Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Read this story before you get family photos developed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Read this story before you get family photos developed

    in Georgia.

    http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/07/18/photos/

    This is the reason more people are not openly nudists...

    N_D_R

  • #2
    in Georgia.

    http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/07/18/photos/

    This is the reason more people are not openly nudists...

    N_D_R

    Comment


    • #3
      Unfortunate, but maybe the kids did play around nude with the disposable camera, and were drinking a beer.

      Photo processing personal are trained to look for certain clues in pictures that might indicate child abuse or porn. Heads inadvertently cut off, underage drinking, and several children naked no matter how innocent just might have triggered this call and investigation.

      Thank goodness for digital cameras. And be aware or concerned if your kids are naked with a disposable camera media that must be processed commercially.

      Comment


      • #4
        Anyone who sends film with a picture of a nude child to a commercial developer is taking a huge risk. It doesn't matter how innocent the picture is. If that used-to-be-traditional picture of a naked baby on a bearskin rug is seen by an employee who is offended by any form of nudity whatsoever, the person who picks up the pictures can be in a ton of trouble.

        I'm not sure that I agree with Gary that processing personnel are trained to look for clues to indicate child abuse or porn. I think it's more likely that a lot of them are trained to keep the company out of legal trouble, and the easiest way to do that is to report any naked child and let the authorities sort it out.

        Comment


        • #5
          That situation can be avoided entirely just by going totally digital. And yes, anyone turning in a photo *anyone* would find objectionable is courting trouble.

          Comment


          • #6
            I see the case so that the clerck broke the privacy and in my country it is banned. He is not alloved to tell anything he sees in his business and here he will be fined. He is allowed to tell what he saw if there is a murder or that like crime. In this country anybody can take pictures for family use of their children. Selling them and spreading them out in net is banned.

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm not sure about the beer, that was questionable, but otherwise my advice is to call the A.C.L.U. and seek to destroy Eckerds. We have to make them, Wal-mart, and others deathly afraid of lawsuits or brain dead busy bodies like this will keep meddling. No one who has actual child porn would take it to be developed anyways, they'd do that themselves so that's not a concern. This will only change if these companies are taught a PAINFUL lesson.

              Comment


              • #8
                luvnaturism [Not so, or I have never heard of legal training for processing clerks or technicians]

                I cannot speak for all film processors or contract outlets that process film, but most clerks, and occasionally the processing technicians or dual functions at most pick up counters do not have any legal training what so ever, but go by operation manuals and guidelines. The functions of corporate legal departments rarely have any contact or training with retail outlet employees.

                It’s always best to ask each time you have any processing in which you know there is plain nudity if it’s acceptable. Each processor may have different operations and guidelines their clerks and technicians go by.

                From what I understand WalMart is the worst in reporting any child nudity.

                I have asked, know, and talked with Costco film processing technicians and clerks and the couple of which I patronize have no problem with plain nudity, or nudist resort social nudity type pictures or family plain nudity with children in them, or the infant or young nude child on a bearskin rug, or in a bassinet, buggy or wagon. As a general rule most all say no child nudity where it’s obvious the subject is under 18 years of age or under teen age's. Any sexually explicit images are considered pornographic and will not be returned or processed including the negatives if film based.

                The latest trend is to have kiosks or film card flash readers for digital media input for print pick up within an hour. All the rules and stipulations on nudity and child nude exposures remain in effect with digital media as an input.

                As far as other illegal or suspected child or elder abuse is concerned, yes if they have reason to be concerned they must tag or hold such media and consult with their direct manager before releasing the order.

                So "luvnaturism" with the huge turn over, and mostly young clerks, and technicians some under 21 years age, legal training from corporate legal departments to protect the company or corporation is not done or even considered as an option, but in effect the photos processed or tagged or reported has that indirect function of reducing corporate liability.

                It's best to ask each and every time you have child or plain family nudist images processed and printed. It's also wise to get the name of the clerk who said it was ok and took your order if anything comes up on your order.
                .

                Comment


                • #9
                  quote:
                  Originally posted by Sauna:
                  I see the case so that the clerck broke the privacy and in my country it is banned. He is not alloved to tell anything he sees in his business and here he will be fined. He is allowed to tell what he saw if there is a murder or that like crime. In this country anybody can take pictures for family use of their children. Selling them and spreading them out in net is banned.


                  Thats the problem, the person reporting this thought it was a crime, ie child porn, so they reported it. However wouldnt people need to be doing something sexual or in a sexual pose to be considered porn? Just a naked body isnt porn. But i guess that gets back to the continuing theme of this board, seperation of nudity and sex. Some people cant make thta seperation.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    labtec11

                    The case at hand can easily happen and as you see the persons involved usually had a digital camera with them.

                    Anyone knowingly that has nude images processed commercially without "telling or asking" is not using much common sense.

                    Once reported, and if any underage subjects are included it is required that the police involve child protection services as part of the investigative process. During that process they may and often take custody of children until the outcome of investigations. In the mean time you have permanent bad records of child services custody if found guilty or innocent. Not a nice thing to go through or experience either way of the outcome.
                    .

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Another positive aspect for digital cameras and media verses disposable or film cameras.

                      If the person who submitted the film to be processed didn't take all the exposures of nude subjects, it's highly risky to submit others nude exposures without the ability to preview or know what's on the negatives prior to being processed.

                      If this was digital media they probably would have been reviewed prior to the digital media input for prints.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        We are seeing images of child preditors non-stop all over the news and someone wants to call the ACLU? We can NOT have a knee-jerk reaction of 'we have to defend nudity' at all costs ... damn the fact that they MIGHT be wrong.

                        "...because there were pictures of children naked, genitalia and alcohol, they would have to investigate..." is why they were called.

                        Be glad that they DID investigate this, because if they were pornographers and ignored the store warning sign ... law suits AND criminal charges would be flying.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          When I posted this story and the link, I did not really anticipate the types of responses I have seen. As a forum that deals with nudity and legal issues, somehow I imagined a more supportive response to the family that has been put through hell after no sign of any wrongdoing. I imagined that nudists(which most of us are) would be rather disturbed at the presumption of guilt and the trampling of individual rights merely because there was nudity.

                          If we are so ready to believe and accept that a parent who has a picture of their child playing nude can be investigated such as this, and that it is warranted, are we not guilty of assuming the worst merely because there was nudity involved? If so, how do we ever convince non-nudists that it is ok, if we act as if it isn't when it happens with a parent and their children?

                          Neil Boortz discussed this on the show today, which is where I heard of the story. Two of the co-hosts both discussed the fear of taking baby pictures with the children out of diapers for the very same reason that with nudity you will be treated as guilty until proven innocent.

                          I can only wonder if I should be promoting nudism among my friends, if there is a possibility that were they to have a picture of their family skinny dipping, that they would face a similar investigation that could destroy their family and their reputations?

                          Must the family be clothed to preserve a record of the fun?

                          Or is there some way we can turn the tide so that nudity is not so easily linked to inappropriate behavior, so that we are not subject to witch hunts, based upon someone learning that we prefer to play clothes free?

                          N_D_R

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I once worked for a photoshop and they would refuse to print any nude photos.

                            Tera

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              quote:
                              Originally posted by NakedGary:
                              luvnaturism [Not so, or I have never heard of legal training for processing clerks or technicians]


                              You're reading more into this post than I implied. I never suggested that retail store clerks or photo processing people have actual legal training. What I do think is that the corporate legal departments of some chains have instructed the store managers to instruct their people: "Take no chances. If there's a nude child in a picture, report it."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X