Upset at the actions of the photolab

[removed account4]

Too many iron-fisted activists are created by too much watching of Law and Order SUV and other TV shows. They're just TV shows.

maybe ..

and maybe people don't know the difference between a tv shows and "reality"
but i seem to remember a handful of stories over the last few years about
women escaping from homes where they lived as CHILD-abductees.
(california a handful of years ago, belgium a few years ago, and most recently in ohio )

while it may be just someone's imagination on television or in the movies,
unfortunately it is a reality for some.

i'd rather live in a society where people look out for one another than a society where someone's child is kidnapped
and years later they are banging on a screen door to get help to escape and the person neighbor looking / taking notice just
turns their back to them shrugs their shoulders and walks away ..

 

[BrianShaw]

while it may be just someone's imagination on television or in the movies,
unfortunately it is a reality for some.

Those stories are based on one-or-more realities way more often than many would think.

 

[Tom1956]

This is taking a turn toward political ideologies, and that's a recipe for having my membership cancelled. So, with that, I'm going to hide the thread, and pick you fine people up on another one about techniques and equipment. Regards.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Those stories are based on one-or-more realities way more often than many would think.

Of course, would one expect original ideas to come from movie and television screen writers? Jus' sayin'

 

[BrianShaw]

I don't understand what you are "jus' sayin'", Steve? Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am agreeing with you.

 

[mesantacruz]

OP said kid was running around, not looking like he was forced to do something... must have been a newbie at the photolab, who already thinks people who shoot film are strange, so when he sees the naked kid he freaks....

If the op, took a whole roll of the naked kid, somethings weird, if the op took a photo, where the kid looked like he was in distress, again weird... family photos, and naked kid running around, funny.

to be blatant, as i get older more friends are having kids, and many of them are from el paso, tx (90-100 degree weather in the summer)... so amongst photos of food being grilled, family,etc... there's a naked kid here and there... no one thinks it's weird, because it's in CONTEXT.

so op was singled out for a reason he is unaware of or omitted... or the photolab people at that specific place are 'sheep' to put it nicely.

 

[clayne]

Ironically, would they have even noticed if this was shot on anything other than transparency film?

 

[mesantacruz]

^ haha...

 

[labyrinth photo]

Fundamentally this is an issue of discretion and not over reacting. I'm not aware of any legal obligation to report naked pictures of children but would definitely feel a moral obligation to report anything i was unhappy with.
However i would speak to the client and explain my position. If the boot was on the other foot i'd probably be peeved that the situation was occurring and that suspicion was aimed at me but wouldn't take it personally. We should be glad that people have their eyes open, all be it misplaced: any criminal taking photos of an act they had committed especially on film must be as rare as it stupid. I can't see how destroying the original makes any difference, all in all it's a silly situation that should have been dealt with in a much better fashion.
The very worst instance would be to let it go and then realise that you had missed a chance to stop some form of abuse.

 

[mesantacruz]

this begs the question... what the hell was the photo, for someone to take such a position?

 

[MattKing]

In my neck of the woods, there is a legal obligation to report anything that brings rise to a concern that a child may be at risk.

The obligation supersedes any claim of privilege (doctor/patient, priest/penitent, lawyer/client).

By law, if I am concerned about the possibility of a child being at risk, I am required to report. I am not given the discretion to decide against reporting.

However, there is a matching legal requirement that the child protection authorities handle such reports very carefully. While they have significant powers when it comes to protecting children, their powers when it comes to making allegations against others or seizing property are constrained by criminal law and the stringent rules against government seizure of private property.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Some folks are immorally moral

Too many iron-fisted activists are created by too much watching of Law and Order SUV and other TV shows. They're just TV shows.

I hate the "zero tolerance", black and white view of morality. We're spending $billions to fight the Taliban and now they work in our photo labs.

 

[railwayman3]

I took myself off last summer (on my own) specifically to get some architectural shots of a local stately home (in a public park). While waiting for the sun to come through clouds for the effect I wanted, I suddenly found myself being watched, I felt uncomfortably, by a group of Mums picnicking with their kids. They were some distance away, and were nowhere near my intended photo, being 180 degrees behind me.
I felt quite sick that we're in a society where irrational fears have been instilled so that Mums and kids can't enjoy an innocent picnic without watching every stranger, and we can't enjoy our hobby without watching our backs all the time.
And would it have attracted any similar attention if I had been a woman photographer on her own? IDK?

