| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/19/2006 01:04:23 PM · #1 |
if you're a parent, and you want the ever-living HELL scared out of you, read this.
it's not that you set out to find trouble, it's just that trouble can have a way of finding you...
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 13:10:15. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:07:54 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
if you're a parent, and you want the ever-living HELL scared out of you, read this.
it's that you set out to find trouble, it's just that trouble can have a way of finding you... |
lol...I don't know about you, but I haven't really taken any pictures of any kids naked or children drinking alcohol. I'd have no problem shooting film.
To be completely honest...there is this one picture of me when I was little...in the bathtub...naked...in the photo album. I think just about every girlfriend I've ever had has seen it at one time or another. Maybe if the laws were stricter back then, my mom would have been sent to jail and punished for taking such an embarassing picture.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:10:57 PM · #3 |
| says the man with a 1d :P |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:12:25 PM · #4 |
people can be weird sometimes.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:18:35 PM · #5 |
| There is a big thick line that separates certain things, but some idiots are too dense to see it still and the rest of us have to pay the price. They should sue Eckerd and that moron developing pictures. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:28:31 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by ddpNikon:
lol...I don't know about you, but I haven't really taken any pictures of any kids naked or children drinking alcohol. I'd have no problem shooting film.
|
LOL, probably because you don't have any children. If you'd taken nude pictures of other peoples' children you'd probably be in jail.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:31:17 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by ddpNikon:
lol...I don't know about you, but I haven't really taken any pictures of any kids naked or children drinking alcohol. I'd have no problem shooting film.
|
LOL, probably because you don't have any children. If you'd taken nude pictures of other peoples' children you'd probably be in jail. |
LOL, true!
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:32:34 PM · #8 |
Yeah, I'm not really happy about having to have the people at the store see all the pictures I shoot on film.
I don't really know about people having their kids run around naked all the time at camping trips, doesn't really seem like the best idea to me, and I don't know why they'd want to take pictures of it, but still...
I think it's to the point where if you take pictures at a playground and get them developed, if you don't 'look like' a parent, they might call the cops and say you're a pervert.
edit: fotomann, when you shot film did the places you used ever bitch about the nude photos that you did for clients?
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 13:34:43. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:40:08 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
edit: fotomann, when you shot film did the places you used ever bitch about the nude photos that you did for clients? |
Yes they did, actually. Quite often, but I eventually found some places and certain employees that I could work with.
Had an embarrassing episode in college. I was working for the college newspaper. Well, I dropped some film off for the paper and accidentally mixed in a nude shoot I had done. Later, the editor went to pick up the film and the lady at the lab was pissed. He didn't know what to say. He just told her he would talk to me about it.
I didn't get into any trouble, but boy did I get ragged for a while...lol
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:44:10 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by manx_20:
... They should sue Eckerd and that moron developing pictures. |
Why? The "moron" was doing his/her job and ran across photos of children without clothes on, and some showing genitals it sounds like. Like it or not, the "moron" had an obligation to report it or his/her butt could potentially be in trouble, as well as Eckerd the company, for not following laws I imagine are in place for this.
Unfortunately, there are enough creeps out there (do a search on child pornography arrests) that make this reaction a necessary one IMO. Yes, I know it was the kids parent that took the photo's, but again, the "moron" had no way of knowing that, nor was it his/her job to play detective. Let the proper authorities sort it out.
Kind of sucks the way the legal system raked the parents over the coals however once they found out what took place.
Last thing. I think an 8 yr-old is a little too old to be running around without clothes on.
Ok. JMO. Have fun - tear it up. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:46:58 PM · #11 |
to me, this is a much bigger issue than other's complaining about being hassled for photographing buildings and bridges. from most of the accounts posted here about people being hassled, the incidents were self-contained and usually not very long in duration (i think an hour was the longest-lasting one i heard of).
here, individuals are being dragged into a bureaucratic hell, with entire families being put at risk, just because someone didn't like what they saw. these people were put in a guilty-until-proven-innocent situation with no legal recourse. absolutely horrifying and unacceptable. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:51:43 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
here, individuals are being dragged into a bureaucratic hell, with entire families being put at risk, just because someone didn't like what they saw. these people were put in a guilty-until-proven-innocent situation with no legal recourse. absolutely horrifying and unacceptable. |
That seems to be the new legal mentality... guilty until proven innocent. It's unconstitutional, but who's going to make the agencies change thier practices. It's not something the average Joe has the resources to fight.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 02:12:39 PM · #13 |
This is a good indication of how stupid some people are, but more than that it reflects society as a whole. Is this really progress? I sometimes feel grateful I'm from a less "civilised" country (and I don't mean the UK).
No offence meant to anyone.
