|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Naturist Father Arrested 4 Nude Photos of his kids
We frequently have discussions here about the legality or illegality of nude photos of under-aged models. There are those who argue that simple nudity is never illegal. There are others who say that it will come down to an over-zealous prosecutor or community standards. ABC News had an article about a naturist family and the photos taken, at a naturist resort of his daughters. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2 … hild-porn/ Let me be clear, I am taking no position here, but it is an interesting case to discuss in this context. Apparently, while at the naturist resort, a third party took, mostly innocent photos of the man's daughters, all with consent. The nudity was never an issue because there is no dispute that the family practices naturism. The third party, in at least one image, is alleged to have shot an image of one of the girl's genitals. The father claims he didn't ask for those images nor was he aware they existed. The judge in the case decided that, at least some of the images were a lascivious display of the genitals. The father claims they were all innocent, i.e. if the girls were dressed, doing the same thing, nobody would be complaining. None of us have seen the images so we really don't know. What we do know is that a naturist has been arrested for photos taken in a naturist environment. Without expressing an opinion of the case, I do have the opinion that this reinforces what many of us have said. While it may, in some circumstances be legal, nudes of under-aged models is risky. Even if this guy is acquitted, he has been put through a lot. What are your thoughts? Nov 07 13 11:51 pm Link Without seeing the pictures we cant decide. However, the person who took the pictures was convicted of child porn and is serving a 60 year sentence. According to the article, there is only ONE single image that is considered to be illegal. If the father is in possession of these pictures then there is a good chance he will be convicted as well. This brings up an interesting topic and issue that I have never heard discussed. Nude images of someone under 18 are NOT illegal as long as they aren't "lewd or lascivious". The law and the courts have ruled though that "close ups" of genitalia are illegal. However, with todays modern high definition, high pixel cameras, a person can take a full body length shot and simply zoom in on the genitals and effectively have a "close up". Is it illegal to zoom in on your computer OR crop the image ? Back to the OP though. Yes, if you are going to photograph nude minors then you better be prepared for an arrest and trial and media who will vilify you and prosecutors who will seek to inprison you for 60 years. Personally, I support the right to photograph minors nude and I don't think America should be putting people in prison for it. Nov 08 13 12:29 am Link Yeah, since we don't really know what we're talking about (a picture's worth a thousand words) we don't really know what to say about it. I'm imagining a girl on a swing. .jpg) And then nude, and so omg-lewd! I don't really know. In many cultures, and in pockets of America like this nudist family, nudity is just no big deal. Americans go above-and-beyond in terms of "Protect the children!", often to a fault in the legal system. I did have a laugh at this: "Vanaman, the owner of A Shade of Grey Photography, is serving a 60-year sentence after pleading guilty to receiving and possessing child pornography." Nov 08 13 12:54 am Link Neal Bloom wrote: That isn't completely true. That is the Federal standard, but the states have different statutes. As an example, it is completely legal to photograph a minor topless in Missouri but they must have an opaque covering over their genitals. Nov 08 13 01:10 am Link GPS Studio Services wrote: I can't have any thought without knowing the image nor without more details of the case. Nov 08 13 01:43 am Link It reminds me of a case that happened when I was working in the UK, back in the pre-digital days. A woman had taken photos of her two young children having a bath, sent the film off for processing and someone at the lab reported the images to police. Common sense prevailed in the end but not before the woman had been put through the mill for a few weeks, with threats of having her children taken from her and of being prosecuted. At the end of the day it all depends on how narrow minded the viewer is and who they can find to report it to. Nov 08 13 03:08 am Link The dichotomy here is that there are two almost contradictory views in law: 1) Understanding that it is quite legal to practice nudism / naturism including as a family with children and in the company of other people who non-family members [except in Arkansas which has a specific statute prohibiting nudism / naturism in any form] and, on the flip side 