Photographer prosecuted.. what is the world coming to?

One wonders what would have happened if it had been the parents who took the photographs and handed them in for processing!

Could be scarey for any photographic parents of younger children.

How stupid to actually bring a case like this to court! Political correctness has taken over to such an extent that common sense doesn't even get considered any more. Total madness.

Sorarse wrote in post #6059152
One wonders what would have happened if it had been the parents who took the photographs and handed them in for processing!

Could be scarey for any photographic parents of younger children.

There are apocryphal stories of parents being turned it and charged for taking photos of their nude toddlers in very innocent settings (playing in the bath, in the backyard wading pool, being chased by a parent with a diaper). I've actually read a couple of factual accounts of such cases, but unfortunately can't find any valid links to those articles.

I completely understand the need to protect vulnerable children, but in a lot of cases it sounds like there are lots of people that read evil intent in anything that doesn't meet their litmus test of "appropriate" photography.

I think the problem in this case is that the images themselves break the law (due to the topless photographing of underage girls) despite the fact that the parents were present and gave permission. The judge therefore had no choice other than to impose a sentence (relatively minor compared to what it could have been). I am surprised that the parents werent critisised more.

I think its a lesson to us all that, no matter what the customer wants, we need to work inside the law to ensure that we are not held liable.

neilwood32 wrote in post #6059285
I think the problem in this case is that the images themselves break the law (due to the topless photographing of underage girls) despite the fact that the parents were present and gave permission. The judge therefore had no choice other than to impose a sentence (relatively minor compared to what it could have been). I am surprised that the parents werent critisised more.

I think its a lesson to us all that, no matter what the customer wants, we need to work inside the law to ensure that we are not held liable.

Do topless images break the law, even if they are underage girls? I'm not sure about that in the UK, but that's not true here in the US.

bacchanal wrote in post #6056396
Well I think it is understandable why the law exists and I think the judge tried to be as fair as possible with the sentence. Community service isn't going to break the guy.

It may not break him, but he now has a criminal record.

laidback71 wrote in post #6059443
It may not break him, but he now has a criminal record.

Worse he has a criminal record for taking pictures of underage children... for someone who works in education that could be a real career killer... how many schools/colleges would hire him now because he will have to declare the offence in any job application working with minors?

As I said eariler this shouldn't have gone to court... an investigation, a police caution at best, and everyone gets on with their lives.

The judge was fair... wasn't his fault. A case was plopped on his bench and it was his job to handle it. He had no choice. His comments about no sexual gratification and the sexual registry demonstrated he tried to apply common sense to the case.

On the other hand, moronic legislators who pass all-encompassing laws such as this, with no avenue for common sense application and flexibility are the ones to blame.

Perhaps for his community service he can take pictures of legislators and turn them into fairies - or jackasses.

I found one other thing interesting - the photographer's "niche." Unusual, but it shows you can make money at just about anything if you come up with an original idea.

Mark_Cohran wrote in post #6059349
Do topless images break the law, even if they are underage girls? I'm not sure about that in the UK, but that's not true here in the US.

It is this section (lifted from the news article) that means the judge had no choice:
A "NAIVE" photographer employed by parents to take pictures of their young daughters to turn into images of fairies has been prosecuted because the photos fell under the definition of child porn.
Under the legislation, the images of the two girls – aged 10 and 12 – were classed as level one child pornography, despite the fact their parents had asked for the pictures to be taken and were even present at photo shoots

Thats the law here so the photographer was, unfortunately, breaking it. The fact of the parents permission did not absolve him of legal responsibility for ensuring the shoot was legal.

neilwood32 wrote in post #6062869
It is this section (lifted from the news article) that means the judge had no choice:
A "NAIVE" photographer employed by parents to take pictures of their young daughters to turn into images of fairies has been prosecuted because the photos fell under the definition of child porn.
Under the legislation, the images of the two girls – aged 10 and 12 – were classed as level one child pornography, despite the fact their parents had asked for the pictures to be taken and were even present at photo shoots

Thats the law here so the photographer was, unfortunately, breaking it. The fact of the parents permission did not absolve him of legal responsibility for ensuring the shoot was legal.

I see. Such proposed laws here have been successfully fought under our 1st Amendment.

My question is did the parents have permission to have reprints done? Maybe if they didn't go and try to get extra prints made nobody would have reported these. Or maybe the photographer sent them himself.

So if this is child porn, would the Annie Lebowitz photographs of Miley Cirus also be child porn?

What's even worse my wife worked in the photo lab at Wal-Mart a few years ago and they got photos that were clearly child porn. They reported it to the manager as required by company policy and the manager decided he didn't want to get involved. So my wife risked her job by going over the general manager's head to the district manager and told her that I will call the police if you do not. Prosecution for ignoring this is worse than losing a part time Wal-Mart job. Besides the law suit against them for wrongful termination would have been profitable.

Anyway lesson to us all, we all know little kids are cute when conservatively naked in photos, but all it takes is one person who doesn't think it's cute to cause a lot of trouble. There are also stories of parents who take pictures like this and get in trouble and have their kids taken away. I remember a father was arrested over a picture of him kissing the stomach of his naked newborn.

ryant35 wrote in post #6064116
I remember a father was arrested over a picture of him kissing the stomach of his naked newborn.

And nobody thinks that this is a bit odd maybe?
Come on, it's his kid. He's supposed to love it right?
If people see porn in that, it tells more about them then about the image...

René Damkot wrote in post #6064183
And nobody thinks that this is a bit odd maybe?
Come on, it's his kid. He's supposed to love it right?
If people see porn in that, it tells more about them then about the image...

Of course it's odd and ridiculous.

René Damkot wrote in post #6064183
And nobody thinks that this is a bit odd maybe?
Come on, it's his kid. He's supposed to love it right?
If people see porn in that, it tells more about them then about the image...

Absolutely. Some people are always going to think the worst no matter what.

ryant35 wrote in post #6064116
I remember a father was arrested over a picture of him kissing the stomach of his naked newborn.

I remember this, it was a couple of years ago.
From the angle the picture was taken, the "helpful" photo lab employee thought he was doing something else.
It was actually quite sad because they took the baby away for a while and the family went through a huge ordeal to get it back.