Nudes and Pornography

[jbylake]

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?

No, not making anything up. I'm just hesitant to open up a can of worms.
I have no idea if the owner of this site, might be beer drinking buddies with the company. Also, calling it "bad business practices" is risky, as I really don't know what their rights are.

As to the same point, a gun forum that I used to frequent occasionaly had a member do something like this (call them out) for bad business practices.
The owner of the company (they make aftermarket parts for a particular type of firearm), was not only friends of the site owner, but also a major advertiser and contributer to the site. (Powerful guy in his field). A pissing match ensued, and several members were threatened with lawsuits, and eventually banned. I don't know what happend after that, I quit frequenting the site, and withdrew my support. Lastly, on this subject, it really is my bud's problem, and it would be appropriate for him to call them (the processor's) out for a duel, not me. I'm basically the messenger, and was just proposing the question in the original post. I don't know the law(s) for different states. The information he got concerning the whole mess, concerning his right as a consumer, was from a lawyer. I wasn't present, I can only relay what I've been told. Therefore I didn't want to really get into the legal aspects of it, just what others thought would think of where to draw the line. Lastly, IMO, from what I've been told, I've seen more exposed at the beach, than he took in those photo's.

J.:mrgreen:

 

[skieur]

It would seem to me that if they destroyed his film, he should go to the police possibly with a paralegal and lay a charge: destruction of private property. If they still have his negatives, then research as to whether a charge of theft is applicable.

If charges are laid, then following it up with a law suit in small claims court would have an even greater chance of success particularly if the negatives have been destroyed. Small claims courts also usually do not require a lawyer.

I suspect that the processor has the right to call the police, but even the police cannot seize property unless it is evidence in an arrest and if it is simple nude shots of an adult there would seem to be no grounds for an arrest in most locations.

skieur

 

[Big Mike]

Artistic vs Pornographic...
To me, porn is made with the intention to elicit sexual arousal (most likely with the motive/incentive of easy money).
Artistic nude could also be made with that intention, but hopefully with some artistic merits and higher motives.
But really...for something to be judged as artistic vs pornographic...the viewer's own morals are heavily involved. What some people find artistic or at least non-pornographic....other people will condemn as pure filth.
There are some very talented photographers who post in the nude section at Photo.net. Some of the works are very explicit, but are also very artistic. I wouldn't call that porn....but plenty of people do.
I often find it amusing when people (you know the type) freak out over a naked breast in a public setting or in a 'main stream' magazine. As I mentioned, there are two parts to 'porn'...the material in question and the person who makes the judgment. So when these people freak out, I wonder what it is about their mental make up, that makes them think that a human body is indecent. (I'll skip the religious discussion )


As for the friend and his photos. It's unacceptable that he can't get his film back. They might say it was destroyed...my guess is that some teenager (or mental teenager) swiped it for themselves.
I don't know that developing his own film is the answer. Just find a good lab.

 

[kajiki]

as a general rule of thumb, I would have thought that any photo depicting sexual arousal, could be considered pornographic.....many more years ago than I care to remember, I worked behind the counter in a photo store. We had a minilab and one of the staff was a very 'right-on' lady. There was a roll of film from (I believe) a French guy, that featured some female nudity, but nothing else. The minilab lady refused to print his pix, but gave him back his negs and a withering look! Regional differences......he clearly believed she was crazy - the Europeans in general are quite relaxed about this kind of art. But not the Brits!

 

[kajiki]

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

Walmart?

 

[jbylake]

It would seem to me that if they destroyed his film, he should go to the police possibly with a paralegal and lay a charge: destruction of private property. If they still have his negatives, then research as to whether a charge of theft is applicable.

If charges are laid, then following it up with a law suit in small claims court would have an even greater chance of success particularly if the negatives have been destroyed. Small claims courts also usually do not require a lawyer.

I suspect that the processor has the right to call the police, but even the police cannot seize property unless it is evidence in an arrest and if it is simple nude shots of an adult there would seem to be no grounds for an arrest in most locations.

skieur

Please skieur, if you read the post directly above this one (quoted) you'll see that I specifically said I don't want to get into the legal aspects of this. Maybe you are a lawyer, don't know, but I am not. But that is not the point. If you read the OP, I was asking, basically, where people draw the line between Nude and Pornograhic material. Let's forget the legal aspects. Thanks much.

