Out of curiosity Don, do you believe this sort of "exploitation" is bad - i.e. is there a pejorative component to your use of that term in this circumstance?
It isn't clear at all that police were involved with the removal itself - just involved with a possible "criminal" investigation.
However, in Canada, and likely in both Texas and the UK itself, if the images were in some way "criminal" or if they were evidence of a criminal offence, than they could very well have been seized in support of a criminal law investigation - assuming of course that the requisite steps were taken.
If you click on the links about the background to the story in the original post, you will see comments from all sorts of politicians - including a judge - claiming that the photographs are criminal violations.
Criminal law in the USA varies from state to state. So there may very well be language on the books in Texas which purport to make Sally Mann's photography of her naked infant children a criminal offence. Whether such a statute is valid is a subject outside the realm of Photrio, but if that is what the statute actually says, and it hasn't been ruled invalid, the police probably are required to seize it.
Hence my questions about the role of the judge in an earlier post
Here's the beginning of the Texas law. It requires a sexual conduct of some kind with a minor, not just a photo of a nude child. It also covers AI-generated pictures. (see the link below)
Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 43.26. Possession or Promotion of Child Pornography
(a) A person commits an offense if:
(1) the person knowingly or intentionally possesses, or knowingly or intentionally accesses with intent to view, visual material that visually depicts a child younger than 18 years of age at the time the image of the child was made who is engaging in sexual conduct, including a child who engages in sexual conduct as a victim of an offense under Section 20A.02(a)(5), (6), (7), or (8); and
(2) the person knows that the material depicts the child as described by Subdivision (1)...
...
The rest of the code can be found here.
I used to do a lot of street photography. I was always aware and cautious not to photograph children. You never know how someone noticing might interpret it.I think it's a cautionary tale for photographers who take photos of children that they don't go beyond a certain line because there are tough recent laws in many states, including federally across the country, against child pornography. So you better be aware of those limits before you inadvertently get yourself in trouble.
You are most likely correct that this is the particular statute that people are thinking of, but there could be others as well.
I think it's a cautionary tale for photographers who take photos of children that they don't go beyond a certain line because there are tough recent laws in many states, including federally across the country, against child pornography. So you better be aware of those limits before you inadvertently get yourself in trouble.
Mann still has to deal with the kind radical prudery that believes that an unclothed body is "profane" and "offensive". To a degree, I think this is a uniquely American phenomenon.
Sure, since this DID happen, that makes it worthy of discussion.
About the decaying bodies…I don’t think the protest in question mentioned these. I’m a biologist, so I’m unphased by this kind of thing, and by nudity too. Why are people not offended by photos of (largely) hairless pigs, dead or alive? If the kids were being pressured or encouraged into doing something sexual for the camera, that would be a different matter; but depicting the evolutionary status quo as it was before someone ate what their God expressly told them not to eat, why is that a problem?
Yes, exactly. The word “exploit” can be used in various situations, not all of which imply harm. For instance, you can seize an opportunity without causing any harm or diminishing its value. However, it can also have a pejorative connotation, suggesting taking unfair advantage of someone or something, often for selfish or unethical gain. Therefore, it’s crucial to use the term appropriately in different contexts and comprehend the intended meaning behind its usage.
Any amount imaginable, because THEY (offended viewers) do not consent.
The problem lies within, but external factors are sought to blame.
It's an important fact that people, for the most part, don't come up with their own ideas of what's right and wrong. A very complicated thing tends to need to be made rather straightforward. So, when the issue is child pornography, that gets reduced to photos of naked children. Many people who are generally sensible will look at almost any photo of a naked preteen and say it's child porn. For the most part, they've never had to reflect on whether such a photo might not be pornographic. For them "child porn" means "pictures of naked children".
It's really the job of those who represent the art to defend the art against such accusations and to try to explain how the work is not pornographic. But that latter task is virtually impossible with the more dogmatic morally outraged.
While I generally agree that most people don't think too independently about morality....I stand by my statement that if someone looks at pictures of naked children and their first thought is that they're designed to elicit sexual excitement in the viewer...then they should probably seek some therapy.
Which is what it boils down to. People have taken photos of their babies and kids naked since Mr. Eastman invented the word "Kodak". There are plenty of such photos of me. It's what people did, and still do. Sally Mann just happens to be in a position to exhibit hers. And the (now adult) kids have consented.
I've tried to read most of the posts here. What I am taking in is the following:
Sally Mann photographed her own children growing up, evolving into teengers as all children do. She had their permission at the time, and perhaps even more importantly she has the permission of them as near middle aged adults to publish and exhibit those photos. The subjects of the photos are now plenty old enough to be involved in those decisions themselves.
The images I've seen don't show anything I could reasonably interpret as pornography. There are some poses that might be described as precocious but no sexual acts, nothing designed to titillate or elicit sexual arousal in the viewer. Frankly if that's what you see, then we are poles apart and I encourage you to clutch at those pearls a little less tightly.
I am reminded of a case in the 80s or possibly early 90s here in the UK when an emplooyee at Boods (think Walgreen's) reported a customer (who I recall was a celebrity) who had given a film to her local Boots for D&P. On it were photos of her young children naked in the bath, in the garden and so on. The over-zealous employee thought these were illegal and contacted the police. It made national headlines, but the eventual conclusion was that these were simply family photos with naked kids. The police and Boots confirmed that simply being naked, for kids and adults, was not a problem with photos.
I don't see any parallels to street photography where you are generally photographing people you do not know. Additionally, people are generally not naked in the streets except for things like the naked bike ride, when they know they're going to be photographed.
There have been issues on beaches, where once people waved cameras about everywhere there is sometimes now concern that anyone with a "big lens" is up to no good and photographing kiddies naked or in swimming clothes. Again though, the concern would be that if there were any nefarious persons doing so....they'd be photographing children of people they do not know, and would therefore not be simply documenting their or a friend's family at the beach.
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?