Where should the line be drawn with child photographs?

[CThomas817]

Not trying to start a heated discussion but would appreciate professional opinions...

I recently created some images of a toddler that were received well by most but disapproved by a few. The subject happened to be my own child, so in terms of being protective, not only my professional, but personal, interests are at heart. She is 24 months old and the images were of her sitting in a large gathering of tulle. She has a diaper and diaper cover on (they were covered by the tulle anyway), but she is not wearing a shirt. To me, she is still a baby, and this did not cross my mind that it could potentially be inappropriate. I felt that the photos tastefully conveyed the idea of purity and innocence, as is often the goal of child photographs, but someone mentioned to me the idea that child protective services would have an issue with this.

Let me preface my concern by saying that I am also a psychologist who specializes in children. I have worked with the department of children and families as part of my job for over 8 years and, aforementioned, this did not seem inappropriate and was certainly not intended for any other use than art, this is my child who I love with every fiber of my being for Pete's sake.

I would absolutley agree that for an older child, maybe even at age 4, this would be teetering on a very thin line, but at barely 2?

What are your thoughts on this? I will share one of the images with any potentially "suggestive" areas covered.

TIA

 

[dennybeall]

I don't see a problem but I can see some folks concerned that the photo may be of interest to not so nice folks.

 

[CThomas817]

I don't see a problem but I can see some folks concerned that the photo may be of interest to not so nice folks.

I can see that too but if you look at it that way, the hundreds of shirtless babies on diaper boxes, at the beach, in a Google search place opportunities for misuse everywhere. Would the photo have been that much different if she had a little tank top on?

Sorry. I hate the idea of these photos being provocative in any way and I am feeling defensive about the whole situation. I do appreciate your feedback!

 

[smoke665]

It's terrible that we live in a world where the innonce of a child cannot be appreciated as such. Unfortunately once you post even an innocent photo on the internet it can be used and twisted in ways never imagined. It's important to be aware at all times of "audience appropriateness" on those you post, and to keep those like the bare butt prints my parents cherished of me in the bathtub safely tucked away in a photo album in the back of a closet.

 

[JBPhotog]

Are you certain CPS would care? They don’t seem provacative to me and certainly none of the props are suggestive and certainly not sexualized, but then again I am PC agnostic.

I think this may be a case where people are walking on egg shells waiting for the offended to be offended, spouting off about yet another victim, but I digress.

 

[CThomas817]

Are you certain CPS would care? They don’t seem provacative to me and certainly none of the props are suggestive and certainly not sexualized, but then again I am PC agnostic.

I think this may be a case where people are walking on egg shells waiting for the offended to be offended, spouting off about yet another victim, but I digress.

No I'm not certain, but I took the images down because it made me second guess my judgement. Wanted to get other professional opinions before considering to repost them

 

[greybeard]

These photos do not offend me in anyway but, I can see how some might be.

 

[Jeff15]

This is a subject on which you have to be very careful. With the permission of the parents or guardian its fine but anything other than this it could be seen as something else.

 

[jaomul]

I personally think those photos are fine, nicely posed. It comes down to common sense, though often that isn't common.

The truth is there are bottom feeders out there, but if you are putting them online with certain privacy settings I wouldn't see any issue.

It's sad that this even has to be discussed over innocent child photos, bit that's the world we're in

 

[CThomas817]

This is a subject on which you have to be very careful. With the permission of the parents or guardian its fine but anything other than this it could be seen as something else.

Thanks. I am the parent/guardian in this case, so I certaintly had no malintent. Of course if I created these images for someone else I would get signed permission to post.

 

[AlanKlein]

If it bothers you, stop doing it.

 

[otherprof]

Not trying to start a heated discussion but would appreciate professional opinions...

I recently created some images of a toddler that were received well by most but disapproved by a few. The subject happened to be my own child, so in terms of being protective, not only my professional, but personal, interests are at heart. She is 24 months old and the images were of her sitting in a large gathering of tulle. She has a diaper and diaper cover on (they were covered by the tulle anyway), but she is not wearing a shirt. To me, she is still a baby, and this did not cross my mind that it could potentially be inappropriate. I felt that the photos tastefully conveyed the idea of purity and innocence, as is often the goal of child photographs, but someone mentioned to me the idea that child protective services would have an issue with this.

Let me preface my concern by saying that I am also a psychologist who specializes in children. I have worked with the department of children and families as part of my job for over 8 years and, aforementioned, this did not seem inappropriate and was certainly not intended for any other use than art, this is my child who I love with every fiber of my being for Pete's sake.

I would absolutley agree that for an older child, maybe even at age 4, this would be teetering on a very thin line, but at barely 2?

What are your thoughts on this? I will share one of the images with any potentially "suggestive" areas covered.

TIA

As a psychologist, you may know this old joke: A boy is taken to a psychologist because his parents are convinced he is obsessed with sex. The psychologist presents the boy with a series of Rorschach cards, and in each case the boy sees something sexually arousing in them. The psychologist reports to the parents that he agrees that the boy is obsessed with sex, whereupon the boy shouts, “I’m obsessed with sex?! What about you, showing me all those dirty pictures?”

 

[Fujidave]

The images don`t bother me at all, but as we all live in a sad world now for me I have never shared any of my childrens images online and never will. A friend who was a policeman told me he had seen what the evil folk do with images of children, and said he did not blame me for not putting my photos online.

 

[DanOstergren]

To you they're innocent, but they're also personal, and in my modest opinion belong in your home, in a photo album or frame, but not on the internet for the world to see and abuse.

 

[Designer]

What are your thoughts on this? I will share one of the images with any potentially "suggestive" areas covered.

Good grief! Whoever is telling you that needs to get a life.

Or they could vent their displeasure at Sally Mann instead of you.

Why Sally Mann’s Photographs of Her Children Can Still Make Viewers Uncomfortable

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Literally nothing.