 

[clayne]

In my neck of the woods, there is a legal obligation to report anything that brings rise to a concern that a child may be at risk.

The obligation supersedes any claim of privilege (doctor/patient, priest/penitent, lawyer/client).

By law, if I am concerned about the possibility of a child being at risk, I am required to report. I am not given the discretion to decide against reporting.

However, there is a matching legal requirement that the child protection authorities handle such reports very carefully. While they have significant powers when it comes to protecting children, their powers when it comes to making allegations against others or seizing property are constrained by criminal law and the stringent rules against government seizure of private property.

Here's some food for though: if a child is crying in a photograph, shouldn't it be reported because there is a possibility of risk? What makes a nude body on an otherwise happy child (not being obviously placed into any harm) any more prone to risk than a kid bawling his eyes out? The latter could be post-abuse and no one would know.

The key issue here isn't potential of abuse - it's nudity and children no matter what the context. That's dumb.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Zero tolerance laws/regulations trivialize the very actions they seek to remedy. Consider the boy suspended from school for bringing a GI Joe figurine to a school with a zero tolerance regulation against guns.

 

[Worker 11811]

... but it is no more right or wrong than if one were to call the police to report screams coming from the home next door.

The difference is that there is the real possibility that somebody is in imminent danger of death or bodily injury. In photographs, there is no imminent danger. Even if the person in the picture who appears to be in danger actually faces such peril, the danger has already passed. The picture has already been taken.

Randy, we must live in the world as it is, not as we might like it to be ...

I must vigorously disagree. To do so reduces all of us to mindless sheep. We are reasoning beings with the power to change what we do not like.

A quote from Voltaire: "No snowflake ever took responsibility for an avalanche."

In my neck of the woods, there is a legal obligation to report anything that brings rise to a concern that a child may be at risk.

I am not being contrarian, here, but I would honestly like to read the statute. I would like to know who informed the business owner of this statue and their obligation to obey it. I would like to know how employees are trained to interpret that statute and what their obligations are when they determine that there is something illegal going on.

I took myself off last summer (on my own) specifically to get some architectural shots of a local stately home (in a public park). While waiting for the sun to come through clouds for the effect I wanted, I suddenly found myself being watched, I felt uncomfortably, by a group of Mums picnicking with their kids. They were some distance away, and were nowhere near my intended photo, being 180 degrees behind me.

That's their problem, not yours. Continue as you were.
I have had people call the cops on me for no reason. I just kept walking. I smiled and waved at the cop and said, "Hi," with my camera in my hand.
I have been confronted three times. I just said, "I'm sorry. I didn't know I was on private property." (In every case, both my feet were on the public sidewalk. Not even stepping on a blade of grass.) One guy, I liked and I stopped to talk with him. We shot the $hit for ten minutes. The other two, I just said, "Have a nice day," and kept walking.

I am not obligated to respond to other people's ignorance.
I always try to conduct myself with good manners in public, especially when using a camera but I flat-out refuse to be a snowflake in the proverbial avalanche.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

What is illegal is not necessarily immoral. What is legal is not aways moral either. The world exists in shades if gray. The art of life is nuanced interpretation of morality. Don't be so quick to judge and call the cops when seeing pics of naked folk.

 

[blansky]

Almost everything in life is context.

And some people aren't capable of discerning it.

We are surrounded by stupidity, and must always adapt to the most unevolved the group.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The problem with the current crusade against child pornography is that it misses the greater problem. We hear that the children involved in porn are being abused and exploited. BUT nothing is said about the hundreds of thousands of children all around the world that are abused and exploited every day, forced to work at adult jobs in dangerous situations. They suffer sickness, maiming and even death but we hear little about them. [SARCASM]Of course they are learning a job skill which we all know is morally proper. And as a bonus they are producing things such as cheap clothes.[/SARCASM] What about the sanctity of childhood for all children not just a subset of them?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

What is illegal is not necessarily immoral. What is legal is not aways moral either. The world exists in shades if gray. The art of life is nuanced interpretation of morality. Don't be so quick to judge and call the cops when seeing pics of naked folk.

There is the maxim that "The law is separate from morality." Something that first year law students learn.

 

[jumbosilverette]

OP said kid was running around, not looking like he was forced to do something... must have been a newbie at the photolab, who already thinks people who shoot film are strange, so when he sees the naked kid he freaks....