J.:mrgreen:

 

[krayon]

Another item that I didn't see asked or mentioned. If the photos were of a person who may be underage, or appear to be underage, then the processor may have a legal liability to destroy/turn over the negatives to the police.

Just a thought.

 

[teneighty23]

to me its all about a tease in a way, shows enough that it gets your senses flowing, but still leaves enough to the imagination, OR to you wanting more at least. it also should be done classy tasteful, and unique.

 

[KD5NRH]

Another item that I didn't see asked or mentioned. If the photos were of a person who may be underage, or appear to be underage, then the processor may have a legal liability to destroy/turn over the negatives to the police.

Considering that they would be evidence at that point, destroying them would be a felony in pretty much every state. Presumably the model's appearance doesn't raise that question, or the discussion would be going elsewhere.

As for suing the processor, the photographer would need to determine the value of the photos. If that happens to be less than the small-claims limit in his state, then the lawyer isn't necessary.

As for the original question, you might as well ask what the prettiest color is

 

[benhasajeep]

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.

I have not used any. But I know there are several mail order / online printers that will do nude, non-pornographic printing. Others will do any with proof of consent / professional accounts. Costco will deppending on store (artistic nudes). Walmart will not, Walgreens will not. The reason most store labs will not is the machies are in public view. And they feel they can get in trouble if the nudes are seen by persons less than 18 yo. I think I saw a link to a case where walmart was sued once (didn't read it).

And I believe most labs have their rules available for customers. I doubt he even has a civil case against the processor he used. They would probably site the customer did not obide by their processing rules.

 

[Actor]

It's naive to submit such photos to a processor and assume he/she will have no problem. If you have photos of this nature always interview a prospective processor. If they have a problem, move on. If they don't, try to get it in writing.

Even if they are cool with nudes, processors are legally required to turn negatives over to the police if they think those negatives might be evidence of a crime, the crime in this case being child porn.

Buy a set of close up lenses. Make the first and last frames of each roll a close up of the model's photo ID. Be sure the model's date of birth is clearly shown. Request that the processor not cut the roll.

In court you are only entitled to real and punitive damages. I don't think any court would give you punitive damages. Real damages would be the cost of the film plus any other costs involved in creating the negatives, such as payments to the model. From what I've read so far it appears the model was not paid and the photos were not taken as a commercial venture, ergo you are only entitled to a new roll of film.

If you can take him to court and get him to state that he destroyed the negatives and made no prints then you have won something. If the photos later emerge you can press perjury charges and perhaps bring a new suit for damages.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Walgreens will not.

Absolutely untrue. Unless they have changed their policy in the last few years.

My wife worked for them as a photo tech (or whatever she was called) and she did plenty of them 3 years ago. They were neither artsy nor porn, they were just bad nudes. And they were a time of fun in the store when some of the other employees were invited to check them out. Not something my wife did but her main co-worker in the lab sure did.

 

[benhasajeep]

Walgreens will not print pornography. They also installed a rule several years ago that the person processing the film or manager can decide to process film or not with any nudity in it (their choice if any or what amount is pornographic). This occured after some heavy pressure from AFA (church group). Pornography NO, nudity deppending on location. So, the correct answer for Walgreens is maybe. In my area NO.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Walgreens will not print pornography.

I will not disagree with that but, in your previous post you talked of "nude, non-pornographic printing." Not quite the same thing.

 

[Roncgizmo]

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.

Man! I'm not the type of person to get piss-off about every little thing, But this would do it! What right would they have to withhold and get rid of his film, his work and his art? even if this girl had her legs open wide and had a giant dong in her hand the worst thing he could of done was to give him back the negs and tell him not to come back. I would of called the cops, and that's something I've never done..lol The bottom line is, this guy had no right to keep your buddy's work. I remember hearing about a School trying to block some art that was made out of crap, yes crap and the school lost. Hell, if he's still friends with the girl he should take this thing to court for lost income..lol let's see she was going to buy the shots at $200 each and it's a 24 exp roll... maybe that store will think twice before they make a bone head move like this again..


Sorry for the rant. but it really ticks me off when some idiot with no power try's to impede on someones life and has NO RIGHT TO DO SO.


And now back to the point...lol My short answer (or opinion i should say) A little hair would not make it porno. even if she was touching herself in a way that you didn't have a full view of a well, zone I don't think it's porno. it's may crossover from art to sexy but I think giving the lighting ect it could still be artful (if that make any sense)