2) Whilst you can see and interact with nude children LIVE AND IN PERSON in that setting - you can not safely photograph them in the same setting. ADDITIONAL NOTE: Yes it is legal [to photograph them] as long as it is not sexual. The US federal courts have ruled that pictures in titular nudist / naturist publications that include children in a nudist / naturist setting are not child porn as long as they are merely showing the nudist / naturist lifestyle and are non-sexual. What is interesting here is that the court addressed [commercial, printed] "publications" produced for general circulation and not, save for such publications, the making, transfer or possession of images of a similar nature outside of such publications e.g by an individual. The case: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 00-5124 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. VARIOUS ARTICLES OF MERCHANDISE, SCHEDULE NO. 287 ALESSANDRA'S SMILE, INC., This involved the US Customs confiscating several hundred naturist magazines brought in from Germany and France. the lower court upheld the US customs. On appeal the US Court of Appeals found the decision so extreme that the US Court of Appeals, unanimously overturned every count. The Government didn't appeal to the US Supreme Court - thus this is the law of the United States. HOWEVER, that said, the U.S. Supreme Court case NEW YORK v. FERBER, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) 458 U.S. 747 NEW YORK v. FERBER CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK No. 81-55. Argued April 27, 1982 Decided July 2, 1982 Is very instructive on the matter of a state more strictly regulating images of children in comparison to the amount of federal regulation. [held - in part] "... As applied to respondent and others who distribute similar material, the statute in question does not violate the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 753-774. (a) The States are entitled to greater leeway in the regulation of pornographic depictions of children for the following reasons: ... Fuller text of this case can be found here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g … &invol=747 Studio36 Nov 08 13 03:22 am Link there seems to be very little to go on in this case. News stories are nearly always slanted in some way, so its difficult to know what the truth is without fully knowing intent and without seeing the images. I saw this- Martens did not take the photos himself but hired a professional photographer. That man, Leslie Grey Vanaman, was tried and convicted of child porn and is currently serving a 60-year sentence. and wondered if Vanaman was convicted because of the images he took in THIS case...or from another case. If it's THIS case and a jury can prove intent on the father's part, he likely will serve time. Nov 08 13 03:27 am Link There was in the UK a few years ago a police operated scam involving alleged child porn. Innocent people were having their credit card details phished and then used to sign up to a child porn site (which was in on the phishing thing). The child porn site was used in the hope that the innocent people would discover what they were paying for and keep quiet about it for the sakes of their families and to avoid bad publicity. That didn't work, and the UK police got hold of a list of subscribers and raided their homes. These are innocent people who'd had their credit card details stolen, remember. The police searched the people's houses and seized computers, and then claimed that they'd found indecent images of children. The innocent people denied this, of course. The police said that they could either go to court, lots of publicity, and prove that the pics weren't indecent - which would have been perfectly easy - or admit to it and receive a police caution, which didn't carry any publicity. Most of the people admitted to possession, there was no publicity, and they were able to carry on with their lives. The police added a statistic to the records, and then went looking for their next victim. All perfectly legal, of course. I always regard child porn cases with some scepticism since I read about the above. The odds are stacked against anyone accused of possession, and I wouldn't like to jump to any conclusions about what is actually the truth in the case the OP is referring to. Nov 08 13 03:30 am Link Kent Art Photography wrote: completely agree. I've always believed that sexual predation cases should be kept out of the news completely until a person is tried and convicted. We've all seen someone accused of child porn or improper sexual conduct only to later find out the accusations were unfounded/untrue...AFTER the accused's life is ruined. Nov 08 13 03:44 am Link Over 30 years ago, I took some shots of my daughter who was around 3 or 4 years old. Lots of curly hair, serious expression and nipples showing. My wife was present and agreed the shots were innocent