If the op, took a whole roll of the naked kid, somethings weird, if the op took a photo, where the kid looked like he was in distress, again weird... family photos, and naked kid running around, funny.

to be blatant, as i get older more friends are having kids, and many of them are from el paso, tx (90-100 degree weather in the summer)... so amongst photos of food being grilled, family,etc... there's a naked kid here and there... no one thinks it's weird, because it's in CONTEXT.

so op was singled out for a reason he is unaware of or omitted... or the photolab people at that specific place are 'sheep' to put it nicely.

Put well. I agree.

 

[Worker 11811]

I did some research. Most U.S. states/jurisdictions have laws which require the reporting of images of children under the age of eighteen who appear to a reasonable person to be engaged in an act of sexual conduct.

In every case, the phrase "reasonable person," "reasonable suspicion" or "reasonable belief" is used.

In every case except one the phrase "engaged in an act of sexual conduct" or "sex act" is used. In the one case that didn't say "sexual act/conduct" the phrase "child pornography" is used.

In most places "pornography" is usually defined as images created primarily out of "prurient interest." That, we can say means "sexual act" or "sexual display."

I don't think any reasonable person could infer that a kid who "shoots the moon" at a camera is engaged in a sexual display, a sex act or is acting out of prurient interest, especially when taken in context of all the other photos in the roll of film. Further, since the OP has been a regular customer of that lab for several years and has never had a questionable incident, I can't imagine how one photo could be construed as being out of context.

I think that the photo lab was not justified in reporting the photo.

Since others have said that this lab has let other photographs which were much more graphic than this pass unscrutinized, I would say that this shows that they are guilty of arbitrary behavior.

As I said before, if I was a shopkeeper who accused a person of shoplifting and called the police without good reason, I would be civilly liable. I can't say that the photo lab in this case is similarly liable but I would certainly be looking for legal advice, right now.

 

[BrianShaw]

Thanks for doing that leg-work, Randy... I was curious too.

 

[polyglot]

Zero tolerance laws/regulations trivialize the very actions they seek to remedy. Consider the boy suspended from school for bringing a GI Joe figurine to a school with a zero tolerance regulation against guns.

GI Joe!? That's going a bit far when you can be suspended for brandishing triangular pastry.

Anyway, it's worth noting that the OP is in Australia and we have very strict laws here (whether you're aware of them or not in your local jurisdiction or whether you believe they're necessary is irrelevant) that require people to report the suspicion or appearance of abuse. I haven't seen the image, can't say whether the lab overreacted but even if they totally did, the problem here is the police officer's reaction. Having decided that no crime had been committed and told you as much, the failure to return the image is an improper confiscation of goods. The police aren't allowed to just take shit off you because someone else had a moral panic, and you know that.

On behalf of all of us who use labs occasionally, I implore you to send a formal letter of complaint to the police headquarters in your state (it's a pretty easy process). Lay out, in completely unemotional language, that you had your private property confiscated and destroyed without due process and in the absence of any crime. The actions of the lab are irrelevant* here, so don't complain about them because it'll just make you look bad. As part of the complaint, I think you need to specify what your desired outcome is: I would request (if I were you) that formal procedures be put in place if they are not already and their following enforced regarding the treatment of people in your situation. You shouldn't have had to have heard from the police at all and you certainly shouldn't have lost your property. Likewise I would not push for disciplinary action against the officer as they were probably acting from ignorance and asking for punishment will just put the police examining your complaint on the defensive. You want to push against the process and the system, not the individuals unless the individual did something clearly criminal.

There have been quite a few cases (and therefore complaints) recently with police improperly bothering people photographing in public; in Australia, we have the explicit right to do so unless invading someone's privacy. As a result, there have been awareness campaigns within the police forces regarding the rights of photographers. Pushing back firmly and politely against the police failing to follow the law is what is required. Otherwise, we end up with rule by police instead of rule by law, which is pretty much where a few other western nations are headed. Thankfully, Australia is doing much better than others on that front, but please do your bit in pushing back, even if you take a week or two to gather yourself emotionally first.


* it doesn't matter if the lab is full of prying nannies. The police should have just said "it's fine, give it back". You can't train all lab operators with a fine sense of subtlety and context so their job is only to report, NOT decide your guilt. It's the police's job to ignore their reports when appropriate.