AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
why would you not use a judge's statement to make such a decision? we are discussing legal issues,

No, he's not.  To him it's entirely visceral.

Ekaterina Vladi wrote:
Her mother was at the shoot, everything is fine guys, whats the buzz is all about? ugh!

Yeah, that says a lot about her.

Victor_Z wrote:
I'm not talking legalities, I'm talking morality, humanity whatever you want to call it. In those terms the last person I'd want an opinion from is a Judge.

As a parent , that image is sickening. You might not be a parent? in which case you have no idea what I'm talking about

Or maybe I am?  In which case I understand that your fixation on these kinds of issues seems to me to be abnormal, and is certainly not universally shared, as witness the many people who disagree with you.

Rick Dupuis Photography wrote:
The real question is this...

today, October 1, 2009, would any of you shoot that photo, exactly the same way, of either a 10 year old girl OR boy?

I wouldn't.

I would.. IF
A) I had a legion of lawyers.
B) Billions of Dollars to fund those lawyers
C) it was artistic, (I.E. If you see it in a museum and is hung for any age to see.. to me counts as artistic)
Since I don't... I won't.

It's all hypocrisy, every bit of it...
All I can say is... WORDS!

Emeritus wrote:

Or maybe I am?  In which case I understand that your fixation on these kinds of issues seems to me to be abnormal, and is certainly not universally shared, as witness the many people who disagree with you.

same here.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

why would you not use a judge's statement to make such a decision? we are discussing legal issues, not the relative merits of moo shoo pork at a certain Beacon Hill takeout vs one in Midtown Manhattan.

Because judgemental nitwits recognize only their own point of view as legitimate, and everyone who disagree is, by disagreeing, a perverted piece of trash.

So those at the organization that sought --- and won -- the removal of the photo exert their power because they know best, and anyone who disagrees ought to be investigated as a pervert.

Sweet.

Mclain D Swift wrote:
People are out of control with their child abuse, religious hogwash, primitive mindset.   A nude body does not necessarily equate to sex.  Those people that think that way have the problem and not the rest of us.  I am so tired of censorship because of a few Neanderthals or worrying about offending some one.  Last I checked there was no guarantee of a right to NOT be offended in any constitution.

Damn skippy!

Emeritus wrote:

Or maybe I am?  In which case I understand that your fixation on these kinds of issues seems to me to be abnormal, and is certainly not universally shared, as witness the many people who disagree with you.

My fixation on these issues?? So you know all about me, we've discussed so many issues that you've now found an abnormal fixation.  Or is it that your fixation on defending this kind image is abnormal. I suspect the latter.
Your misconception that the opinions expressed here are somehow in a majority is very blinkered if you care to look around at other sites including other model/photographer sites

Victor_Z wrote:
I'm not talking legalities, I'm talking morality, humanity whatever you want to call it. In those terms the last person I'd want an opinion from is a Judge.

As a parent , that image is sickening. You might not be a parent? in which case you have no idea what I'm talking about

The thing is that her mother was there and she was the one that signed the contract. You should be arguing with her, a parent.

I took nude pictures of myself when I was a minor (14, also taken by my best friend) and I often wondered, even though I am an adult, I cannot publish nude photos of me even though I am the one in the pictures and started the whole idea? Mind you, it was totally playful and I laugh at them. But it wouldn't be laughable for a lot of people.

Victor_Z wrote:
My fixation on these issues?? So you know all about me, we've discussed so many issues that you've now found an abnormal fixation.  Or is it that your fixation on defending this kind image is abnormal. I suspect the latter.
Your misconception that the opinions expressed here are somehow in a majority is very blinkered if you care to look around at other sites including other model/photographer sites

It is said that you cannot argue with a True Believer, and I've found that to be true.  Not much more point in continuing the conversation.  You will see what you see, and impute what you choose, to everyone the world who doesn't completely agree with you, and there is nothing I can say to change it.

netmodel wrote:

The thing is that her mother was there and she was the one that signed the contract. You should be arguing with her, a parent.

I took nude pictures of myself when I was a minor (14, also taken by my best friend) and I often wondered, even though I am an adult, I cannot publish nude photos of me even though I am the one in the pictures and started the whole idea? Mind you, it was totally playful and I laugh at them. But it wouldn't be laughable for a lot of people.

I fully agree...I cannot understand a parent that could want that for their children. Its not about nudity at all. Nudity and children is normal and natural, and parents should have no problems with taking pictures of their children nude. I took lots of my kids running around the house being kids. I have also been threatened with arrest whilst filming my own daughter on her birthday at an ice rink because of child protection laws.

The image in question to many many people is sickening because of what it portrays.....had the police not removed it, would that have not been double standards, acceptable because its  a celebrity.

dod kalm wrote:

if Brooke Shields has no problem with it being displayed, then I'm not sure why anyone else should care. It's not like it was an erotic photo of a ten year old.

Seems like the world is becoming more and more alarmist.

