Madder and madder - the Marcus Phillips case

[nemo999]

There have been some lunatic legal decisions relating to child "pornography" lately, but this one
http://www.mirror.co.uk/most-popula...-court-on-child-porn-charges-115875-20686977/
surely takes first prize for stupidity.
While, the judge's words, "always acting perfectly properly" and having "no base motive, sexual motive or wish to gain sexual gratification", a photographer takes pictures of 2 girls, aged 10 and 12, in the presence of and at the request of their parents. These pictures apparently include pre-pubescent nipples - the pictures are intended for use as raw material in digital composites, in the final versions of which the nipples may well not have appeared. Nonetheless, the said picture outrages a photo lab employee to the point where the police are called, a prosecution (with only the photo lab person as plaintiff) is mounted, and a sentence of 150 hours' community service results. A barrister is quoted in the British Journal of Photography as saying that "under the Protection of Children Act 1978 it is an offence to take an indecent photograph of a child. The circumstances in which the photographs were taken and the intentions of the photographer are irrelevant, because the test of indecency is objective and a matter for the jury to decide."

I am unable to understand the last part of the last sentence - there seems to be an automatic association (man takes pictures of children's nipples - filthy pervert), to call this objective is a joke and if there is such an automatic association, then there is absolutely no latitude for a jury to exercise judgement.

I sincerely hope that the photographer has the courage to appeal this decision, which I think is one of the shakiest and most risible I have ever heard. If it stands as a precedent, then every parent who photographs his/her own children with a naked torso must surely also have to fear prosecution. What a shambles!

 

[Slixtiesix]

Strange. I really don´t get it. Although I don´t know any of Mr. Phillips work, this story quite remembers me of famous words Oscar Wilde once said:
"Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault. Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope."
By the way it sickens me that in our days, by most people nudity is associated by hundred percent with a sexual intention. Just my 2 cents...

Benjamin

 

[nemo999]

For info:
An example of Phillips' work:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgu...s&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=1
His personal website has been shut down (I guess by Phillips himself).

 

[Ian Grant]

The implications of this case are that anyone photographing a topless young girl is now potentially open to prosecution, however innocent and harmless the images and reasons behind them.

Ian

 

[Vonder]

Ya know, I haven't seen the guy's "work" (except as noted above) but nobody has any right to take half-nudes of pre-pubescent girls. I mean, 10 and 12???. That's just not kosher. That's one where you step back, look down at your camera and go, "What am I doing???"

Jes' my two cents worth.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Ok now that I´ve seen it I think it´s somehow inartistic, but I can´t see nipples anywhere.
Maybe there´s too less information to judge things from an objective point of view...

 

[tim_walls]

Ya know, I haven't seen the guy's "work" (except as noted above) but nobody has any right to take half-nudes of pre-pubescent girls. I mean, 10 and 12???. That's just not kosher. That's one where you step back, look down at your camera and go, "What am I doing???"

Jes' my two cents worth.

I'm sorry, but if you are capable of sexualising 10 or 12 year old girls, then I think it's you who needs to look at yourself and say "what the hell am I thinking".

 

[Bob F.]

This has always been the case in law, nothing new.

The offence is "making an indecent image" and it is up to a jury to decide if the image is indecent. If they so decide, then the maker of the image is guilty as charged, by definition. In this case the idiot pleaded guilty, so no jury.

It is then up to the judge to decide sentencing and then intent can be taken into account, which is why the photog only got a slapped wrist instead of the long prison sentence and being put on the sex-offenders register that a paedophile would have received for the same shot.

The people who need a slap here are the guy's lawyers for not telling him to take it to a jury and the CPS for yet more stupidity and incompetence:

"The Crown Prosecution Service said: "The police passed us a file, we looked at it and decided there was sufficient evidence ... and it was in the public interest."

By what possible definition was this prosecution "in the public interest"? Pathetic.

Bob.

 

[tim_walls]

By what possible definition was this prosecution "in the public interest"? Pathetic.

Playing devil's advocate somewhat, an argument for the CPS could be "we have this bloody debate in the papers every time someone comes up with a work of art of this kind, it would be in the public interest for a jury to actually decide on a case one way or t'other so we can all move on."

 

[Bob F.]

This has been done before though, it's not new. I recall reading a few years back where a married couple were found guilty in much the same circumstances having taken shots of their daughter (IIRC about 7 or 8) in the bath etc to Boots where someone called the law. I'm sure there must be others I've not heard about too as I've not read the newspapers for years now.

The fact that the CPS have shied away from taking on established artists but prosecute someone no one has ever heard of just shows them as bullies and incompetents, more interested in their conviction rate than Justice.

Anyway, it does not concern me directly as I never take portraits of anyone, let alone children. Trees, rocks and water are usually well over 18 years old and tend to have a calming, rather than an excitable influence, on people... In the case of my shots, I've seen people so relaxed, they fell asleep while looking through a portfolio of them...

Cheers, Bob.