Harry |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 02:15:38 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
to me, this is a much bigger issue than other's complaining about being hassled for photographing buildings and bridges. from most of the accounts posted here about people being hassled, the incidents were self-contained and usually not very long in duration (i think an hour was the longest-lasting one i heard of).
here, individuals are being dragged into a bureaucratic hell, with entire families being put at risk, just because someone didn't like what they saw. these people were put in a guilty-until-proven-innocent situation with no legal recourse. absolutely horrifying and unacceptable. |
not to mention possibly hurting thier carrer. for em there is only 3people within a couple hours hours that are not employees of mine so they would most likely as them instead of people i could fire so them asking my boss about child pornography could kill my career.
i think the employee of eckerd did the right thing because for all he knows it could have been someone with a 600mm lens spying on a family.
and barry I am not sure that i aree with you on alot of things but 8 is too old to be photo'd nude IMO also. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 02:28:59 PM · #15 |
my beef isn't with eckerd's, it's with the way the gov't kicks in so heavy that they have a hard time back-peddling when they make a mistake.
this looks like one of those deals where someone with common sense could have come to an appropriate conclusion fairly quickly, without putting both of those families through months of anguish and grief. i absolutely hate this idea of having to be patient while things sort themselves out, when someone should have been able to sort it out within days, at the most. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 02:35:39 PM · #16 |
I used to work at a local custom photo lab. One of our clients was a nudest as was his whole family. Almost all of their pictures were of naked people, including their own kids. We watched these kids grow up naked. Does this mean that they should be prosecuted? No, its just how they choose to live their lives. For them, nudity is the norm. I agree that nowadays, the gov't is too gung-ho and doesn't back down when they know they've done wrong. I also agree that taking pictures of children nude is not the best practice, but parents will do so without thinking of what may happen if somebody see's the pictures and doesn't know the whole story.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 02:38:18 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
my beef isn't with eckerd's, it's with the way the gov't kicks in so heavy that they have a hard time back-peddling when they make a mistake.
this looks like one of those deals where someone with common sense could have come to an appropriate conclusion fairly quickly, without putting both of those families through months of anguish and grief. i absolutely hate this idea of having to be patient while things sort themselves out, when someone should have been able to sort it out within days, at the most. |
i agree. common sense seems to be over looked in many aspects of the world today. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 02:40:44 PM · #18 |
Personally, I'm worried enough that I'd end up getting thrown out of the US for taking a picture like this of critical infrastructure and having a funny accent:
Common sense isn't very common any more.
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 14:41:03. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 02:49:20 PM · #19 |
Interesting timing.
There's a lotta sick people in this country. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 02:52:35 PM · #20 |
Sounds like the officer investigating the complaint didn't have the stomach to do his job and make the call.
He states that he didn't find anything offensive about them and that he knew what was going on because he had similar experiences as a child. What he should have done at that point is go to the owner of the photos house, personally, check the children were ok and generally got a feel for the family. Then he should have had the spinal fortitude to apologize for bothering them and close the case -- all is well.
But he didn't do that. Instead he turned it over to some other agency to make the call. This agency is set up, outside of the law, and assumes anyone referred to them is guilty of something -- all they have to do is find it.
All this families unneccesary troubles would have been avioded if that officer had the courage to make a decision.
David
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 02:58:19 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by rob_banks:
Interesting timing.
There's a lotta sick people in this country. |
well that sucessfully pissed me off. how do these type of defendants even make it to the court room? six months old?!!! no hell is enough for those type of people |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 03:01:32 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
edit: fotomann, when you shot film did the places you used ever bitch about the nude photos that you did for clients? |
Yes they did, actually. Quite often, but I eventually found some places and certain employees that I could work with.
Had an embarrassing episode in college. I was working for the college newspaper. Well, I dropped some film off for the paper and accidentally mixed in a nude shoot I had done. Later, the editor went to pick up the film and the lady at the lab was pissed. He didn't know what to say. He just told her he would talk to me about it.
I didn't get into any trouble, but boy did I get ragged for a while...lol |
So, you did a Costanza (Seinfeld episode) ? :P
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 03:05:03 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
So, you did a Costanza (Seinfeld episode) ? :P |
Nah, but let's say the shots would be a violation of DPC TOS ...
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 03:09:33 PM · #24 |
Hey skip, thanks for the link. That article was very candidly and well written. I had tears welling up more than once. As a father, I palpably feel the fear mixed with righteous indignation.
That was powerful stuff.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 03:13:40 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
and barry I am not sure that i aree with you on alot of things but 8 is too old to be photo'd nude IMO also. |
I think what is being missed with this sort of statement is that it isn't a "a child being photographed nude".. but "photographs of children being children while they just happen to be nude."
There are a lot of different ideas on what is acceptable in families and with nudity, and if there's a situation where children have grown up being comfortable with nudity, then age isn't a factor in these types of situations in any way, shape, or form. There are *obvious* lines one shouldn't cross, and I think the majority of people, and authorities, are able to understand where these lines are.
Although with the advent of puritan interests, I think the line itself sometimes goes off-kilter in fantastically disturbing ways (ie. parents getting arrested for photos of their baby in the bath) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 01:57:19 AM EDT.
