| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/16/2005 06:36:00 PM · #26 |
Since I have no children, my comments may be considered way out of line but I do have a strong feeling about this.
I think the photo was a beautiful and loving depiction of a beautiful young girl. Technically speaking, it was a masterful photo...gorgeous lighting, pose and tone. Emotionally, it radiated a serene peacefulness. Any normal thinking person could never see anything other than childlike innocence in this photo.
Unfortunately, the internet is full of people who do NOT think the way normal people think. And I have to say that if this were my daughter, I would not have posted this particular photo of her on the internet. Laurie Black had a frightening experience with photos of her son that were just as or even more innocent than this photo and I would hate to think of that happening with this lovely girl's photo.
Those of you who know me know that I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a prudish person. I have no problem with nudity, either male or female, and I think the human body is a stunning work of art. I do not believe, though, that because I would have chosen to err on the side of caution, it means I am sexually repressed, shouldn't be around children or that it says ANYTHING about me other than what I have expressed here.
So...this photo made into a huge print and hanging in the home or even in an art gallery...Definitely! Posted on the internet where anyone surfing through this public site (doesn't have to be a member or even a registered user) can take a screen grab and post it to any number of foul and obscene sites...I would have to say no.
Just my thoughts...take them with a grain of salt. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 06:48:16 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by sher9204:
...the internet is full of people who do NOT think the way normal people think. |
Every one of the comments suggested that SOMEbody might consider the image porn, but none indicated that THEY thought it was. So it isn't porn, but let's hide it anyway because some mystery person might think so. Heck, there are people with feet or shoe fetishes and we've had entire challenges based on those. Some people get off on pictures of children fully clothed in ordinary snapshots. That doesn't mean all photos of children should be removed and the kids locked indoors until they're 18. It's a sad commentary when the actions of normal people are dictated by the deviants. :-( |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 07:00:40 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Every one of the comments suggested that SOMEbody might consider the image porn, but none indicated that THEY thought it was. So it isn't porn, but let's hide it anyway because some mystery person might think so. Heck, there are people with feet or shoe fetishes and we've had entire challenges based on those. Some people get off on pictures of children fully clothed in ordinary snapshots. That doesn't mean all photos of children should be removed and the kids locked indoors until they're 18. It's a sad commentary when the actions of normal people are dictated by the deviants. :-( |
Scalvert, there is a difference between an adult posing for a foot picture (or even a nude picture) and a child doing the same thing. I certainly didn't advocate removal of the picture, but if the photographer later realized, "Hey, maybe I don't want this kid exposed to any sick freak that happens to stumble on this site...." and decided on their own to remove the shot to avoid potential unpleasantness, who are we to say that the photographer was wrong?
I agree it's a sad commentary on our society that innocent images aren't always viewed by everyone with the same intent; however, if those comments saved that child from a pervert.... I'd rather have a few photographers mad about artistic freedom than read another tragic post like Laurie's. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 07:06:42 PM · #29 |
Sher, I must say I agree with you, altho I may get slammed for it!! I thought it was a beautiful, beautiful shot. But I will say it made me a little uncomfortable, I felt it was a little provocative. Not porn, nor do I think the photog had anything but loving intentions. But if I thought it looked deceivingly provocative, I am sure all the creeps who look for such stuff would as well. Maybe I am out of line, and I know it is art and therefore subjective, but personally didn't see why she needed to be topless. I thought it would have been as gorgeous covered.
It is sad that our actions are dictated by a few deviants, but I would not want to hold up my child as the one to fight this battle. I think online we should err on the cautious side to protect our children.
Just my opinion, don't beat me up!! :) |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 07:23:10 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Rae-Ann:
... personally didn't see why she needed to be topless. |
Perhaps because the photographer felt that the smooth form and even tones of the skin were essential components of the overall artistic intent.
