David Alan Harvey kicked out of Magnum

$12.66

A
$12.66

  • 6
  • 3
  • 122
A street portrait

A
A street portrait

  • 1
  • 0
  • 151
A street portrait

A
A street portrait

  • 2
  • 2
  • 143
img746.jpg

img746.jpg

  • 6
  • 0
  • 111
No Hall

No Hall

  • 1
  • 8
  • 167

Forum statistics

Threads
198,804
Messages
2,781,084
Members
99,708
Latest member
sdharris
Recent bookmarks
1

awty

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Messages
3,643
Location
Australia
Format
Multi Format
Well many consider the works of Helmut Newton and Bunny Yeager to be "sexually explicit". SO when a person poses nude CHILDREN in identical poses.... one can only declare them as sexually explicit.
Thats people who have weird hang ups and prejudices. If you look at them in a different light you would see something very natural and quite beautiful. I don't find them at all sexual. People are taught that they have to wear clothes for some bizarre reason. The young children who live next door often play outside in the nude as did my children when they were younger. Clothes are uncomfortable except for terry toweling shorts.
 

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,038
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
Do not forget Sturges or Mann, they have spent DECADES being celebrated for taking HEAVILY sexually explicit photographs of underage children. Have made fortunes selling art prints of those images, have had numerous photo gallery showings of those images, sold countless photo books. Yet how many times have you denounced them on here?
A quick trip to Oxford or Merriam-Webster will clear up the definition of “sexually explicit” for you.
 

Wayne

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
3,584
Location
USA
Format
Large Format
naked is not sexually explicit

Do not forget Sturges or Mann, they have spent DECADES being celebrated for taking HEAVILY sexually explicit photographs of underage children. Have made fortunes selling art prints of those images, have had numerous photo gallery showings of those images, sold countless photo books. Yet how many times have you denounced them on here?
 

Cholentpot

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
6,743
Format
35mm
The liberal elite have been going after John Wayne for decades.

He was killing more natives (of all races) than they were. That just couldn't be tolerated you know. And he was a Mongol. So many crimes for just one man.
 

tballphoto

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
264
Location
usa
Format
35mm
l
A quick trip to Oxford or Merriam-Webster will clear up the definition of “sexually explicit” for you.

lets try an expiriment. you save one of the most visually detailed photographs by either of them, and try to print it at walmart photo lab,,, see how many police come talk with you.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,364
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
The liberal elite have been going after John Wayne for decades.

One does not need to be either liberal nor elite to go after John Wayne who was not an actor, he just played himself, nor was he ethical, he named names.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,906
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
l


lets try an expiriment. you save one of the most visually detailed photographs by either of them, and try to print it at walmart photo lab,,, see how many police come talk with you.
The copyright people have their own police force?
 

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,038
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
l
lets try an expiriment. you save one of the most visually detailed photographs by either of them, and try to print it at walmart photo lab,,, see how many police come talk with you.

Did you look up sexually explicit yet? And what police are you referring to, the art police? Police of the prudes? I'm at a loss as to why you think any pictures Sally Mann took would be illegal. Sexually explicit images of children - look it up please - are illegal for a reason, but the images she made of her kids are art.
 
Last edited:

Saganich

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
1,272
Location
Brooklyn
Format
35mm RF
Photo of a dejected Sweedish person after one of his workshops in Williamsburg. Taken on the stairs at 475 Kent avenue. Was a good party.
 

Attachments

  • 2011-34-15.jpg
    2011-34-15.jpg
    190.4 KB · Views: 86

Richard Man

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
1,301
Format
Multi Format
He's just trolling. When they don't have an argument, they talk about "what about...." to divert attention that DAH was not nailed for "explicit photos of children", nor John Wayne was nailed for generic "liberal elites hate him" but trolls will be trolls.
 

Wayne

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
3,584
Location
USA
Format
Large Format
Did you look up sexually explicit yet? And what police are you referring to, the art police? Police of the prudes? I'm at a loss as to why you think any pictures Sally Mann took would be illegal. Sexually explicit images of children - look it up please - are illegal for a reason, but the images she made of her kids are art.

They aren't illegal and they aren't sexually explicit. Hard Stop. Art is a whole other thread. :D
 

Arthurwg

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
2,675
Location
Taos NM
Format
Medium Format
While I kinda identify with the previously mentioned male sea lion. I may be ageing out of this discussion......
 

Cholentpot

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
6,743
Format
35mm
One does not need to be either liberal nor elite to go after John Wayne who was not an actor, he just played himself, nor was he ethical, he named names.

The Duke didn't need to act, everyone just danced to his tune.
 

tballphoto

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
264
Location
usa
Format
35mm
Did you look up sexually explicit yet? And what police are you referring to, the art police? Police of the prudes? I'm at a loss as to why you think any pictures Sally Mann took would be illegal. Sexually explicit images of children - look it up please - are illegal for a reason, but the images she made of her kids are art.
if yo9u dont grasp the concept, i DARE you to try to print one of her photos at the local printing place. You WILL be talking to police about it.
 

beemermark

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
869
Format
4x5 Format
Do not have an opinion that differs from what is allowed. And if you do keep your mouth shut.
 

awty

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Messages
3,643
Location
Australia
Format
Multi Format
if yo9u dont grasp the concept, i DARE you to try to print one of her photos at the local printing place. You WILL be talking to police about it.
Possibly, probably not something you should do, people will call the police if you take a photo near a play ground. Fortunately the law protects legitimate reasons in Australia, dont know about the USA.

Legitimate purpose

It is a defence to offences relating to producing child exploitation material, if the accused proves that
  1. They engaged in the conduct for a genuine artistic, legal, scientific, educational, medical or public benefit purpose; and
  2. The conduct was reasonable in the circumstances for that purpose.
 

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,038
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
if yo9u dont grasp the concept, i DARE you to try to print one of her photos at the local printing place. You WILL be talking to police about it.
If you want to pretend that Sally Mann’s images are illegal you can do that. Pretending can be fun.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom