DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Child Photograph in "Too Late" gone?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 111, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/16/2005 04:36:32 PM · #1
A photograph in the "Too Late" challenge has disappeared after a rather rude, and entirely unfounded, comment was made by someone claiming to be a police officer. This person claimed that the photograph was "borderline illegal", simply because it depicted a young girl in a side profile hugging a teddy bear without a shirt on. The claim that it was borderline illegal was entirely untrue and without merit, and the commenter should be ashamed.

I can only assume the photo was requested to be removed by the photographer so as not to be controversial or push any more buttons, or something along those lines. If so, it angers me that photographers here can be allowed to feel bullied in this way for expressing their art in ways that they feel perfectly innocent, and that in no way violate any laws or terms of service whatsover.

I'm sorry to see this image gone. Many other photos of children on this site are of the same type, and the last thing we need is one or two vigilantes with fundamentalist views going on a crusade against *those* as well.

I hope that that doesn't happen.

To the photographer of the "Too Late" entry. I'm sorry that you were subjected to such negativity, and I hope that you can continue to be comfortable with sharing your art with us.

Message edited by author 2005-12-16 16:37:49.
 12/16/2005 04:43:44 PM · #2
That's really to bad. I wish I seen it. Sad!
 12/16/2005 04:45:47 PM · #3
I recall seeing it, IMHO it should not have been removed on the grounds that it was removed on.

edit or any others assuming the photog stuck to the challenge rules of course :)

Message edited by author 2005-12-16 16:47:08.
 12/16/2005 04:46:23 PM · #4
That was a tender and very well composed photograph in my opinion, and was in my favorites.
Like I said in the comments, Dirty is only in the mind of dirty people.
Another sad day indeed...
 12/16/2005 04:46:37 PM · #5
Bogus complaint, for sure. I remember the image well. I'm sorry to see this happen.

R.
 12/16/2005 04:46:43 PM · #6
Was it really removed? I remember seeing that one and felt surprised someone would actually submit that but I didn't think it would be subject to removal.
 12/16/2005 04:46:43 PM · #7
Just to clarify, the photo was removed at the request of the photographer. I don't know why.
 12/16/2005 04:47:54 PM · #8
Sad to read about such bully boy tactics. I find it sad when misplaced puritanical streaks are imposed on others by such intimidation.

Sorry I didn't see the image in question - it's a challenge I haven't yet had time to view.

As my signature says, some see evil even in innocence.
 12/16/2005 04:48:11 PM · #9
Originally posted by BradP:
That was a tender and very well composed photograph in my opinion, and was in my favorites.
Like I said in the comments, Dirty is only in the mind of dirty people.
Another sad day indeed...


True but one should know there are lots of dirty people online. Personally, I wouldn't post something like that of my child and then find out it's being used or photoshoped for "other" purposes. Assuming that was their child. Regardless, it shouldn't have gotten pulled.

Message edited by author 2005-12-16 16:48:44.
 12/16/2005 04:49:08 PM · #10
Originally posted by mk:
Just to clarify, the photo was removed at the request of the photographer. I don't know why.

I am sure I would have done the same to keep something as pure as that image from being dragged through the mud by a few, or used elsewhere on the web for less than photogrpahic purposes.
 12/16/2005 04:51:59 PM · #11
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by BradP:
That was a tender and very well composed photograph in my opinion, and was in my favorites.
Like I said in the comments, Dirty is only in the mind of dirty people.
Another sad day indeed...


True but one should know there are lots of dirty people online. Personally, I wouldn't post something like that of my child and then find out it's being used or photoshoped for "other" purposes. Assuming that was their child. Regardless, it shouldn't have gotten pulled.


There are, but there are dirty people everywhere, and limiting yourself and your art out of fear is a path I would never want to tread, personally. I respect people who make decisions the opposite way though, and my only anger is at the person that bullied the photographer in the first place.
 12/16/2005 04:52:09 PM · #12
Originally posted by BradP:
Originally posted by mk:
Just to clarify, the photo was removed at the request of the photographer. I don't know why.

