Photographer prosecuted.. what is the world coming to?

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

08/07/2008 02:23:01 AM · #7

Originally posted by Melethia:

Since there's a porn site attached per papabob, can someone summarize the article?

Here's a direct link to the article, minus the frames/popups/ads/etc...

togtog

Nikon D300

08/07/2008 03:54:27 AM · #8

Ugh, this is just stupid and sad and... I. I can't say anything else right now.

Message edited by author 2008-08-07 03:54:35.

Simms

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

08/07/2008 04:03:39 AM · #9

Did a search for his name and found this site.. I feel a certain amount of cynicism in the comment you will find there.

//www.fairydreams.co.uk/

Heres the cached version b4 he took it down.

Cache

Google images - too small to see anything really

IMages

Message edited by author 2008-08-07 04:05:54.

SaraR

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

08/07/2008 04:49:51 AM · #10

I can't access Simm's links until I get home, but from the Yorkshire Post article:
'the images of the two girls â�� aged 10 and 12 â�� were classed as level one child pornography......The commission involved taking close-up shots of various parts of their bodies, which were then superimposed on top of each other, to create the fairy images.

Bonusprint staff were concerned by images which showed the girls topless and on September 12 last year Phillips's computer was seized by police.'

If I was a member of staff at BonusPrint (which is a cheap and cheerful holiday snaps type lab) and I found a run of photos that were close ups of a 12 year old girl's naked body parts, I would be pretty suspicious.

togtog

Nikon D300

08/07/2008 05:14:33 AM · #11

Which I think is the truly sad thing here. Imagine if someone took close up pictures of their gun, I doubt anyone would react believing they were going to shoot someone. What really bothers me is this had to go all the way to court.

I saw a movie once on Lifetime, "Snap Decision" where a photographer friend (female) of a mom took random shots of her daughters while visiting before bed playing, some that were topless, and then let the kids play with the camera while she got coffee or something. She takes the photos to her local developer who promptly reports her to the local police for having images of semi-nude children.

They look over the photos and deem them innocent after talking to the mother and photographer, however are required to report them to the fbi, the fbi hears about them and wants examples. The police blow up or crop the portions of interest and send them to the fbi. The fbi assumes they are the originals and want to know why only the nipples, etc. are displayed.

The mother has her kids removed and has to go to court where the jury is only shown the cropped and blown up images, they deem it child porn and the photographer is sent to prison for several years as the mother fought to not only get her kids back but to free her friend.

As a result the friend decided to give up photography and her entire career. The mother managed to convince her to stick with it but I think she moved out of the country as a result.
---

Its been a while since I seen it but something like that kinda sticks with you. I think a line got crossed sometime ago when we stopped looking at images for child porn and instead started looking for anything that could possibly become or be deemed as interesting to child molesters which is just far too broad. There are people that get off on some pretty sick but common shit, dirty socks for example and if we remove every photo where something might be arousing we aren't going to have very much left at all. God forbid someone include a Woody in a photo with any part of a child, what could they be suggesting! *face palms and goes off to cry*

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

08/07/2008 05:25:43 AM · #12

Originally posted by SaraR:

If I was a member of staff at BonusPrint (which is a cheap and cheerful holiday snaps type lab) and I found a run of photos that were close ups of a 12 year old girl's naked body parts, I would be pretty suspicious.

What worries me is that a member of staff takes such a detailed look at my photos. So if I take a nice series of nudes of my wife, there is good possibility that a member of staff of the printershop is wanking off on them or can decide to make an extra copy for himself.

IMO it is their job to print, to look for the quality of the job and not to look at the content of my photo.

But that is why I print all my photos myself or use a pro lab.

JimiRose

Nikon D90

Nikon AF-S DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR

08/07/2008 05:59:36 AM · #13

The problem is even though this guy hasn't been found guilty of anything it's still going to ruin his life - that'll pop up every time he has police checks and it won't be great for trying to get jobs etc.

