|
Forums >
General Industry >
David Hamilton: How are his books legal?
If you don't know who he is, here is a Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hami … grapher%29 I ask because at a Boston bookstore, I saw them selling among other photography books like Leibowitz's, his books with underaged nude teen girls frolicking among one another etc. This, in essence, doesn't perturb me, but I am just wondering where the gray line is between art and child porn, and the legal attitude of the United States? If you are shooting, say, a 17 yr old girl and her shirt is wet and sticking, is this testy? Sep 27 09 04:32 am Link If you buy the book in a US bookstore or from a US mail-order retailer, there is nothing illegal about it. Sep 27 09 04:36 am Link I'm not saying it should be illegal, I am just asking how it IS legal? If you or I shot the same kind of photos and posted them here in MM, how would that be received? Sep 27 09 04:39 am Link Paul Maher Jr wrote: With howls of derision [not to mention a stout rope and some burning torches]. How else? Sep 27 09 05:04 am Link If you do a 5 minute search on here or on Google you will find tons of discussions on what is and is not illegal. In very short summary terms, it is not illegal to take pictures of underage minors nude (for example a parents taking pictures of their child at bathtime) - what is illegal is taking pictures of underage minors nude in which are erotic or suggestive. Now taking the same example of parents taking pictures of their child at bath time, there was a recent case in which authorities initially thought that was erotic and suggestive and temporarily had the children removed from the house. The gray line is pretty wide and gray so most photographers would rather not test and just shoot models over 18 in that genre - there are some more famous exceptions like the aforementoned Hamilton, and also Sturges and Mann. Sep 27 09 05:09 am Link I guess it amounts to testing the waters by shooting and posting it, and hiding in France? Sep 27 09 05:12 am Link Paul Maher Jr wrote: You can find a full discussion on the topic on this thread on MM Sep 27 09 05:17 am Link Since you started this thread, we can assume you find his books offensive? If you find his books offensive, no explanation can help you. Sep 27 09 05:19 am Link Just be glad most of the world thinks his work is the art that it is. And just as a little side note, David Hemmings, who stared in "Blow Up" said he actually based his character on David Hamilton and not David Bailey as so many have thought. Funny how there is also a thread about David Bailey on here these past few days. Sep 27 09 05:24 am Link I dont think his books are offensive, I just want to know what is the legal protocol with photography like that . . . . I thought I made that clear. Sep 27 09 05:31 am Link . ex post facto law is not allowed . Sep 27 09 05:42 am Link Search for forums as this topic has been covered in depth in the past. In the US, it is a federal crime to be in any way involved with photographs of minors in sexual situations. David Hamilton does not photograph minors in sexual situations. Today, parents have lost custody of their children for taking a photograph of them taking a bath. It's not illegal. But, you will loose your children and face a judge anyway. You'll eventually be proven innocent and get them back. But, is it really worth it? http://cfcoklahoma.org/New_Site/index.p … 58&id=2876 Sep 27 09 06:28 am Link Paul Maher Jr wrote: 2 very different points, being well recieved on MM does not dictate US laws Sep 27 09 07:57 am Link Paul Maher Jr wrote: this is more clear Sep 27 09 07:58 am Link Paul Maher Jr wrote: It is legal by not breaking any laws. I haven't seen it, but I image in the images are not in violation of any pornography legislation. How they would be received here has nothing to do with their legality. Sep 27 09 08:02 am Link Paul Maher Jr wrote: You made it clear. Sep 27 09 08:04 am Link Hamilton's books have been in print since the mid-70's. The content hasn't changed much over the years, so I guess if the older ones haven't been retroactively declared child porn, the newer ones can't either. Sep 27 09 08:15 am Link Surprised that Jock Sturges hasn't been mentioned here -- and he has had troubles. I suspect that Hamilton's books are issues in some states and not in others. And if you visit a chain book store in one state and see his images and don't see it in another, that may be one clue. Then again, there's also Larry Clark's images. Oh wait, he's had even more issues than Sturges. Sep 27 09 08:24 am Link Paul Maher Jr wrote: This formulation always strikes me as the wrong question. Sep 27 09 08:30 am Link I deal with this all the time in my day job. Hardly a day goes by when I don't hear someone cry "how is that legal?!" The answer is simple: it's legal because it's not in violation of the law. Far too many people believe that the law says what they think it should say, or says what they've been told it says, but they never bother to read what it actually says. The problem with that approach is tha the people who think the law should impose their moral, social and/or political views on everyone else are always the most vocal segment of society, so if you go by what you've heard is legal/illegal or what you think must be legal/illegal, you're almost always going to fall into the trap of confusing someone's moral indignity with the law. Sep 27 09 08:46 am Link Paul Maher Jr wrote: So you equate nude photography of minors in a non-sexual pose equivalent to offering a 14 year old girl drugs and raping her? Sep 27 09 08:46 am Link PYPI FASHION wrote: I don't see the connection between what you quoted and your question, but the fact is that many, many people in this country do see nudity as much more serious matter than drugs and violence. We can all spend hours watching men give each other concussions and bruises over a game and call it a national holiday, but inadvertently show a boob at half time and it's a national scandal worthy of massive investigations at tax payer expense. We have violent, bloody murder and rape, glorified war and destruction, and explicit talk of violence, on prime-time