Nudes and Pornography

[jbylake]

First, please, please keep this thread decent, and if you have issues with nude photography, either moral, religious or other, skip this thread.

My question is this. In your opinion, where does the line between nude and pornography get drawn.

I mean open sexual acts, etc are obvious. But at what point do you think that the line is drawn.

I am asking because a friend of mine shot his girlfriend in the nude. He sent the film off for neg's, and his intentions were that I would scan them for him, or he would borrow my scanner and do his own PP.

However, the processor would not process the neg's because there was a (very) small area of pubic hair showing. My suggestion to him was to learn how to develop his own negs, or go digital. But that's not the point.

What say you?

What do you think, and again, please keep this tasteful, and respectful.

Thanks,

J.

 

[mJs]

I think it's all about context.... manner of posing, I think it's ridiculous that the processor wouldn't do the negs over a little pubic hair. I think a lot of North Americans are too uptight about nudity... get any photo mag from Europe (there's a couple i read from France), and it usually has nude shots in it... and many 'with bush'. But they are creative shot, artful, with interesting lighting and themes. Nothing really sexual about them.

 

[jbylake]

I think it's all about context.... manner of posing, I think it's ridiculous that the processor wouldn't do the negs over a little pubic hair. I think a lot of North Americans are too uptight about nudity... get any photo mag from Europe (there's a couple i read from France), and it usually has nude shots in it... and many 'with bush'. But they are creative shot, artful, with interesting lighting and themes. Nothing really sexual about them.

Kind of my way of thinking. They wouldn't even return his negatives when they discovered they were nudes, breasts, and a small amount of "pubic region".

Man is he pissed.

J.

 

[molested_cow]

I just went to Miami Beach Art Basel and one of the exhibits featured a black and white film of an orgy. I didn't really get to see it because it was too crowded, but did catch a glimpse of it. Does black and white make it "artistic"? Does the fact that it's in an art exhibition make it a legit art? I don't know. I think it all depends on what kind of message it conveys. I would say a softcore porn, when done very tastefully, can be regarded as artistic. Similarly, a artistically intended work when executed badly can become pretty tasteless. Then again, it's all up to the audience to define what they see.

I think in your friend's case, the processor rejected it probably was because of pure liability issue. I don't even understand why would a negative processor care if he's not tasked to make scans or prints.

 

[jbylake]

I just went to Miami Beach Art Basel and one of the exhibits featured a black and white film of an orgy. I didn't really get to see it because it was too crowded, but did catch a glimpse of it. Does black and white make it "artistic"? Does the fact that it's in an art exhibition make it a legit art? I don't know. I think it all depends on what kind of message it conveys. I would say a softcore porn, when done very tastefully, can be regarded as artistic. Similarly, a artistically intended work when executed badly can become pretty tasteless. Then again, it's all up to the audience to define what they see.

I think in your friend's case, the processor rejected it probably was because of pure liability issue. I don't even understand why would a negative processor care if he's not tasked to make scans or prints.

Well, MC, I'm not sure this even applies. An orgy, no matter how tastefully done, still depicts a sexual act.

His photo's did not in anyway, go there. So the orgy thing is a judgement call, but I don't think it applies in his situation.

J.:mrgreen:

 

[gian133]

They wont give them back. Thats just stupid.
i completly agree wit mJs

 

[robbie_vlad]

The line is different for everyone, so it's hard to define a definite boundary. Personally, as long as it isn't meant for the sole purpose of being sexual and arousing, it can be artistic.

Kind of my way of thinking. They wouldn't even return his negatives when they discovered they were nudes, breasts, and a small amount of "pubic region".

Man is he pissed.

J.

This is illegal isn't it? They are pretty much stealing his artwork, to which he has artistic ownership of.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Nude vs. Pornography... that's a tough one. Here in the US we are obsessed yet uptight with sex and things become porn very easily. In France (where I lived for quite a few years) sex is a much more natural part of life so that fewer things get the porn label.

Good photo examples of the problem are David Hamilton whose work is seen here and in the UK as kiddie porn by quite a few people but accepted as just art in France and a lot of other countries. Same with Sally Mann whose work is beautiful. Hamilton bores me to tears btw.

So, anyway, tasteful nudes should have no problem at a retail processor unless you get the idiot from hell behind the counter. In a recent case of misguided holier-than-thou stupidity, a couple lost their kids to child protective services thanks to a Walmart employee. They are now suing Walmart and I sure hope they win.

And I have to admit that suing was the first thing on my mind when you mentioned the processor would not give your friend his film back. I would certainly talk to an attorney.

 

[wescobts]

I guess it is in the eye of the beholder, I saw a picture of a woman from the small of her back to her shoulder blades, nothing else, and it was the biggest turn on WOW !! and I have seen open shots of the pubic region and found it just desperate. Class and good taste is very hard to define, but in your friends case, i feel the developer was going too far.

