Thanks Stephen, for summing up my exact feelings.
If my Jobo E6 processing doesn't work out you may get some new business
As a photo lab owner in Australia and someone who has been a printer in various other labs over 15 years I believe to the core the way this photo lab acted is a disgrace that shows a shocking lack of judgement. If I as a client were subjected to such an event I would be on the phone to legal representation and suing both the individual and the lab for defamation of character. If you flip though many photo albums your guaranteed to find nudie shots parents have innocently made of their children without a single thought of any sexual aspects. They are simply moments of life documentation. Should my parents have been notified to the police when the lab person printed this image of me?
View attachment 70692
I feel embarrassed a lab in Australia behaved the way it did.
Thanks Stephen, for summing up my exact feelings.
If my Jobo E6 processing doesn't work out you may get some new business
Yes, but read that law and I think you'll agree that a simple bare bum in a photo does not constitute child abuse.
In this case, according to the description of the photo which we were given and interpreting the summary of the law which we were shown, I think it's pretty clear that the photo lab AND the police applied that law incorrectly.
Incorrect, negligent and/or discriminatory application of a law against one person for arbitrary reasons is a redressable offense.
Yes, this is Australian law but I'll say it again. It doesn't matter if you're in Adelaide or Albuquerque. You can't just make up laws and you can't decide when to apply them. You have to go by what is written.
According to what I read, the laws in question were interpreted incorrectly, applied incorrectly and, in my opinion, they were applied NEGLIGENTLY.
... And, for the record, I think the lab's judgement was very questionable and the police decision to destroy the slide was actionable. If it was not evidence of a crime, then it should have been returned. If it was evidence of a crime, then it should have been logged as evidence. There's no allowance in the law for items to be destroyed without due process. And this wasn't. My two cents.
However, you're forgetting that the law places an obligation on the lab to report certain things.
moose10101: I agree with the letter and the spirit of the law. I don't agree that it was correctly applied. OP said that the image would have to be greatly enlarged to see naughty parts. I don't believe simple nudity breaks the threshold of sexual display, prurient interest or of sexual abuse of a minor. If that was the case, I think there would be a whole lot of photographers who make "Babe-in-Arms" portraits populating Australian and American jails.
It is the lab's responsibility to obey the law but it is also their responsibility to obey it correctly. Just as I can not accuse you of shoplifting from my store unless I have proof, I can not accuse you of making illegal, abusive pictures of minors without proof. I don't think the standard of proof was met.
The problem is that the picture was destroyed so we have no evidence. I have a sneaking suspicion that the cop may have done that in order to cover his ass. Without that picture, it will be very hard to prove a violation of civil right unless you can find a lawyer who can effectively question the police officer and who can investigate the activities of the lab. Difficult if not expensive!
Stephen Frizza: Question for you... As a lab owner, if you got a photo, similar to the one described in this case, which showed partially nude children, which was not a clear depiction of abuse but was outside your comfort level, what do you think about telling the customer that you won't accept any more business from that customer if he submits another film for processing which contains "gray area" images?
I'm not saying that I would do that or that lab operators should do that but wondering.
If I was the proprietor of a store and I noticed that merchandise kept turning up missing every time a certain person came into the shop, I would tell him that he's no longer welcome. It's a privately owned business on private property. I can do that if I have reasonable grounds.
Does the analogy hold water? Both examples are suspect law breakers. I, as business owner, have the right to ban the suspect shoplifter. I think I would have a similar right in the case of a suspect photographer.
Again, I am not sure I would do that. I wonder if it would be a reasonable middle ground in a case like this.
What do you think?
The innocent images a parent captures of their child in moments of youthful innocence without any sinister intent is a beautiful thing
It is the lab's responsibility to obey the law but it is also their responsibility to obey it correctly. Just as I can not accuse you of shoplifting from my store unless I have proof, I can not accuse you of making illegal, abusive pictures of minors without proof. I don't think the standard of proof was met.
... In 15 years there is only one thing as a rule i don't and wont print and that is photographs of babies being born.
Having watched a vagina giving birth twice...
Having watched a vagina giving birth twice, I understand why he wouldn't print it. It has little to do with any sexual implications of said organ.
Wait, why wouldn't you print that? This intrigues and confuses me.
So you'll print for example, a picture of someone's butthole, penis, vagina, but not vagina giving birth?
What about a penis or phalanges inserted into an orifice?
Just covering my bases I'm not saying this would be normal but for example the adult industry photographs such things and they have to send the images for processing somewhere, (or used to when they shot film) so why is giving birth objectionable.
~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
I find birth gross, Ive printed many forensic images so have pretty much seen it all but when it comes to women popping out a baby I don't want to spend my time printing this when i could be printing some thing else. Its just not something i want to see. second to women giving birth is cat ladies who love to shoot their cats.
I find birth gross, Ive printed many forensic images so have pretty much seen it all but when it comes to women popping out a baby I don't want to spend my time printing this when i could be printing some thing else. Its just not something i want to see. second to women giving birth is cat ladies who love to shoot their cats.
I've been to a few hundred crime scenes and given birth (just once). I'd choose to look at crime scene photos, too.
Its just not something i want to see. second to women giving birth is cat ladies who love to shoot their cats.
To each his or her own.....I've been to a thousand births, and love birth photos. I've got albums full of them. Crime scenes? Horrors!!
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
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?