Makka

Sigma 70-200 /2.8 APO EX DG Macro HSM II

08/07/2008 06:17:44 AM · #14

Thank god we do all our own printing (except for canvases and very large prints). We have sent the occasional nude baby /toddler shot off to be made into canvases and photo books etc but we've never been questioned. I know kids around the age of 10 or 12 as per the article are a lot older but I really don't think this should of made it all the way to court. I'm sure someone with half a brain would of realised what was happening after speaking to the photographer and the parents. Ridiculous!

sulamk

Canon EOS-60D

08/07/2008 06:37:32 AM · #15

be careful what you post of your children anywhere! I entered a photo of my two young daughters then aged 13 and 10 in the bestphoto people categoryit got photo of the day. theywere dressed in the bridesmaid dresses they wore for there brothers wedding. When it they finally told me about someone trusted abusing them since they were 7 and 10. He brought up the photo at his trial where 4 other girls also had laid charges the judge slapped us parents on the wrist for posting such an innocent pic he got off with a 6m0nths suspended sentence and r2000 fine. divide by 7.4 to get dollar ammount

imagesbytlp

Nikon D7100

08/07/2008 07:50:12 AM · #16

To be honest, with all the child pornography out there...I can live with the occasion that they get it wrong. At least someone is out their trying to protect the children. And the people trying to protect the children are far out numbered by the people exploiting them.

I understand, this guys life has been affected...but, there have been lots of people sent to jail for crimes they didn't commit. It just happens, it's not fair...but it happens. And personally, whether asked by the parents or not, I wouldn't have been comfortable shooting any child like that...sadly, not all parents have the best intentions.

Here's some startling statistics:

-1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys will be sexually victimized before adulthood.
-1 in 3 sexual assault victims is under the age of 12.

[Federal Bureau of Investigations Statistics 1999.]

FireBird

08/07/2008 08:06:47 AM · #17

Originally posted by imagesbytlp:

Here's some startling statistics:

-1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys will be sexually victimized before adulthood.
-1 in 3 sexual assault victims is under the age of 12.

[Federal Bureau of Investigations Statistics 1999.]

And you really need to post URLs when presenting stats such as these.

Simms

08/07/2008 08:45:20 AM · #18

Originally posted by imagesbytlp:

Sorry but thats bullcrap. You say you can live with "occasion they get it wrong", however, what if that occasion happened to be you, or someone very close to you.. Could you live with it then? Granted, you may not put yourself in the position where you could end up in that situation, but the guy taking photos of his kids a few weeks back (as discussed on this site) didnt think he has put himself in that situation. People have a way of assuming that if you are taking pictures of kids, you are a kiddy fiddler, and thats just plan wrong, even if you are ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing, that kind of shit sticks for a very very long time.

So dont say you can live with it. We shouldnt have to, its unacceptable and looking at the thumbnails on google images of his pictures, his stuff was totally acceptable.

To me, his biggest crime is that fact he get his prints done at BonusPrint.. what the hell was he thinking?!! He'd be better off drawing them by hand.

Simms

08/07/2008 08:50:58 AM · #19

Originally posted by SaraR:

.'[/i]

If I was a member of staff at BonusPrint (which is a cheap and cheerful holiday snaps type lab) and I found a run of photos that were close ups of a 12 year old girl's naked body parts, I would be pretty suspicious.

Its typical journalistic naievity (sic) at play here. The images are of tastefully photoshopped girls, not close ups of their body parts.. Basically he has just photoshopped them up to look like fairies. Quite ethereal but totally harmless. I know you havent had benefit of seeing them yet, but one could read the report and assume it close ups of nipples and stuff, but it isnt.

Pity, the guy obviously had a nice little niche business going there and our Nanny state has taken that away from him, not only a bit of cash, but a hobby he probably really enjoyed. so very sad.

imagesbytlp

Nikon D7100

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR

08/07/2008 08:57:26 AM · #20

Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by imagesbytlp:
To be honest, with all the child pornography out there...I can live with the occasion that they get it wrong. At least someone is out their trying to protect the children. And the people trying to protect the children are far out numbered by the people exploiting them.