Brooke had a stage mom who had nude pix taken of Brooke when she was a child.  In the past, Brooke has sued to prevent the images from being displayed.  She evidently does have a problem with them being displayed.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:

Brooke had a stage mom who had nude pix taken of Brooke when she was a child.  In the past, Brooke has sued to prevent the images from being displayed.  She evidently does have a problem with them being displayed.

At first I thought it was because she thought it was pornographic or obscene but she didn't. She even didn't use it as a case against her photographer. If she used child pornography, she'd probably have a better chance.

That's why I am baffled but at the same time, feeling uneasy with the cultural obsession with youthful innocence.

Come Together wrote:
england had some uptight laws was an observation i made after a decade of living in england

It's less a case of uptight law than, here, of law with a key word "indecency" [in images of children] describing an offence that is intentionally not defined beyond the word alone = no one can tell in advance if there is indecency or not. The question of indecency in such cases is held to be "an issue of fact best left to a jury" and to settle it, to determine if an image is indecent, someone has to be charged and dragged into court. I'm sure there was not a list of volunteers at the Tate willing to assume that position.

I fully suspect that the police on their visit noted, and correctly, that they have no power to peremptorily order it not to be exhibited; BUT that if the gallery did exhibit it that they [the police] would be back; they would seize it; and they would want someone's head on the block for exhibiting it. End of...

In effect, the gallery whimped out.

Studio36

Emeritus wrote:
So . . . whenever a model, years after the shoot, decides that she doesn't want an image shown, even when there is a valid release, and the courts have ruled that the release is valid and binding . . . even so . . . models should be allowed to tell museums to take down their images?

Do you have any idea the mischief that could cause?

The problem here is that assumes that Brooke, at age 10, was able to consent to that image. Or it assumes that by consenting for her, Brooke's mom (a notorious stage mom at that) was acting in Brooke's best interest.

I'm not a Brooke Shields fan but I think that image is just over the line.

The one who Brooke should sue is her mother for whoring her out as a child.

netmodel wrote:
Let's all say that the image is considered obscene by our modern standards but what's interesting is that courts ruled otherwise and it also said:

Lets all not agree on that. It is decidedly NOT obscene in any legal sense. Even by present day standards. On either side of the Atlantic ocean. Though, in British law it may be indecent, that still does not make it obscene.

To be obscene, in British law, it must be a thing of a kind tending to "deprave or corrupt" the observer. It clearly would not rise to that level. Or would it do so in the American sense.

Studio36

netmodel wrote:
At first I thought it was because she thought it was pornographic or obscene but she didn't. She even didn't use it as a case against her photographer. If she used child pornography, she'd probably have a better chance.

I'm curious, are you familiar with the statutory definition of obscene as it applied to a minor in 1975?  Are you familiar with the definitions in 18 USC 2256 that is applicable today?  The courts have found that the images were not illegal then, and they are not illegal now.

It happens I find them to be morally inappropriate, but that is different than unlawful.  I will share an anecdote.

The first nude I ever shot was in my first year in college.  I was asked to take pictures of the figure drawing class at my university, they wanted to produce a flyer.  When I arrived, I discovered that the model posing that day was fifteen years old.  That was back in 1971.  Things were different back then.

Let's not confuse morality with legality.  I would never have shot that image of Brooke, for a variety of reasons.  While I wouldn't have shot it, that doesn't make it illegal.

Image-IZ wrote:
She is just trying to make some money as an aging star that no longer works!

Actually, she's doing a very good job of keeping busy, but don't let facts interfere with your arguments.

Victor_Z wrote:
I'm not talking legalities, I'm talking morality, humanity whatever you want to call it.

You're imputing that people who don't agree with you not only aren't moral, but aren't human? My goodness, that's an extremely rigid viewpoint.

Victor_Z wrote:
Fortunately I have enough decency to look at the picture myself and decide for myself....and not bleat with the other sheep.

I went to see, and it simply doesn't look sexual to me--or attractive at all, for that matter--though I can see how some people might see it that way. You apparently do, based on your posts.

Does that mean that anyone who sees it that way, though, is a pedophile, or sick, or immoral and/or inhuman, and must seek help now? That's been your stance throughout this discussion.

Victor_Z wrote:
I'm not talking legalities, I'm talking morality, humanity whatever you want to call it. In those terms the last person I'd want an opinion from is a Judge.

As a parent , that image is sickening. You might not be a parent? in which case you have no idea what I'm talking about

It's sickening to the people who sexualize nudity.
If people find simple nudity sexually gratifying then... yes... It's sickening.

The debate can go on and on...

Extreme Body Art wrote:

It's sickening to the people who sexualize nudity.
If people find simple nudity sexually gratifying then... yes... It's sickening.

The debate can go on and on...

Boy, you really make sex seem like a horrible thing...

netmodel wrote:
Brooke Shields appeared nude in front of a photographer at the age of 10.

The London exhibition decided to exhibit that photo and the police raided and closed that room showing a picture of her.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0, … 46,00.html

The nude picture - her face had a lot of makeup but her body looked masculine - truly androgynous.

