picture who appears to be in danger actually faces such peril, the danger has already passed. The picture has already been taken.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    Randy, we must live in the world as it is, not as we might like it to be ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    I must vigorously disagree. To do so reduces all of us to mindless sheep. We are reasoning beings with the power to change what we do not like.
    A quote from Voltaire: "No snowflake ever took responsibility for an avalanche."

    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    In my neck of the woods, there is a legal obligation to report anything that brings rise to a concern that a child may be at risk.
    I am not being contrarian, here, but I would honestly like to read the statute. I would like to know who informed the business owner of this statue and their obligation to obey it. I would like to know how employees are trained to interpret that statute and what their obligations are when they determine that there is something illegal going on.

    Quote Originally Posted by railwayman3 View Post
    I took myself off last summer (on my own) specifically to get some architectural shots of a local stately home (in a public park). While waiting for the sun to come through clouds for the effect I wanted, I suddenly found myself being watched, I felt uncomfortably, by a group of Mums picnicking with their kids. They were some distance away, and were nowhere near my intended photo, being 180 degrees behind me.
    That's their problem, not yours. Continue as you were.
    I have had people call the cops on me for no reason. I just kept walking. I smiled and waved at the cop and said, "Hi," with my camera in my hand.
    I have been confronted three times. I just said, "I'm sorry. I didn't know I was on private property." (In every case, both my feet were on the public sidewalk. Not even stepping on a blade of grass.) One guy, I liked and I stopped to talk with him. We shot the $hit for ten minutes. The other two, I just said, "Have a nice day," and kept walking.

    I am not obligated to respond to other people's ignorance.
    I always try to conduct myself with good manners in public, especially when using a camera but I flat-out refuse to be a snowflake in the proverbial avalanche.
    Randy S.

    In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.

    -----

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

  3. #63
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,300
    Images
    6
    What is illegal is not necessarily immoral. What is legal is not aways moral either. The world exists in shades if gray. The art of life is nuanced interpretation of morality. Don't be so quick to judge and call the cops when seeing pics of naked folk.
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

  4. #64
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,098
    Almost everything in life is context.

    And some people aren't capable of discerning it.

    We are surrounded by stupidity, and must always adapt to the most unevolved the group.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,260
    The problem with the current crusade against child pornography is that it misses the greater problem. We hear that the children involved in porn are being abused and exploited. BUT nothing is said about the hundreds of thousands of children all around the world that are abused and exploited every day, forced to work at adult jobs in dangerous situations. They suffer sickness, maiming and even death but we hear little about them. [SARCASM]Of course they are learning a job skill which we all know is morally proper. And as a bonus they are producing things such as cheap clothes.[/SARCASM] What about the sanctity of childhood for all children not just a subset of them?
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,260
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    What is illegal is not necessarily immoral. What is legal is not aways moral either. The world exists in shades if gray. The art of life is nuanced interpretation of morality. Don't be so quick to judge and call the cops when seeing pics of naked folk.
    There is the maxim that "The law is separate from morality." Something that first year law students learn.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  7. #67

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by mesantacruz View Post
    OP said kid was running around, not looking like he was forced to do something... must have been a newbie at the photolab, who already thinks people who shoot film are strange, so when he sees the naked kid he freaks....

    If the op, took a whole roll of the naked kid, somethings weird, if the op took a photo, where the kid looked like he was in distress, again weird... family photos, and naked kid running around, funny.

    to be blatant, as i get older more friends are having kids, and many of them are from el paso, tx (90-100 degree weather in the summer)... so amongst photos of food being grilled, family,etc... there's a naked kid here and there... no one thinks it's weird, because it's in CONTEXT.

    so op was singled out for a reason he is unaware of or omitted... or the photolab people at that specific place are 'sheep' to put it nicely.
    Put well. I agree.

  8. #68
    Worker 11811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,628
    I did some research. Most U.S. states/jurisdictions have laws which require the reporting of images of children under the age of eighteen who appear to a reasonable person to be engaged in an act of sexual conduct.

    In every case, the phrase "reasonable person," "reasonable suspicion" or "reasonable belief" is used.

    In every case except one the phrase "engaged in an act of sexual conduct" or "sex act" is used. In the one case that didn't say "sexual act/conduct" the phrase "child pornography" is used.

    In most places "pornography" is usually defined as images created primarily out of "prurient interest." That, we can say means "sexual act" or "sexual display."

    I don't think any reasonable person could infer that a kid who "shoots the moon" at a camera is engaged in a sexual display, a sex act or is acting out of prurient interest, especially when taken in context of all the other photos in the roll of film. Further, since the OP has been a regular customer of that lab for several years and has never had a questionable incident, I can't imagine how one photo could be construed as being out of context.

    I think that the photo lab was not justified in reporting the photo.

    Since others have said that this lab has let other photographs which were much more graphic than this pass unscrutinized, I would say that this shows that they are guilty of arbitrary behavior.

    As I said before, if I was a shopkeeper who accused a person of shoplifting and called the police without good reason, I would be civilly liable. I can't say that the photo lab in this case is similarly liable but I would certainly be looking for legal advice, right now.
    Randy S.

    In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.

    -----

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

  9. #69

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,454
    Thanks for doing that leg-work, Randy... I was curious too.

  10. #70
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,398
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    Zero tolerance laws/regulations trivialize the very actions they seek to remedy. Consider the boy suspended from school for bringing a GI Joe figurine to a school with a zero tolerance regulation against guns.
    GI Joe!? That's going a bit far when you can be suspended for brandishing triangular pastry.

    Anyway, it's worth noting that the OP is in Australia and we have very strict laws here (whether you're aware of them or not in your local jurisdiction or whether you believe they're necessary is irrelevant) that require people to report the suspicion or appearance of abuse. I haven't seen the image, can't say whether the lab overreacted but even if they totally did, the problem here is the police officer's reaction. Having decided that no crime had been committed and told you as much, the failure to return the image is an improper confiscation of goods. The police aren't allowed to just take shit off you because someone else had a moral panic, and you know that.

    On behalf of all of us who use labs occasionally, I implore you to send a formal letter of complaint to the police headquarters in your state (it's a pretty easy process). Lay out, in completely unemotional language, that you had your private property confiscated and destroyed without due process and in the absence of any crime. The actions of the lab are irrelevant* here, so don't complain about them because it'll just make you look bad. As part of the complaint, I think you need to specify what your desired outcome is: I would request (if I were you) that formal procedures be put in place if they are not already and their following enforced regarding the treatment of people in your situation. You shouldn't have had to have heard from the police at all and you certainly shouldn't have lost your property. Likewise I would not push for disciplinary action against the officer as they were probably acting from ignorance and asking for punishment will just put the police examining your complaint on the defensive. You want to push against the process and the system, not the individuals unless the individual did something clearly criminal.

    There have been quite a few cases (and therefore complaints) recently with police improperly bothering people photographing in public; in Australia, we have the explicit right to do so unless invading someone's privacy. As a result, there have been awareness campaigns within the police forces regarding the rights of photographers. Pushing back firmly and politely against the police failing to follow the law is what is required. Otherwise, we end up with rule by police instead of rule by law, which is pretty much where a few other western nations are headed. Thankfully, Australia is doing much better than others on that front, but please do your bit in pushing back, even if you take a week or two to gather yourself emotionally first.


    * it doesn't matter if the lab is full of prying nannies. The police should have just said "it's fine, give it back". You can't train all lab operators with a fine sense of subtlety and context so their job is only to report, NOT decide your guilt. It's the police's job to ignore their reports when appropriate.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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