TV all the time, but portray two people waking up after spending the night together and they're always crawling out of bed fully clothed, for we don't dare show such nastiness as nudity to the world. Why would it be surprising that many people see photographing a minor nude in non-sexual poses to be equivalent to, or worse than, offering them drugs and raping them? Sep 27 09 09:03 am Link Tim Hammond wrote: He's making a reference to Roman Polanski. Sep 27 09 09:05 am Link hbutz New York wrote: buy the book in another country and try and bring it into the States and I wonder what would happen Sep 27 09 09:07 am Link Paul Maher Jr wrote: Your answer is above. I'll duplicate it here. Paul Tirado Photography wrote: Additionally, Hamilton didn't shoot models in the US. So our laws wouldn't apply. As far as his books go, they pale in comparison to real porn...which is also legal. Sep 27 09 09:08 am Link soooooooo, hypothetically. if you take naked images of a 30 year old primordial dwarf that looks like a child ( like in the movie "the orphan") is that illegal? Sep 27 09 09:10 am Link TarilynQuinn wrote: Congress tried to make it illegal. Last I heard the courts had thrown out the statute. Sep 27 09 09:36 am Link The law is based around context...pure and simple. Nude photography at any age IS legal, but it's the context is where the line is drawn. I've come across sites where there were pre-teen girls were fully clothed (but some swimsuit stuff and pajamas) where they were extremely flirtatious and trying to come across as sexually appealing and it was the most horrid and disturbing shit I've ever seen. In my eyes, a definite line had been crossed...but they were clothed. On the other hand, I've seen Sturges' work, and his work is beautifully fantastic. Sure, they're nude, but nothing about his work screams "SEX". Sad thing is, the laws are written intentionally for gray areas to give a wide birth for criminal prosecution later. The Supreme Court defines pornography as "content that has no artistic merit and causes sexual thought"...hmmm, sounds like half the commercials on tv.... Sep 27 09 09:53 am Link Paul Maher Jr wrote: The short answer is that unless there is something which IS illegal, it IS legal. The same goes here as it would for photographs of cats or plants. What about the images do you feel makes them illegal? Paul Maher Jr wrote: The legal protocol in many countries--the US being among them--is that things which aren't deemed to be illegal are legal. If there isn't something prohibiting it, it's permitted. (Some countries might use the opposite approach, where only the things explicitly listed are permitted, but I can't think of any.) Sep 27 09 10:04 am Link the misconception is that photographic nudity is illegal for subjects under 18. it is a country wide misconception, all you need to do is throw that belief out into the ocean, and start from there. as someone else said, find the law and work backwards. for instance, find out why all those "sexting" cases get thrown out as soon as someone alerts one of the federal district courts that states are jailing people for nude text messages. Sep 27 09 10:07 am Link Why would anyone even bother shooting underages girls that way, when there are so many other far more interesting options??? -JULIAN Sep 27 09 10:12 am Link Julian Wilde wrote: Its not prohibited in the US and not everyone pay attentions to people's perceptions of it being prohibited. Sep 27 09 10:16 am Link Julian Wilde wrote: Why would anyone bother shooting anything that's not interesting to me? -TIM Sep 27 09 10:18 am Link Can anyone provide some internet links to where one can see the photographs and works of David Hamilton? Sep 27 09 10:31 am Link Ãmar wrote: images.google.com Sep 27 09 10:33 am Link As mentioned there is a difference between what is allowed on MM and what is legal in the US. Sep 27 09 10:34 am Link Paul Maher Jr wrote: MM wouldn't publish the work of many great art photographers. What MM would allow has nothing to do with what's legal. Hardcore porn is legal but can't be shown on MM. Sep 27 09 10:59 am Link Julian Wilde wrote: One might as well ask: Sep 27 09 01:26 pm Link I remember seeing David Hamilton's work in photography magazines years ago. No one questioned it at that time. His has created beautiful images! Sep 27 09 01:30 pm Link Everybody here is dancing around the essence of the issue. It doesn't matter where the photos were shot. You can't shoot child porn in Sweden, for example, where the laws are more liberal, and publish them here. Everyone is correct, they are legal, because they aren't illegal, but I think the OP is asking why. It is simple. Have you looked at Hamilton's work? Very few of his images are full frontal nudes. It is mostly from the waist up, with an occassional butt shot. There is sexual inuendo, and particularly when there are two young models, but there is no "real or simulated sex or a lascivious display of the genitals" as defined by 18 USC 2256. It is likewise difficult to prove the images to be lewd in those states that use "lewd" in their definition. As for Jock Sturges, he does do full frontal nudes. The difference is that he has no sexual inuendo at all, in fact the images, to some degree, are asexual. They did try to indict him, but the Grand Jury declined. It was, however, a big pain in the ass for him. The reason the feds couldn't indict him were the same. There was no sex at all, so there was clearly no "real or simulated sex," as defined by the statute. Where they tried to get him was on the lascivious display of the genitals. Since his troubles, they have come up with the "Dost Test." Even absent that, however, the grand jury couldn't find the full frontal shots to be a lascivious display. The problem is that the definition of "lascivious display of the genitals" is so convoluted, that anybody who dances around it at all is taking a risk. There are many who argue that Dost just makes it more difficult to understand. In any event, those are the primary reasons why Hamilton's books, and Sturges' books are not illegal. There are, however, a lot of people, police, priests and prosecutors who believe they should be. Sep 27 09 01:46 pm Link |