enough. One shot stood out and I made a few prints, one of which I still have. My daughter, now the Director of Finance for a large international corporation, loves the shot so much that she has it prominently displayed in her home. No one in our family, her grandparents and sibling included, ever thought of that as prurient, until someone visiting her home was appalled by seeing it. It's strange how different people see different things when viewing the same subject. Nov 08 13 04:57 am Link This country does go too far to supposedly protect children but the truth is the prosecutor works for a political officer - the DA. When politics are involved don't look for common sense. They are always looking to score some points and the media rides the train. Till the politics are removed from the criminal justice system it's never going to be safe if you are on the wrong side of the fence. They like to make an example out of people and they all want to look tough on crime and the judges are right there with them. It's politics, not so much a narrow minded view because if it was one of their own, they would keep an open mind as always. The media wouldn't even hear about it. Nov 08 13 05:27 am Link Marciofs wrote: I think that's well put, Marcio. Nov 08 13 07:19 am Link i have no clue about nothin' but it reminds me of all the crap jock sturges had and has to put up with. Nov 08 13 07:26 am Link My thoughts, Jock sturges. This is not new, niether are the risks. Nov 08 13 07:40 am Link D-Light wrote: And whether whoever they report it to wants to polish their record and/or be re-elected. Nov 08 13 09:42 am Link The photographer that took the photos in this case was convicted of producing child pornography and is currently serving sixty years. What I can't figure out is if he is serving his time for the shots in this case or was he convicted of shooting other children? Martens did not take the photos himself but hired a professional photographer. That man, Leslie Grey Vanaman, was tried and convicted of child porn and is currently serving a 60-year sentence I am confused because the guy whose kids he shot is up on two charges. One carries a possible thirty year sentence and the other twenty, i.e. less than sixty. If Vanaman got sixty years, he seems that he must have shot other children. Nov 08 13 09:51 am Link According to your link one of the images was a close-up of one of the girl's genitalia. That probably wasn't a wise choice of subject matter. Nov 08 13 09:54 am Link THis is such an interesting topic. Also this happened to a South American couple a couple of years ago and they took that couples kids from them. I don't understand the legalities of this and wouldn't want to be subject to someone else's interpretations as to the lasciviousness (or not) of a set of photos. So personally, I've been asked and have turn down that type of work (even though it's really cute to get a Bart Simpsonesque type photo of your child running around nekkid). I wouldn't even consider doing something like this for non-friend or family members. However, I have done some baby photography so it's a conundrum for sure. Sorry OP, it's a chance however you slice it. Nov 08 13 10:06 am Link "One image is a close-up of one girl’s genitalia, according to prosecutors." Uh..."family portrait" my ass. Maybe the father didn't realize that photo was taken, sure. Sounds like the photographer deserves what he got though. Nov 08 13 10:11 am Link KungPaoChic wrote: I mentioned that earlier. What we don't know is if the father had that image in his possession. I agree with you completely. That was a stupid photo for the photographer to take, but then again, he is serving sixty years. Nov 08 13 10:12 am Link lasciviousness is in the eye of the beholder. better safe than sorry. Nov 08 13 10:22 am Link GPS Studio Services wrote: Yeah I don't know about all that which is surprising since this is in my neck of the woods. Nov 08 13 10:38 am Link Some more points to consider.... # 1 - This was a federal case, not a state of Florida case. # 2- All states and federal code have laws on the books that are unconstitutional. Even when rulings by SCOTUS strike down the laws, states and the feds usually keep the laws on the books anyway. Question - Are female breasts considered genitalia ? Nov 08 13 10:44 am Link Neal Bloom wrote: Yes, but 18 USC 2256 has already been found to be constitutional by SCOTUUS, even when it was far more liberal than the current court. Nov 08 13 10:54 am Link This was an issue even before the internet and digital photography. Years ago, there was a well respected photographer in the Bay Area that was hired to photograph a family (family portrait) where the family members were nude, including one or more under aged girls. The images were reported by a woman at the processing lab that processed the photographer's images. Subsequently, the door to his studio was breached by law enforcement