I am sure I would have done the same to keep something as pure as that image from being dragged through the mud by a few, or used elsewhere on the web for less than photogrpahic purposes.


I mean, I can understand why. I just have no official reason. Just wanted to clarify that the removal was not at the site's demand.
 12/16/2005 04:53:26 PM · #13
Originally posted by mk:
Just wanted to clarify that the removal was not at the site's demand.

Thank You.
 12/16/2005 04:58:53 PM · #14
Someone complained about the "Calvin Klein" ad ?
What's this world coming to.
The next thing you know some people will want to ban bare baby bottoms on bearskin rugs.

For the record, I think Richard Avedon would have been proud of that photo.
 12/16/2005 05:03:05 PM · #15
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by BradP:
That was a tender and very well composed photograph in my opinion, and was in my favorites.
Like I said in the comments, Dirty is only in the mind of dirty people.
Another sad day indeed...


True but one should know there are lots of dirty people online. Personally, I wouldn't post something like that of my child and then find out it's being used or photoshoped for "other" purposes. Assuming that was their child. Regardless, it shouldn't have gotten pulled.


There are, but there are dirty people everywhere, and limiting yourself and your art out of fear is a path I would never want to tread, personally. I respect people who make decisions the opposite way though, and my only anger is at the person that bullied the photographer in the first place.


I agree.
 12/16/2005 05:04:55 PM · #16


It's pretty bad when you get a comment that suggest porn on a picture like this one. comment posted by catpixal
 12/16/2005 05:11:20 PM · #17
Goodlord - the porn police. It really grinds my gears that people see dirty in the most innocent of things - they (porn policers) must have some seriously repressed sexual issues.
 12/16/2005 05:17:20 PM · #18
.

Message edited by author 2005-12-16 21:00:18.
 12/16/2005 05:26:16 PM · #19
Originally posted by alfresco:
Goodlord - the porn police. It really grinds my gears that people see dirty in the most innocent of things - they (porn policers) must have some seriously repressed sexual issues.


Justice
 12/16/2005 05:30:04 PM · #20
People who react that way toward innocent photography are saying SO MUCH about themselves!!

Its sad.
 12/16/2005 05:31:18 PM · #21
Was one of my favorite from the challenge.

I don't recall whose it was but was very well executed.

bazz.
 12/16/2005 05:41:22 PM · #22
I also remember that picture well and it's depiction of innocence.
It was a lovely portrait...

And anyone who saw porn in that shouldn't be allowed around children.
Sometimes the comments made show a lot more about the person commenting, than the picture shows.
 12/16/2005 06:28:10 PM · #23
There appeared to be similar comments by about 5 or 6 people on that shot, which is just pathetic. There was nothing whatsoever suggestive about the image (ACK! A naked elbow! Shield your eyes!!). For all we know, the kid was wearing a halter top bathing suit. I hope the porn police don't find the parents of these people with delivery room photos (unless, of course, they were born with clothes on).
 12/16/2005 06:32:42 PM · #24
I remember that photo well, and commented on it. My comment praised the photo, but did (politely) mention that perhaps the little girl was a bit old to be without a shirt. My concern was based on a thread I had read previously here and was in no way a result of repressed issues or dislike for the image in question. My comment was made purely from the desire to help the photographer see that however innocent the image, publishing it here on DPC is no guarantee that it wouldn't be used for a less innocent purpose somewhere else. I had no intention to offend the photographer in any way, or to disparage the image. As stated before, I also offered several words of praise for it.

While I didn't read the comment from the alleged police officer, let's give that person the benefit of the doubt and assume they speak from sad and tragic experience. Even the most innocent of images can be misconstrued by a sick mind, and just because someone recognizes a potential danger doesn't mean that they, too, have a sick mind.
 12/16/2005 06:35:18 PM · #25
Originally posted by scalvert:
...unless, of course, they were born with clothes on).


I heard there's a bill in Congress...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 07:28:01 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 04/24/2024 07:28:01 AM EDT.