Sorry but thats bullcrap. You say you can live with "occasion they get it wrong", however, what if that occasion happened to be you, or someone very close to you.. Could you live with it then? Granted, you may not put yourself in the position where you could end up in that situation, but the guy taking photos of his kids a few weeks back (as discussed on this site) didnt think he has put himself in that situation. People have a way of assuming that if you are taking pictures of kids, you are a kiddy fiddler, and thats just plan wrong, even if you are ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing, that kind of shit sticks for a very very long time.

So dont say you can live with it. We shouldnt have to, its unacceptable and looking at the thumbnails on google images of his pictures, his stuff was totally acceptable.

To me, his biggest crime is that fact he get his prints done at BonusPrint.. what the hell was he thinking?!! He'd be better off drawing them by hand.

So, I guess you've never made a mistake in your job? Maybe would should abandon the all laws in case a mistake might be made. Maybe, instead...you should take a moment and head down to your nearest court center or abuse center and see the affects of abuse up close and personal. Instead of sitting in your comfy home and gazing into your computer screen. I worked as a Social Worker in Milwaukee. I worked with both the victims and the offenders. I have seen both sides of the story...first at Milwaukee Co. Children's Court Center District Attorney's Office in the victim/witness unit. And then at a group home facility with court ordered juvenile delinquents and gang members.

Once again, it comes down to art being subjective...what one fines acceptable another may not.

TheDruid

Nikon D3X

08/07/2008 09:03:26 AM · #21

If it is a commercial or catalogue shoot it is none of business as it is all handled by agents and lawyers.
I also photograph fashion and models that want portfolios.

Non-commercial shoots I do with three caveats:
1. Model must always bring an escort. Our safety, witness for model release and end up being a grip (cheap labor).
2. No to anyone under the age 19 in Canada and 21 in the US. Basically if you are not at the age where you can represent yourself forget it.
3. If a man/woman wants sexy pictures where nudity will be involved, must be over the age of 25 with ID and witness verification, if involved in a relationship must have partners agreement (I also let them know if they ever split up with their partner these picture could end up where they do not want them))and I will not keep a photo nor work on them afterwards. They either supply the chip or I off load from camera to laptop to CD then them and erase the works.

Under age of self representation, other then your own children, is nutz and dangerous to your profession as a photographer.

Message edited by author 2008-08-07 09:05:17.

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

08/07/2008 09:05:07 AM · #22

Originally posted by imagesbytlp:

So are you saying you can live the "occasion they get it wrong" if it's you or your kid or spouse? If a women robs a bank and has a camera like yours around her neck and looks somewhat like you and you get charged and sentenced for it, you can sit back in your jail cell and say "it's OK. I'm alright with the occasion they get it wrong. Everybody makes mistakes."

Yo_Spiff

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

08/07/2008 09:05:54 AM · #23

I think the problem has changed over the last several decades. Instead of people reporting you, thinking you have child porn, they are reacting to the potential that someone else may perceive it that way and are doing a CYA by reporting it to the various authorities.

I have joked with my daughters (Now 18 and 20) that I would haul out the baby-in-the-bathtub photos to embarrass them in front of their dates. (I really would not do that, but I have made them fill out the Application for Permission to Date my Daughter) Anytime I joke about this, my wife starts in with warnings about being arrested for kiddie porn.

heavyj

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4

Panasonic Lumix 20mm f1.7 ASPH

08/07/2008 09:11:29 AM · #24

Originally posted by imagesbytlp:

He never suggested abandoning all the laws, nor never having never made a mistake. I also don't think he's talking about making it easy for offenders. Mistakes are made, but the innocent shouldn't have to pay for them. Not a child, not an innocent photographer. It's not acceptable that people start pointing fingers at innocent people because of a hunch, or suspicion, that will end up costing that person to lose more than a job, but perhaps his/her life. When you start giving up your rights to make it harder for criminals to commit crimes, you're just imprisoning yourself.

Message edited by author 2008-08-07 09:14:19.

imagesbytlp

Nikon D7100