 
Originally posted by Rae-Ann:
I thought it would have been as gorgeous covered. |
And perhaps as "provocative" -- hard to tell without an actual image to evaluate. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 07:31:32 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Rae-Ann:
I think online we should err on the cautious side to protect our children. |
No argument there, but this just seems like paranoia to me. Similar to parents who recoil at the thought of a fully clothed candid snapshot of their kid posted on the internet or who forbid classroom photos of their little students. There is no name, email address or location (other than California) listed for the child OR the photographer. Without any way of knowing who or where the child is, I would think there is less danger from posting this shot than taking the kid to the beach or town pool in a bikini. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 07:31:54 PM · #32 |
| I saw the photo and I didn't think there was anything wrong with it. Fair enough there are people who probably view it that way which is really sad. What a sad world! |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 07:40:55 PM · #33 |
| Its a pretty sad day when someone projects what they see in an picture to be lude, and pester the photog till they pull it. Sad indeed, I guess when I saw the photo I didn't give it a second thought as it could be "porn." Would these same people gasp if they walked on the French Rivera, or the Naked fountians in Germany? Whats next, I can see the backlash now if I take a picture of a mother breast feeding her baby, a totally natural mammalian trait. Some people really need to get a life, and stop putting their possible perversion to push the photographer to the point the photo is off the site, we all lose. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 07:41:22 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... I would think there is less danger from posting this shot than taking the kid to the beach or town pool in a bikini. |
... where anyone can legally take their picture. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 07:48:26 PM · #35 |
| It's a shame. I thought that was a really beautiful photo that was done very tastefully and lovingly. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 07:51:44 PM · #36 |
I too thought there was nothing wrong with the shot. It's a real shame that others can influence what we will and will not photograph, or share with others. The photog that took this shot has a masterpiece that they should be proud to share with whomever they want.
- Linda |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 07:53:56 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by idnic:
People who react that way toward innocent photography are saying SO MUCH about themselves!!
Its sad. |
People who post pictures like this of their children. What does it say about them? I saw the picture and I thought it was not very tasteful using a young child for a model like that. I really dont care if the pic is online here or not but saying something to the people like that above. Please have some respect for something. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 08:00:19 PM · #38 |
There is the fact that such images do often find their way onto porn sights. I know a couple sensual photos I have had very high view levels.
If i recall, I think it was here, where someone found a photo of theirs deep-linked on a porn site. My argument is that it was a wonderfully executed photo. Just be cautious with such. Because there are sickos. But I tell mom's and dad's to be cautious in general. Sure, our children are innoncent...sadly predators are not.
:|
So do i feel that there was anything wrong with the photo. Nope. But I do feel the photo might have strong appeal to people that there IS something wrong with.
Hope that made sense. I say this cause I once told someone that I was borderline on the comfortability of their photo. It was a great and innoncent photo. But my mind also realized the horrors of how some would use such a photo. Blast it...why does the world have to be so screwed up.
:(
Message edited by author 2005-12-16 20:01:28. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 08:14:45 PM · #39 |
| Saj I agree with you and it is a sad commentery on amerika on many levels |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 08:19:51 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Saj I agree with you and it is a sad commentery on amerika on many levels |
No it is a sad commentary on the sicko's of the entire world, which America has no monopoly on. Go visit a kiddie brothel in the far east and reconsider that statement.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 08:23:23 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by nomad469:
Saj I agree with you and it is a sad commentery on amerika on many levels |
No it is a sad commentary on the sicko's of the entire world, which America has no monopoly on. Go visit a kiddie brothel in the far east and reconsider that statement. |
I have to agree to that also... but to me ... it goes much deeper... I am not sure which is actually worse ... the pervs or the ones who see preversion in everything when none exists or is intended.
This isn't the place for a rant ... but the world would be a much better place if we could exclude both of the aforementioned groups from the rest humanity
Message edited by author 2005-12-16 20:26:38. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 08:25:32 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by scalvert:
... I would think there is less danger from posting this shot than taking the kid to the beach or town pool in a bikini. |
... where anyone can legally take their picture. |
but, would you let someone take possibly provocative pictures of your child for the purpose of posting on the web? perhaps for posting them on a voyeur site? would you feel comfortable knowing that photos of your child were on such a site even though there was no personal information connected with those photos?
i agree, we shouldn't have to live our lives based on fear of what some salacious deviant MIGHT do. but, it DOES happen...and...it HAS happened to someone right here in our DPC community. i know i would be heartbroken and physically ill if i had a child whose photos appeared on a deviant website.
for the record (again), *i* don't see anything wrong with the photo. i think it is beautiful and completely innocent. i also don't think that "caution" is a dirty word. artistic freedom should NEVER be ranked above the safety of a child. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 08:40:10 PM · #43 |
For me, it's a simple case of this:
How are we going to live our lives? Are we going to live them the way we wish to live them, despite our fears and worries, however real they may be.. or are we going to *not* live them, *because* of our fears and worries, however real they may be.
Those of you that are uncomfortable with, for whatever reason, posting photos of your children, tastefully nude or otherwise, on the internet.. I don't have a problem with that, but to make it an issue for *other* people.. that's just wrong.