and his photography equipment and images were seized by the Feds, presumably on child pornography violations. I believe the photographer was eventually acquitted and the tools of his trade eventually returned, but the process was long and expensive. It seems to me that we are going to continue to have this problem as long as we have people who view any image with nudity as pornography, and particularly images of nude under aged females that show the genital areas even in a non-prurient manner. Just having the consent of the parents and the parents present is not protection against prosecution. If you create images of underage females where the genital area is shown, you are fair game to law enforcement zealots for prosecution on child pornography charges. It is good that this subject comes up for discussion from time to time because it is important for photographers to know that photographing unclothed, underage females has real world risks. Nov 08 13 11:14 am Link GPS Studio Services wrote: Can you cite a SCOTUS case regarding 2256 ? Nov 08 13 11:42 am Link Neal Bloom wrote: I just did a little reading on the case. Nov 08 13 11:58 am Link Neal Bloom wrote: 18 USC 2256 has been tested in the Supreme Court several times. 18 USC 2257, the companion recordkeeping statute has been tested in the courts but hasn't reached the Supreme Court as many times. A simple Google search search will give you some of the cases. CLICK HERE to read some of the SCOTUS cases. You can do a similar search for appellate cases. Nov 08 13 02:04 pm Link There is additional reporting on this story here including some allegations (near the bottom) not in the ABC story..... http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/Blog/2013/1 … 383833145/ Nov 08 13 04:31 pm Link Digitoxin wrote: thats quite a bit different. but why Homeland Security???? Nov 08 13 05:06 pm Link It is legal to be naked in public in Vermont. That includes minors. Taking photos of these minors would not be illegal unless they cross the line of being "lewd", just as the act of being naked can be deemed illegal if the naked person is behaving in a lewd manner. "Lewd" is subjective. Nov 08 13 05:14 pm Link http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-1 … stigations The end of the article on page 1 - "But further analysis of Vanaman's computer revealed a very different story, Galler told the judge. Martens had signed releases and received on several occasions more than 50 photographs that contained child pornography of the three girls taken between 2010 and 2012, Galler said. Agents also found emails between Martens, Vanaman and a third man in which they discussed Vanaman's "craft" and "the sensuality and sexuality" of the images. Martens wrote about "using his daughters as a passport " and said they "opened doors" for him in the naturist community, Galler told the judge. The photographs did not depict any sexual activity and included no images of overt sexual abuse or adults sexually abusing children, prosecutors and agents said. Indeed, some of the photographs showed the children innocently baking cookies while naked, they said. But prosecutors and the judge said the photographs – which were not visible to the public in court – included much more disturbing images. Among the other disturbing images, the judge and prosecutor said, were photographs that showed the girls naked or with just a black lace shawl in unnaturally "sexually suggestive poses" for a child. By law, prosecutors said, child porn is defined as images that are designed to evoke a sexual response from its audience — it does not have to involve explicit sexual activity." Nov 08 13 05:35 pm Link Close up of a girl's genitalia and a friend of the father got the images in his computer too. If that's true they both diserve what they got. Btw "the photographer was stupid" The photographer wasn't stupid he was a fucking pedophile Stupid doesn't quite excuse it Nov 08 13 05:39 pm Link Digitoxin wrote: Okay after reading this link the story changes a little but I don't see any real evidence of the father being guilty of a crime. Nov 08 13 07:05 pm Link Stay Safe: Don't shoot kids with no clothes Seems VERY SIMPLE to me If someone shot my kids on a beach etc, they would be gambling with their health. If I thought there was any possibility that the person taking the shots has an 'agenda', then I would hit first and ask second. Nov 10 13 10:58 am Link Natalia_Taffarel wrote: +1000 Nov 10 13 11:06 am Link So what if you took a full length shot of a child with a Nikon D800 and then just zoomed in on the genitalia on your computer ? Is that illegal ? Should it be illegal ? Maybe all pictures of children should have to be shot on 3 mp cameras. Nov 10 13 11:16 am Link Neal Bloom wrote: lol. 3MP? jock sturges would be in a fit. Nov 10 13 11:44 am Link My thoughts? Martens hired Vanaman knowing full well what he was. Nov 10 13 12:51 pm Link |