 

[jbylake]

As far as legal issues are concerned, all he has is a civil case. That requires hiring a lawyer, both in this state and a liason lawyer in the state of the the processor. It requires $$$$ to do this, with no lawyer willing to take it as a "contigency" case, as there is no guarantee of a "payoff" for the lawyer.

As far as I know, but am not sure, the film has been destroyed. But not sure. The processor, according to my friend offered a roll of replacement 35mm film.

I would like to reveal the processor's name here, but am not relishing the fallout that might incur.

Guess that's pretty much that, as far as legal issues.

Back to the origional question, and I am going to suggest to my friend to by a basic negative development kit. So as to be discreet, he can borrow my scanner.

So, where does the line blur on this issue of nudes vs. porn. Here's my guess..If a sexual act is obvious, either in the act or implied, it may be considered porn..but breasts and a little pubic hair...I don't think so.

There are several Unviersities within a 50 mile or so radius here. Would the fed's raid a art class doing charcoal schetches of nudes? I doubt it. Maybe it's just a rhetorical question that I shouldn't even have brought up.

J.:mrgreen:

J.

 

[wescobts]

It wouldn't be the first time the "man" raided a school or place of higher learning, remember they still burn books :angry1: I would tell your friend to go digital, and consider the loss a learning experience.

 

[Josh66]

Get a new lab. Take the film somewhere that doesn't tell you what kind of pictures you're allowed to take.

Porn vs. art... To me, I would have to see the picture. It would be on a per image basis for me, regardless of what it showed.

 

[Josh66]

I would like to reveal the processor's name here, but am not relishing the fallout that might incur.

As long as you're not making stuff up to make them seem worse than they were, I don't really see the issue. How can they sue you for telling other people what they did to you or your friend?

lol, I wouldn't hesitate to call them on it, and let everyone know what they did so nobody else makes the same mistake of using their services.

If it's illegal to tell others about bad business practices, how does this site stay up?

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Yes, all he has is a civil case. So what? Most cases having to do with our liberties and such are civil cases. Not criminal!

That's one. Two would be that there are plenty of lawyers who work on a "I get paid if you get a settlement" type of deal. Three is that there is such a thing as small claim court. I can't tell you about every state in the union but the ones where I used small claims had this nifty requirement that a private person didn't need a lawyer present while a corporation did. How many corporations will want to send a lawyer at $3-500/hr to defend their claim against a few thousand dollars...

Which, by the way, does not mean you can't have a lawyer. You just don't have to have one. And in this case (although it would need to be checked for your actual area) it seems to me you have a winner. They may not like your photos but they don't have the right to take your film away even if for some strange reason they actually have the right to refuse to print the darn thing.

My wife worked as a film processor in the boondocks of a backwards state I will not mention. She saw plenty of nudes and they were not always the most tasteful. Did she confiscate films or call the cops? NO. She had no right to do so.

The only time she (and her manager) called the cops was when they had pictures of a corpse. It turned out that the photos came from a cop who was working the case but forgot to tell them what to expect.

So, unless you are not being quite truthful about those photos and they are are not as innocent as you make them sound, you (your friend at least) have a possible case.

So, the big question is: what are those photos?

 

[RancerDS]

In trying to answer the question about porn versus nude art, will make references to other works.

The naked human form has always been artistically rendered by sculptures and paintings throughout history before photography came into being. Since it was so "easy" to capture nudes on film, it became all to easy to carry it too far. Playboy was my magazine of preference for seeing nude women. While some were certainly not attractive, there were some that appealed to me greatly, namely the wife of famous tennis player - Jimmy Connors. For a husband/father to allow their wives/daughter to pose, it's probably going to have to be seen as an artistic endeavour, tasty and with equal attention paid to all body parts. Those fathers and husbands knew men (and women) of all kinds would be seeing it.

Since the advent of the Internet... have discovered DOMAI and Met-Art. The former site just mentioned is very tasteful nudes but argumentatively may include those of tender age. The latter site is definitely pushing boundaries on it being porn because of the model(s) posing in certain fashion with others and even more likely including models under the age of consent in the United States. Yet there are not any sexual acts really depicted. So while beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so too is pornography seen to exist while some feel it isn't present.

There is nothing more heartwarming to me to see a woman breast-feeding her child in a public place. It is a very human thing, very nurturing for the infant and much more healthy than formula in that the mother passes along immunities. Yet a Wal-Mart can scream it is a lewd public display. Would a photo of a woman's partially exposed teat with infant suckling really be considered erotic? And to think about all the free publicity female celebrities get from their "nip slip" shots <rolling eyes>.

As long as you are shooting pictures of person(s) being legal age or older, you aren't going to be legally prosecuted, but then you do have to remember that film processors could pick and choose what not to develop/print. Just as if you owned your own business, you can refuse service to anyone. So yes, shoot and develop your own (like B&W), use digital or Polaroid cameras and that hard to find film.

Bear in mind your works could be displayed in a museum and/or art or photo gallery without disclaimers, but about any other venue would require the "18 and older ONLY", (excluding bars which require age 21 to enter).