a girl and her Teddy new 50 f/1.8!

SlowBlink wrote in post #5237997
Absolutely not offended here I though they were beautiful shots. My concern is for you and some mildly bent righteous warrior of decency hitting the "report" key. I've read a few of the nightmares parents have gone through because of over zealous freaks out there.

They were great shots LM.

I totally agree.....they were far from offensive, but concern is what I had for one photo...

Titus, I disagree with your comment.I am far from a non think....and am not collective....I am a mother and gramma, and the worries are real.

OK - I'm a father and grandfather, so? Seriously, just what exactly is the big fear of the internet?

404 NOT_FOUND

Yea... I set it as private. Forgot that it would take it off here too.... Thank you and I understand the concerns. There are a lot of sickos out there... I forgot that these could be viewed by non members. So a quick question for all of you.... what do you believe is the cutt off date for how old kids should be for the "cute naked pictures?" She does look a lot older than she is... but just for my sake b/c I think the cute little naked pictures are SO cute but I wouldn't want to get in trouble or to expose my daughter to anything that I don't want to think about... but I don't want to be nieve either. So what do you guys think???

As this is changing into a discussion of when you should stop shooting, or at least posting, infant photos and the photo's no longer available, I've moved it to Talk About.

Oh ok... thank you... so what do you think guys??? What age???

Titus213 wrote in post #5238497
OK - I'm a father and grandfather, so? Seriously, just what exactly is the big fear of the internet?

well, as a crime reporter, I could go on for hours

I didn't see the original post (having just joined), but it's a shame one has to be (rightfully) concerned about what may happen to an innocent and artistic shot. (Definitely not through the fault of anyone on this message board, including the OP).

Honestly, 2 and younger. If I recall the age of 2 for kids. 1yr and younger to be safe I guess. I wanted to see the shots though. PM? Everyone says they're nice although I'm not sure what they are of.

I would say if they look like a toddler and not an infant. that might be different for different kids. Aside from the issues of the risks of exposure and inappropriate use, and whether thats real or paranoid, there is a very very real risk of serious legal head aches. You can agree or disagree with the laws and law enforcement.

LowriderS10 wrote in post #5239227
well, as a crime reporter, I could go on for hours

I didn't see the original post (having just joined), but it's a shame one has to be (rightfully) concerned about what may happen to an innocent and artistic shot. (Definitely not through the fault of anyone on this message board, including the OP).

So you are suggesting that we play just below the lowest common denominator in society? That's sadder than the thought of someone stealing the image and using it in some nefarious way....

Titus213 wrote in post #5239738
So you are suggesting that we play just below the lowest common denominator in society? That's sadder than the thought of someone stealing the image and using it in some nefarious way....

It is. But when it comes to protection, the lowest common denominator is what you need protection from.

This is a much broader discussion than just photography, children and bad people. Unfortunately, the issue is so wide spread that no one finger can be pointed. I value and invite the opinions of the people of this forum but we surely aren't going to come to a solution here.

eddarr wrote in post #5239797
It is. But when it comes to protection, the lowest common denominator is what you need protection from.

This is a much broader discussion than just photography, children and bad people. Unfortunately, the issue is so wide spread that no one finger can be pointed. I value and invite the opinions of the people of this forum but we surely aren't going to come to a solution here.

What is the evidence that it is wide spread? The fact that everyone thinks it is?

I'm confused by yall's entire conversation.

Posting here is one thing. What a parent wants is another.

Level of paranoia, or caution or whatever you wanna call it is different form person to person. At my nephew's 4th year birthday party, I took a bunch of pictures, mostly of him and his family, but some of his friends. I posted a few on the flicker, and one of good friends (which I admit is on the paranoid side) said he was shocked to see them, and he thinks the parents of the children will be very upset if they knew the pictures were posted. so other than my own immediate family, and even that mostly on picasa, I dont post picture of children. I now have a 2 month old daughter, and have been sharing some images, but I think any nude pictures of toddlers is just a bad idea. As I stated earlier, its not even a discussion of what is safe, and unsafe, its a question of what could be seen as illegal, and land you in court. I think the merits of whether internet risks are real or overblown is muted by the legal ramifications.

Ya know, I understand all this. But how do nudist sites get away with this? I know they're nudists, it's a way of life therefore can't be persecuted, but there has got to be a line where it's ok to have tons of naked people on the internet just nothing below 18 still.