Pink Tights Dance  wrote:

Nudist Family per OP

If a "family" contacted me to photograph their underage daughter, I'd not only turn them down, I'd report them to child welfare.

Are your pink tights......a little tight?

Cherrystone wrote:

Pink Tights Dance  wrote:
Nudist Family per OP

If a "family" contacted me to photograph their underage daughter, I'd not only turn them down, I'd report them to child welfare.

Are your pink tights......a little tight?

And maybe in a bit of a twist as well.

Studio36

ei Total Productions wrote:
The definition of what is indecent is vague.  As of yet, the courts have not given guidance.

...and herein lies the answer. As in many legal, moral clauses, the statutes are deliberately vague. Legal draughtsmen know that public opinion and judicial views change over time, certainly faster than legislation. Anybody care to define 'likely to corrupt' or or 'likely to deprave'?

The reason why the appelate courts (which is a prerequisite for precedent) haven't provided us with a clearer definition of 'indecent' is because those charged under this Act, invariably have peaded guilty in the lower courts, ie even by their own undefined judgment, they have conceded that their images were 'indecent'.
Also bear in mind, in the UK we probably have a more uniform approach to prosecutions, primarily because we don't have prosecutors who are looking to be re-elected or political pressure in the judicial process. If anything they are subject to budgetary pressures and won't proceed with a prosecution unless there is at least a 60% likelihood of getting a conviction.

studio36uk wrote:
The only issue being discussed here is the legal tension between taking pictures of nudists, including children, and the BRITISH law concerning images of children that might be found to be "indecent." It is not unheard of to find that images of clothed children might be found equally "indecent". On balance one needs to exercise a certain amount of caution in taking photographs of ANY children and understand the actual limits beyond which one must not go as well as those which it is voluntarily prudent not to explore or test.

Studio36

Seriously, I understand the "issue" being discussed, and I'm not trying to be rude. Nor is this supposed to be turning into an Ad hominem assault on someone stating their opinions, i.e., I'm uptight because I find taking pictures of nude underage children offensive. I may be coming to that conclusion for a variety of other reasons and it's an assumption on your part as to why I'm taking the stance that I am. However, if being very protective makes me old-fashioned, prudish and uptight, I'm fine with that.

Your little discourse on nudists is insulting. As if I've never associated with people who fell into that category. And, I'm not surprised that images of clothed and unclothed children have been found 'indecent.' It's like when someone puts their hand on you, it's not always offensive, but sometimes it is. It not only depends where you're touched, but how, by who, etc., etc. It's why behavior is often normalized. And lumped in with people being nudists and the like to be made acceptable. And, no, I don't feel people that are nudists are doing anything wrong. Nudists wanting others to photograph their 16 year old daughters fall into a whole 'nother category.

Without the child protection laws in place, you should examine your own sense of morality in these situations. The laws are meant to prevent people without a moral compass from preying on those that are vulnerable, as well as those being victimized to seek justice. And even with them in place, look at what's happening?

Beyond the question asked by the OP, my point is that the OP should be able to see all the red flags waving in the air on his own.

Cherrystone wrote:



Are your pink tights......a little tight?

Cherrystone?

I'm not even going there ...

Pink Tights Dance  wrote:
And, no, I don't feel people that are nudists are doing anything wrong. Nudists wanting others to photograph their 16 year old daughters fall into a whole 'nother category.

This is fascinating.  If nudists aren't doing anything wrong, why is it wrong for them to do the exact same thing non-nudists do?  Specifically, why can't they hire a professional to photograph their children?  What is it about being a nudist that requires that they only have snapshots of their kids?  If no one in the family can take a decent photo to save their lives, why must they do without decent photos of their kids?  Why are only non-nudists entitled to have a decent family album of photographs?

Art Film Cameras wrote:
Take the shots and erase all traces to yourself.  What's the big deal?  Are they going to have a film crew there taping you?  Take the shots, cut and run and let the naturist family get their kicks looking at their adolescent child's rack.

You're a pervert.

Pink Tights Dance  wrote:
...I'm uptight because I find taking pictures of nude underage children offensive. I may be coming to that conclusion for a variety of other reasons and it's an assumption on your part as to why I'm taking the stance that I am. However, if being very protective makes me old-fashioned, prudish and uptight, I'm fine with that.

Then your opinion really doesn't matter.  Since you find ANY photo of anyone under 18 nude to be offensive, there is no situation in which you would find this question to be "OK".

So you're on the fringe, the far wings of this debate.  Not only that, but there is no potential for you to adjust your opinion, therefor there is no need for you to participate.

The fact is that nudity of minors is not illegal in the U.S.  In the U.K. that may be slightly different.  But we're not talking about porn, we're not even talking about slightly sexy photos.  A portrait is just that -- a portrait and nothing else.


Ultimately your thought process, as well as the others who replied with similar sentiments, would mean that the following photo is pure child porn:

http://www.snyderworld.co.cc/web_images … _napam.jpg



Yeah.  Three cheers for B&W world views.

Pink Tights Dance  wrote:
Without the child protection laws in place, you should examine your own sense of morality in these situations.

I know where my moral compass points all right. I'll shoot anything - literally anything - that is clearly legal to shoot and I don't sit in moral judgement of my subjects or my clients.

On point, I worked for five years for a naturist publication in general circulation. After the law in Britain was changed in 2003 respecting the age of the subjects neither they nor I entertained the thought of being A / THE test case. Even before that happened I always took my editor's opinion and advice into account... and, of course, he was getting opinion and advice from the publishing company's lawyers.

Studio36

Pink Tights Dance  wrote:
Nudist Family per OP

If a "family" contacted me to photograph their underage daughter, I'd not only turn them down, I'd report them to child welfare.

WTF!

People like you will never cease to amaze me how stupid one can be....
I would hope that the family could sue you and stick you with the court costs... (one could dream anyway)...

Extreme Body Art wrote:

WTF!

People like you will never cease to amaze me how stupid one can be....
I would hope that the family could sue you and stick you with the court costs... (one could dream anyway)...

+1.    i wholeheartedly agree!!!