There are sickos on the internet. These people steal photos from all sorts of places for their own sordid purposes.. but beyond finding them and stopping it in individual cases, this ISN'T GOING TO STOP. So what are we going to do? Are we going to make the internet a child-photo free zone? Are we going to white-wash it and let the minority of perverts win? Are we going to be so naive and blind that we think the internet is the only place this is happening? That when you have your kids on the beach.. once in awhile there isn't *someone* out there looking at them in a less than innocent way?
We can't stop it.. and the last thing I want to see is the fear reaching such epic proportions that everyone is so paralyzed that we lose just about everything.
Laurie's kids ended up on that website along with 1000s of others from all areas of the net. They were family photographs, and mostly fully clothed. The people out there that are attracted to children don't *CARE* if they have clothes on in photos or not for the most part.. so tell me what we do now? Let's ban all photographs of children from here on out so that we don't give these people *any* fuel.
Right?
I mean, that's the only answer.
You can see how ridiculous that is.
The actual safety of children is *not* compromised by photos of them such as the one that was removed here. Such as those that I myself have posted, and others have, and continue to do so..
Please.. if you are uncomfortable with this type of photo, that's *fine*, I understand it. If you are uncomfortable posting photos of your kids, etc.. that is fine also.. I understand that completely, however, I wish you would not try and make your issues into *our* issues. Most of the time, we as photographers are *well* aware of the consequences that may result in what we choose to share with the internet community, but I, for one, refuse to give in to that fear and let the bad guys win. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 08:49:02 PM · #44 |
I'll weigh in - I saw the photo and had a very slight initial reaction - but like most everyone here who did, was reacting to the possibility that others (like the authorities) might take this the wrong way.
What I find ironic is the ranting against anyone who makes a comment or has an opinion that does not agree with yours is laced with the "open your mind" type of hyperbole. Let me be clear, I did not find the photo offensive, but if someone does, they are as entitled to expressing their opinion as anyone else without being attacked for it.
Geez, even Artyste in his original post starts off ranting about things he just assumed - not even knowing the reason they took the photo down. Maybe somebody like Laurie or sher could've PM'd the person and just let them know about those things that have happened to other children's pics and the photog made the decision not to risk having their child's image abused. In other words, removing it may have had nothing to do with someone expressing their dissatisfaction with it.
The attitude "I would rather not live my life in fear" is great and fine. Feel free to fearlessly post whatever pics of YOUR kids you want. But don't jump on others for how they choose to protect their children and for that matter, those whose expressed opinion is different from yours with regards to art, sex, etc.
That's my 2 cents. Not wanting to get into any battles over this - just wished to express my opinion.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 08:50:01 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by sher9204:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by scalvert:
... I would think there is less danger from posting this shot than taking the kid to the beach or town pool in a bikini. |
... where anyone can legally take their picture. |
but, would you let someone take possibly provocative pictures of your child for the purpose of posting on the web? perhaps for posting them on a voyeur site? would you feel comfortable knowing that photos of your child were on such a site even though there was no personal information connected with those photos?
i agree, we shouldn't have to live our lives based on fear of what some salacious deviant MIGHT do. but, it DOES happen...and...it HAS happened to someone right here in our DPC community. i know i would be heartbroken and physically ill if i had a child whose photos appeared on a deviant website.
for the record (again), *i* don't see anything wrong with the photo. i think it is beautiful and completely innocent. i also don't think that "caution" is a dirty word. artistic freedom should NEVER be ranked above the safety of a child. |
The issue here isn't about other people taking photos of your child. These are photos taken either by the parents, or someone close to the parents with full permission to post. If someone takes photos of your child without your knowledge and posts them on deviant websites, that is an *entirely* different matter and needs to be dealt with, and usually is.. and to be frank, there's nothing we can do to stop that beyond banning cameras from public areas period, which has already been happening.
As for how I would feel if the kids I post showed up on a deviant website? I'd feel angry, and I'd use that anger to a) get that website shut down and b) have the people responsible dealt with as quickly as possible. What I wouldn't feel is the need to suddenly stop doing what I love, which is photographing children and sharing those photographs with friends and the photographic community.
As for the safety of children, I just don't see how that is being compromised by photos of the nature we're discussing in any way. Those perverts out there, if they are going to harm children, they will. Regardless if there are photos of them on the internet or not. If there are not, they'll take them themselves. Caution isn't a dirty word, but you can be cautious without limiting your artistic expression. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 08:53:30 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'll weigh in - I saw the photo and had a very slight initial reaction - but like most everyone here who did, was reacting to the possibility that others (like the authorities) might take this the wrong way.
