Upset at the actions of the photolab

[Prof_Pixel]

... 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.

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'".

 

[AgX]

No need for keeping it though. Aside of acting very symbolic.

 

[removed account4]

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.

thanks for being the voice of reason !

 

[polyglot]

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?

We have mandatory-reporting training in Australia and many professions must attend it and be appropriately certified, just like with food safety. I'd not be surprised if lab operators were included. It's not porn-detection, but fine-tuning one's suspicion of abuse in all forms. You may not see the need for it, but it is there.

For example, I used to be an adjudicator for schools debating and as such was regularly in the same room with schoolkids so I had to do the training. Doctors, psychologists, anyone with assumed regular contact with children or authority-figure status as part of their profession, must do the training and be up-to-date.

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?

The mandatory-reporting training is generally an item in their contract of employment. And it's not "detecting pornography", it's "detecting mistreatment".

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.

No, it's pretty well-defined. The issue is not the image, the issue is what the image documents as occurring. Obviously people report things all the time that amount to nothing, and it is expected that those accepting the reports will filter accordingly. Most people making reports have only very partial information and it is expected that multiple reports will be gathered before any action occurs. Having the police confiscate the photo and the customer even notified of the report is highly unusual.

Yes, it's very big-brother, which is a whole other political argument not to have here.

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!

Not on the basis of a report, no. Reports are not charges, let alone convictions.

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.

You do that in Australia and you are opening yourself to criminal charges: "mandatory reporting" is exactly what it says on the tin. Again, the report is not a conviction, the report is merely information which in this case probably should've been ignored but was probably handled by the wrong police officers.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

polyglot,

Your message #80 pretty well explains things - and I hope it 'ties the ribbon' on this thread.

 

[polyglot]

Thanks. Some more info on the legislation here: Mandatory Reporting.

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.

Anyway, none of that excuses police destruction of private and personal property (with significant emotional meaning, not to mention emotional impact on the new victim!) without a crime being previously committed.

 

[Lowly]

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 - the 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. 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.

People can say it's not the fault of the lab, and those people can continue to support them if they want to. But when the innocent act of recording your family growing up is interfered with, when every time you press the shutter you have in the back of your head "is some person in a photolab going to call the police on a whim?" - well that is not a thought I want in my head when taking pictures of spontaneous moments. I'll never ever have any film processor develop my film again.

 

[polyglot]

Completely agree with how you feel about the lab, and I wouldn't hold back on letting them know that. The "had to be destroyed" line is bullshit though, that's just made-up on the spot. Random members of the public cannot cause your property to be destroyed.

If you need any help with getting your own process going, we will of course help. Are you in South Australia by any chance?

 

[lxdude]

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.

That's crazy. 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? And what is this "member of the public" business? Since when do random people get to pass judgment on your stuff and the police will enforce it? Don't you have even a minimum of due process there? I find it hard to believe that you don't have a right to have a magistrate review this case before anything is destroyed. If the cops can summarily destroy your property based on a complaint from a member of the public, then you have no property rights. Sounds like bureaucratic BS from some cops that are making it up as they go along.

Your wife was right to want to fight it, on principle alone. Stop being so meek and gullible. Stop siding with the cops. They were jerks to you and violated your property rights.

 

[Lowly]

Polyglot - pm'd.

I'll leave the fight for the films destruction to other people (there have already been cases involving artists and photographs of children in Australia which were won by the artists). It was just a happy snap - I can easily take another picture of my child's bottom

 

[lxdude]

And what will you do when they call the cops on that one?

 

[Lowly]

Because a lab operator will never see it, there will never be any cops involved.

 

[cliveh]

I am not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread, but why would anyone that way inclined use film in preference to digital, where no lab is required.

 

[batwister]

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'?

 

[StoneNYC]

I understand your upset nature, I know when I was younger my mother remarking on the new laws about submitting film of kids in bathtubs (as mothers often do) and how she was glad she hadn't had any issues and that the law changed when I was older and she wasn't taking those any more (I was probably 11-12 then). So since then (I'm 30 now) I've been aware of the concerns in America at least. Many labs here have a policy that any nudes are printed, but the negatives are destroyed as a policy of the company, which I think is fairly f-ed up, I can see destroying the print and returning the negative with a warning. But not destroying the negs so you're lucky, all your film could have been destroyed if you were in America lol.

So since I do a lot of nude work, I process it all at home as a policy, I process my B&W anyway but the color nudes always get done at home.

I'm surprised you didn't think of that but again Australia may be different but I know for one I wouldn't have taken the chance that some idiot would report or destroy my work.

Sorry and good luck for the future, glad you stayed out of jail.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blansky]

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.

It was pretty impressive for it's day.

Now amateur porn is all over the internet.

 

[removed account4]

blansky:
his name wasn't robin williams was it

 

[Truzi]

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.

Another good reason not to take it to the lab.

 

[MattKing]

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.

The police would be called and the matter would be dealt with by them thereafter.

The lab closed in the 1980s.

And as to whether the staff were passing artistic judgment on the slides, have you ever considered how many slides or prints actually pass before the eyes of lab staff? Operating that slide mounting equipment must have been mind-numbingly boring!

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

When I was in college during the 80s, a lot of women objected guys printing photos of nude women. I work at a university art dept and I saw a gal retouching a nude self-portrait. It's a different world now.

 

[StoneNYC]

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.

And to me, THAT GUY is the one who the cops should have been called on, not only was he stealing art, he was FORGING copies... And objectifying the art (which isn't illegal, but fucked up).

Anyway the world was supposed to become enlightened wasn't it? When's that happening?


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Worker 11811]

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.

I think I'm reading the law the same way you are. (The summary of the law.) Only Northern Territory says that "any person" who "reasonably suspects" abuse is required to report. In every other location, only professionals are required. Thus, unless the lab is located in Northern Territory, they overstepped.

I'm voting for "damn busybody."

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

In none of the research I have done, does simple nudity qualify as abuse.

Specifically:

"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.​

It sounds, to me, like somebody is giving you the run-around. A police officer who doesn't know the law? Ludicrous! If you or I can look up a summary of the law on the internet, I think it would be part of the cop's job to review the relevant statute before proceeding with your investigation.
This is not an on-the-spot incident where the officer is required to make a quick decision. He was able to collect evidence, follow up on it and make decisions before he interviewed you. A cop who admits he doesn't know the law is like a baseball umpire who admits he doesn't know the difference between a foul ball and a home run!

To be honest, I don't think a bare bum even qualifies as nudity. I think the people at the lab AND the cops are both full of shit.

In the U.S. there is a statute known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Also known as 42 U.S. Code, Section 1983.
To summarize, any person who "under color of law" violates another's civil/constitutional rights is liable for damages and attorney's fees.
I don't know about the civil rights law in Australia but, if I was in your shoes, I'd be calling lawyer.

​

 

[blansky]

blansky:
his name wasn't robin williams was it

Surprisingly all the movies I've seen, I have never seen that one. Something about Robin Williams being a predator
(If that was indeed the story line) never attracted me to see it.

 

[AgX]

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.

It is hard for me to believe that sending a processed film and even several prints back to the owner of that film is the same as the "distribution" the makers of that low most probably thought of.

 

[moose10101]

I work at a university art dept and I saw a gal retouching a nude self-portrait. It's a different world now.

I saw that in the '70's in the Art dept's student (communal) darkroom. Prints going 'round and 'round in the washing tank. Made me dizzy.