 

[Kvistgaard]

Ya know, I haven't seen the guy's "work" (except as noted above) but nobody has any right to take half-nudes of pre-pubescent girls. I mean, 10 and 12???. That's just not kosher. That's one where you step back, look down at your camera and go, "What am I doing???"

Jes' my two cents worth.

Wolfeye, the photographer was commissioned by the girls' parents to take these pictures (while the parents were present): http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=809629

 

[Frank Szabo]

Rather draconian measures to punish good intentions.

Wouldn't it be grand if every professional photographer simply said "Sorry - I don't take photos of children anymore. Too much danger of prosecution."?

 

[Ole]

And the conclusion?

































Do your own processing.

 

[Ian Grant]

And the conclusion?

at this point Ole fell asleep leaning on the keyboard . . .


. . . to save space I've cut the lines prior to his waking again . .

Do your own processing.

And when the girl next door who works in Bonus print sees your images, you'll end up in court

The photographer is described as naive, he must also be an idiot, as it's all digital manipulation why use film, or get prints in the firstb place ?

Ian

 

[thebanana]

1. IMHO anyone who takes pictures of children dressed as or digitally altered to look like fairies, angels, sunflowers or pumpkins should be thrown in jail for life
2. Why in the world did he plead guilty??

 

[sun of sand]

I like the reply given by Tim Walls

I only add this
In that Tichy thread people were quick to point out how perverted he must be/is/they believe him to be
Yet
to many
Taking photographs of obviously nude little children is nothing short of art

that's really strange

 

[Ian Grant]

Probably some kind of deal, plead guilty 10hrs cleaning streets, no placement on the Sex offenders record.

Or take your chances with a Jury, 70% chance they'd find him not guilty, but technically he's sort of broken or is on the borderline of breaking an untested law. Found guilty he'd be put on the Sex Offenders register, he works in education that would mean he'd lose his job, and have nochance of teaching again. It's no brainer.

For work reasons I need a clear CRB check so personally I'll steer well clear of anything involving under 18's and little clothing

In the UK you need a CRB check to work with under 18's - unsupervised. The irony is fellow students can be on the sex offenders register.

Ian

 

[BrianShaw]

What about pre-pubscent boy nipples... are they equally protected under the law?

 

[Ian Grant]

This is why they say "The law is an ass".

What happens if I photograph my sisters twin daughters with no clothes ? (Rather hypothetical now they are nearly 23 so it would be 100% legal).

But I did, my mum did, my sister did, my brother in law did, their other grand parents did. We continued over the years, maybe playing on a beach, or in the garden who remembers. They were late developers, so not borderline pubescent at 10 or 12 or even 15, in comparison my next door neighbours daughter was well developed before she was 10. My point being how do you draw a dividing line.

It's easy we stay away from this area, make no images. That's easy when you have no legitimate reason, kids have grown up etc. But what about the millions of families with yougng kids, should they be terrified of talking an image of their daughter, or commissioning someone else to make innocent images.

This court case raises another issue, the parents commissioned the photographer so weren't they actually more culpable, it's also an offence in the UK (and I'd guess elsewhere) to pay/procure someone else to commit a crime/offence.

Ian

 

[Bob F.]

Plea-bargaining does not exist in Britain. There is some talk about introducing it for fraud trials (given the recent flood of flawed fraud prosecutions by "guess who?") but not for other offences. OTOH, judges do not like you wasting the court's time...

Good point about the parents: surely that is criminal conspiracy?

Cheers, Bob.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

Sally Mann, anyone? I think it's ridiculous. The parents signed a release. The children weren't diddled. Everyone has nipples. Greek and Roman art, the Vatican Museum.. People make a big deal out of things when really they should be thinking about real child abuse, homelessness, hunger, famine, pestilence, whatever.

Next time I go out and take pictures, i'll be sure everyone is wearing a turtleneck and i'm not including any federal buildings, bridges, railroad tracks, FEMA deathcamps (blue list or red list. hmm).. Oh and no nipples of any age.
I'd go on but you'll all think i'm a f****** raving lunatic if you don't already.

 

[Ian Grant]

Plea-bargaining does not exist in Britain.

Not officially but it happens. I've seen it first hand.

Ian

 

[JBrunner]

Just checking in... somebody said there was nipples in this thread...

 

[removed account4]

What about pre-pubscent boy nipples... are they equally protected under the law?

about 12 years ago a woman and her husband were arrested in boston
when a lab person called the police on them. they ( wife is a photographer )
had photographed their son at the beach.

she ( from what i remember ) is now a lawyer, and the lab is now out of business ...

 

[Ian Grant]

when I've rounded up those 3 loose cats boss, Ill bring you the clamps

An unfortunate fact of life is that an extraordinarily small number of people have perverse deviant minds, and take an undue interest in young people, male & female and go on to commit quite abhorrent crimes..

And we all get tarred by the same brush, perhaps in Jason's case not inadvertently I can't understand why Youtubes now banned in Turkey but obviously it was either the content of his videos or his rant about fundamentalism

Ian