Anyway, the point is should it be displayed? People who object seem to have a "dirty interpretation" more than embracing her body. Exactly what is wrong with showing it all natural?

Why did the exhibitors not scream bloody murder and make a public issue in the media of the violation of their rights. I have seen the picture many times and it is a beautiful photo of a pre-pubescent girl, and her mother was there when it was taken as part of a promotion.
This is most alarming in a country that has a reputation as being more art oriented and socially liberal than the one we live in.
"When Fascshism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross"...and we keep letting it happen.

MJM

Rick Dupuis Photography wrote:

Brooke Shields does have  aproblem. She has tried to sue to gain control of the photos at leats twice. And she tried to buy them at least twice
Her argument, if I read it correctly, was that her mother signed away her rights to the photos and she wanted them (her rights) back. The first time she sued was when she turned 16 I think. The judge found in the photographer's favor. She tried again a few years later and lost again, but this time pretty much bankrupted the photographer. She tried to buy the images back but rather than sell to her, the photographer sold them to someone else, who then tweaked them some and  then started showing them again.

See, now this is an area where I think the law needs to be changed.  I don't think a parent should be able to sign away a child's right to their images.  As a minor, perhaps you can't get around that and GOD that's some iffy territory, but once said minor turns 18, I think the rights to those images should fall in her name and not her mom's.  As for my general opinion of her mom, I think she pushed her daughter to grow up WAY too fast.

Rick Dupuis Photography wrote:

She was nude in Blue lagoon too, wasn't she? She was about 12 in that as I recall.

How did they get away with having her do some of those shoots and movies that she did at such a young age?  She did some fairly risque stuff back then, esp. for being such a young girl.  It's not like she just did a couple of art nudes.  That poor girl was pushed right out into center stage.

Rick Dupuis Photography wrote:

She was nude in Blue lagoon too, wasn't she? She was about 12 in that as I recall.

Milla Jovavich was her body double for the nude scenes. Milla turned out much better looking as well. Though that might be splitting hairs!

Rick Dupuis Photography wrote:
The real question is this...

today, October 1, 2009, would any of you shoot that photo, exactly the same way, of either a 10 year old girl OR boy?

I wouldn't.

NOPE.  Just saw the pic ya'll were talking about.  I can kind of see the issue now...

Scott Sansenbach wrote:

Milla Jovavich was her body double for the nude scenes. Milla turned out much better looking as well. Though that might be splitting hairs!

So they had someone ELSE using their body instead of hers?  I always thought that was her body in pics and on film.  Well, if not, the other girl was young as well.  In that bathtub pic, the body from the neck down is CLEARLY of a young child.  And typically nudes of kids I never take issue with.  Hardly ever do I side with the pedo bear crowd, but something about THAT PIC just bugs me.  If that's the one from the museum and she was ten years old when it was taken, I can see WHY they're holding back on it for the exhibit.  Matter of fact, since I didn't know which pic you guys were speaking of at first, I entered 'young Brooke Shields' in my image search and several shots popped up with the title of 'Brooke Shield's pussy'.  Is that any way that you think a ten year old little girl should be titled? 

I don't know too much about her, only what I've seen and heard on TV and from people talking about her life, but I can now see why she was such good friends with Michael Jackson.  They shared a common theft.

Scott Doctor wrote:
Next step in this ridiculous mind set will be to ban sonograms that identify the sex of a fetus.

I think that's a LITTLE different than a picture of a nude ten year old girl posed provocatively with a full face of makeup in a bathtub...

Rob Ryan wrote:
I saw on the news a couple of weeks ago how two parents were accused of child abuse after a Walmart employee saw photos of kids taking a bubblebath


http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/p … 25/answers

A couple of kiddos in the tub playing with their Fisher Price toys and clapping bubbles in their hands is a little different than styling a full face of mature makeup on a ten year old girl and having her pose nude in a bathtub in a somewhat provocative manner.  Not as bad as the guy with the sonogram analogy, but still a bit of oranges and kiwis here.

netmodel wrote:

The thing is that her mother was there and she was the one that signed the contract. You should be arguing with her, a parent.

I took nude pictures of myself when I was a minor (14, also taken by my best friend) and I often wondered, even though I am an adult, I cannot publish nude photos of me even though I am the one in the pictures and started the whole idea? Mind you, it was totally playful and I laugh at them. But it wouldn't be laughable for a lot of people.

Why couldn't you?  If it's simple nudity, what's the issue?  If you were trying to be Mr. Smexy, well yeah I can kinda see that lol.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Peodophile is a word I've only come across in the last few years. Thanks to the media now you almost hear it on every news report.

Maybe the world has become a sicker place or we've just become aware of such things.

I saw the film Blue Lagoon some years ago and never gave it a thought now I'm thinking it could be a film for a peodophile to have in a collection.

I've never seen it, but doesn't it have pretty overt sex/sexual type scenes in it?