What I find ironic is the ranting against anyone who makes a comment or has an opinion that does not agree with yours is laced with the "open your mind" type of hyperbole. Let me be clear, I did not find the photo offensive, but if someone does, they are as entitled to expressing their opinion as anyone else without being attacked for it.
Geez, even Artyste in his original post starts off ranting about things he just assumed - not even knowing the reason they took the photo down. Maybe somebody like Laurie or sher could've PM'd the person and just let them know about those things that have happened to other children's pics and the photog made the decision not to risk having their child's image abused. In other words, removing it may have had nothing to do with someone expressing their dissatisfaction with it.
The attitude "I would rather not live my life in fear" is great and fine. Feel free to fearlessly post whatever pics of YOUR kids you want. But don't jump on others for how they choose to protect their children and for that matter, those whose expressed opinion is different from yours with regards to art, sex, etc.
That's my 2 cents. Not wanting to get into any battles over this - just wished to express my opinion. |
Just to clarify, I wasn't jumping on anyone that expressed an opinion on the photo. I was angry at the commenter that made an entirely baseless accusation of legality, which, to be frank, has no place here.
As I've said repeatedly, I respect the comfort level of others, but I expect them to respect the comfort level of photographers like the one that removed her photo as well, and what I get a feeling of so far is that people that are uncomfortable with it generally want everyone else to feel the same way.
(also, I wasn't assuming the photographer was removing the photo because of comments, just that they *had* requested the removal themselves and that it wasn't removed by the site.)
Message edited by author 2005-12-16 20:56:47. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:06:41 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
... and what I get a feeling of so far is that people that are uncomfortable with it generally want everyone else to feel the same way. |
What is the basis for that statement? I have opinions and I have expressed my "discomfort" with certain types of images on the site, but it is not my goal or even my wish that everyone I post comments towards adopt my feelings or viewpoint - that's not even realistic. It's simply an expression of a viewpoint - take it or leave it.
As far as someone making an accusation of legality - it was still just an opinion. Could've been a well-intentioned warning. I don't know exactly what the comment was so it's hard for me to make any judgements about it - not that that stopped so many others in this thread from virtually sringing the person up! I am guessing you read the comment before the pic was removed, but you still assumed it was removed based on that comment. And saying "legality" has no place here - are you kidding? |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:09:40 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by sher9204:
would you let someone take possibly provocative pictures of your child for the purpose of posting on the web? perhaps for posting them on a voyeur site? |
You mean like THIS? Hey, it happens, and as you can see clothes are no deterrent. I'm certainly not happy about someone swiping the image, but I'm not about to hide the entry over it either.
Funny that such a photo (or kids in a bathtub) wouldn't have raised an eyebrow in far more "moral" times 20 years ago, but NOW people question it as provocative despite open nudity on TV, video games, etc. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:11:12 PM · #49 |
Thanks Art..I am feeling as if I am being portrayed as a sick monster because of my opinon of something that is completely subjective.
You can argue that we should "take back our rights" from all the sicko's and not let them run our lives, but I do not think it is realistic. Nor do I think I am paranoid. I just think you can not live your life out of your expectations of how people should act. Why poke a mad dog with a stick?
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 09:11:51 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Artyste:
... and what I get a feeling of so far is that people that are uncomfortable with it generally want everyone else to feel the same way. |
What is the basis for that statement? I have opinions and I have expressed my "discomfort" with certain types of images on the site, but it is not my goal or even my wish that everyone I post comments towards adopt my feelings or viewpoint - that's not even realistic. It's simply an expression of a viewpoint - take it or leave it.
As far as someone making an accusation of legality - it was still just an opinion. Could've been a well-intentioned warning. I don't know exactly what the comment was so it's hard for me to make any judgements about it - not that that stopped so many others in this thread from virtually sringing the person up! I am guessing you read the comment before the pic was removed, but you still assumed it was removed based on that comment. And saying "legality" has no place here - are you kidding? |
I *said* I didn't assume it was removed because of the comment.
I'm not saying legality has no place here, I'm saying making factless accusations of legality based on personal feelings doesn't, and I'll stick by that. Opinion is, "I am uncomfortable with this." not, "I am a police officer and this is borderline illegal." Which, to me, is a bully tactic.
Plenty of other people made opinions on the photo that go counter to what I believe in, but I never said a word about that.
|
|
