Search In The AnswerBank

Web   Site

phornography laws

Avatar Image thingummyjig
19:06 on Wed 11/Oct/06 ive recently started working in a photo lab where we develope and process films for customers. some of these images are extremely explicit. when i worked in a lab a few years ago, the general rule was 1. any image showing an erect penis or 2. an image showing anything touching genetalia (male or female) was classed as porographic and therefore could not be passed over to the customer. is this actually the law or is it more likely to be a company policty? and are we entitled to not print these explicit images (we have a 17 year old working on the lab at times and I think its unfair that anyone not forewarned should have to deal with this!)
prev wheres my question?   Speeding next
Report this question
Subscribe to question
 Find out more…

Please describe this clip for users who are unable to view You Tube videos, this is for their benefit.

Type your answer here
I want to subscribe to this thread

1 to 4 of 4

Avatar Image
bednobs
(20:36 on Wed 11/Oct/06) why dont you check your company policy?. Personally i cant understand why anyone would put those sort of photos in to be developed when you consider how cheap it is to get a polaroid, or a photo printer :-)
Avatar Image
Buenchico
(21:31 on Wed 11/Oct/06) With so many digital cameras around, I'm surprised that many of these type of images are still seen in processing labs.

Basically, if anyone in the photos is under 16 (in all circumstances) or under 18 (in certain circumstances), even simple nudity might be regarded as a breach of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. (After some questionable arrests in the past, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service have at last come to recognise that there's nothing wrong with, for example, parents taking innocent pictures of their kids in the bath. However, many processing labs tend to exercise caution regarding any photographs involving child nudity).

As long as the people in the pictures are over 18 years old, it's basically 'anything goes' as far as the law is concerned. It's illegal to publish or distribute material which is likely to deprave or corrupt those who might see it. However (even when publication or distribution is concerned), it's a defence to show that the only people who were likely to see the images could not become depraved or corrupt because they must already be depraved or corrupt to want to view the images!).

It's the (extremely remote) possibility that a lab might be deemed to be 'distributing' photographs when they return them to the photographer which makes some labs wary of doing so. However, simple possession of pornographic images (other than those involving minors) is not an offence. It doesn't matter whether the images show men, women, sheep, goats or whatever. Neither does it matter whether the practices depicted are 'normal', 'kinky' or almost physically impossible. Anyone can possess such images without fear of prosecution.

Chris

(PS: When I was in my teens, my mother worked at a photo lab. During peak times, she would bring many thousands of photographs home, in order that she could check the quality of the processing. Going through them to look for all the '
Avatar Image
Buenchico
(21:33 on Wed 11/Oct/06) . .. 'interesting' pictures was great fun!
Avatar Image
Ward~Minter
(21:50 on Wed 11/Oct/06) Chris is spot on again. However I would argue that 18 is the cut off point in near enough all circumstances except if the people are married.

I would make a joke about it when they collect incase they are trying to get a reaction.

1 to 4 of 4

Post An Answer

Search In The AnswerBank

Web   Site

Latest posts