I wonder if perhaps the police officer, by keeping the 'problem' image, was in effect saying, "No problem this time, but if we receive future calls about similar images of yours, it can be used to establish a pattern of 'improper behavior'".
... 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.
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.
I can't sell you a hot dog without taking a course on food safety and undergoing health inspections. I have to have licenses and pay fees for all of this.
But, who trained the employees of that business in pornography detection?
How were these employees informed that they were responsible for detecting and reporting pornography? Did some government official send them a letter? Did they get a visit from the police? Did they just read about it in the newspaper? Who told them to interpret photographs in order to report them?
Who taught them the legal standards for judging photographs as pornography? Don't give me the, "I know it when I see it," argument. This is different. A man's liberty and property are at stake. It's not just a case of freedom of speech.
Which employees took a seminar in pornography detection? Are they lawyers? Are they criminal psychologists? Where are their degrees? Where are their certificates? Who paid the fees and secured the licenses? How can untrained, unlicensed and uneducated store employees be expected to know the law and act correctly? We're talking about the possibility of sending a man to jail, here!
I don't care if this happened in Adelaide or Albuquerque. If I owned a photo lab, I would instruct my employees to NOT report any photographs to the police unless it was absolutely, crystal clear that something illegal was taking place in the pictures.
I don't think the business owner was right, in any sense of the word, to do what he did.
I just got the film back from the shopfront - much happier now my pictures are mine again.
I don't have any issue with the police - they constables didn't know much about the laws and were sent to just do the paperwork. From what they said, because "a member of the public" had complained, and because it involved child nudity, it automatically got classified at the lowest level and had to be destroyed.
If a museum has a valuable original Wynn Bullock print of his nude daughter in a forest, are they going to confiscate it and destroy it if someone objects?
I've wondered if labs are actually passing artistic judgment on our pictures. Maybe if the OPs image had more of an aesthetic edge, the lab would have acted differently!?
I only send colour to the lab, but I've often wondered - if they are indeed probing everyone's negs for content - whether the most efficient means to do this is for them to make scans, and indeed keep them as potential 'evidence'. I send my film in for development only, but still wonder if they have a folder on some computer with my name on it. We need a snooper to shed some light on this - 'PentaPRISM'?
A long time ago I knew a guy who worked in a lab and one day he showed me his "collection" of nude women he'd collected from others people's film they brought in.
A long time ago I knew a guy who worked in a lab and one day he showed me his "collection" of nude women he'd collected from others people's film they brought in.
It was pretty impressive for it's day.
Now amateur porn is all over the internet.
I don't know what state Lowly is in though, and I don't see photo-lab operators in any of those lists except for Northern Territory (note that the lists are professionals who will be serious hot water for failing to report; anyone at all can make a report if they perceive an issue). It's possible that the lab operator had had training from some other context, or that they were just a damn busybody and called the wrong peoples.
From what they said, because "a member of the public" had complained, and because it involved child nudity, it automatically got classified at the lowest level and had to be destroyed. The picture destroyed can be debated by others, but my main issue is with the lab. Remember, this picture was not in a display in a public space, it was not digital where I had a chance to review it, it was not developed film that had been seen. It was only because of a complaint from a member of the public that there was an incident. 3 rolls of family snaps in that batch - 108 pictures (minus some that had some sort of light leak problem). This is where it solely comes down to the judgement of the lab
"abuse" , in relation to a child, means:(a) an assault, including a sexual assault, of the child; or
(b) a person (the first person ) involving the child in a sexual activity with the first person or another person in which the child is used, directly or indirectly, as a sexual object by the first person or the other person, and where there is unequal power in the relationship between the child and the first person; or
(c) causing the child to suffer serious psychological harm, including (but not limited to) when that harm is caused by the child being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence; or
(d) serious neglect of the child.
Surprisingly all the movies I've seen, I have never seen that one. Something about Robin Williams being a predatorblansky:
his name wasn't robin williams was it
At the Kodak lab where my father worked in management for 30+ years, it was inevitably the women who worked on the semi-automatic slide mounting machines who would notice and set aside any slides containing nudity.
As it was illegal to distribute pornography, the lab staff were concerned about Kodak becoming liable for such distribution by returning the film.
I work at a university art dept and I saw a gal retouching a nude self-portrait. It's a different world now.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?