Should photos of naked babies be trashed?

They have a gal at the Data Hoarders Forum that has archived 25,000 chromes with online access. She has done a bang-up job at providing hi-res scans of found chromes for open content CC use. She scans everything, bad exposure, fogged chromes, whatever. But she does not scan naked babies and said so when some kids criticized her for 'privacy and copyright issues' for working with other people's found photos.

 

Well, leave it to the kids to come up with privacy and copyright with found photos. The job of the archivist is mainly to deal with other people's material and some of it was copyrighted at one time or maybe still is. The job of the archivist is to sift out what needs to be archived balanced with copyright. And for the women and for the young people, maybe privacy is a concern. (Although, from what I read, privacy is a big issue in Europe, so it may all depend on which country you are in.)

 

As a candid street photographer for 50+ years and an archivist for many decades, privacy seldom enters my purview. My concern? Is it legal? If legal, I do as I like most of the time. And with copyright, the legal question must be balanced with preservation. This comes under the auspices of the greater good or the greater right. Although if I know something may hurt someone, I will inject some privacy concerns in it, such as I did with 'Hakenkreuz in a Dress.' Or when I put certain photos up at Wiki Commons and they demand commercial use license. I will block out the face, and in the description, I mention the same photo is available at the I.A., with no censorship for non-commercial use.

 

But getting back to these naked babies...what should be done with them?

 

Trashed?

 

Archived as is?

 

Censored with privates blocked out?

 

Her Archive is totally unorganized, so if the naked babies would have been done, they would have been mixed in with everything else. As it stands if the naked babies were done, they would stand out like a sore thumb as a collection of naked babies!

 

I have a large VHS Archive and some of the home movie found footage may have the family's naked baby in them. I think nothing of it. I copy the tapes as-is. I guess if a woman or young person was digitizing the tapes, they would cut out the naked babies.

There is a legitimate view that some materials should not be figuratively placed on what librarians call "open shelves" but restricted to "adult", scholarly viewers.

 

For example Wagner's Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg.

 

However, who guards the guardians?

I guess if a woman or young person was digitizing the tapes, they would cut out the naked babies.

I wouldn’t generalize like this based on the experience with one forum.

My concern? Is it legal? If legal, I do as I like most of the time.

For me, legality is the baseline. I may restrict myself beyond what’s legal according to my ethics.

I read your post and the responses on Reddit too.

 

For me personally (perhaps as a European), nakedness, in general, is not a big issue. And 'naked babies' certainly wouldn't be. But I am very very careful when taking 'street photos' that include young children. I always ask permission from the parents to keep and/or publish any photos, explaining who I am, where I live, why I took photos, my contact details, etc. Without parental consent, I would immediately delete my photos and confirm this to the parents.

 

To me (as a parent), babies and young children lying/sitting or running around without any clothes on seems a pretty natural occurrence, especially in the summer! And a pretty natural occurrence for a family to photograph or film too. As someone on Reddit mentioned, the 'intent' of a photograph/film (to the extent any archivist can discern this) is perhaps more important than any 'naked' content. I always have the impression that the US (in films and TV series) is more hung up on nakedness and sex scenes than in European countries. That said, I fully realize that a (hopefully) very small minority of people get some kind of sexual gratification from viewing photos and videos of children. I also realize that some children are deliberately exploited for this purpose.

 

There are privacy concerns regarding the source, licensing, and approximate age of archived photos. In general, I would expect an archivist to sub-divide the archive into subject categories and also into levels of accessibility such as public (unrestricted), restricted (age), and 'verified membership required' - with tracking - to distinguish between genuinely interested members and 'creeps'. These days, images can be protected from downloading. So even in the 'membership only' category, photo's can be protected from 'downloads' (and sharing). 'Members' could make an application for a download stating their purpose for this.

 

W.r.t. 'intent' there are other types of photos where an archivist IHMO must strike a balance. I'm not sure whether these are 'chromes'. Almost all of these fall into the category 'sexual titillation'. For example, so-called 'street photos' of attractive young women, 'upskirt photos', etc. On the one hand, this is a photographic 'genre' or trend that deserves in some way to be archived. On the other hand, the 'probable intent' needs to be made clear by the archivist. All photos in this category clearly exploit women in some way. So to summarize: I have no problem with photos of 'naked babies'. With 'babies' (clothed or not) as a subcategory of 'family pics. I have a greater problem with 'street photographers' whose photos sexually exploit women.

 

Given the reality that a very small minority of people seem to sexually 'get off' from 'candid' photos of children, young teens and young women, some kind of access restrictions to an archive are unfortunately necessary. Any photos that indicate that a subject is being exploited obviously need to be placed in the 'Membership only' category. I don't believe that any photo should be excluded from an archive solely based on 'content'' But I do believe that it is the job of an archivist to provide the 'context' of found images.

Edited March 15, 2022 by mikemorrell

The thing I find annoying is when the TV news blurs out children's faces on journalistic videos. Like the ones taken in Ukraine of refugee adults holding their children while fleeing. I think it's become a knee-jerk reaction may be due to fear of being sued or maybe something else. But it actually lessens the power of the video if they're trying to make a point. The idea that somehow they're protecting the child also doesn't make sense. The child and mother have more worrisome things to deal with. I just think we're going too far. Blurring faces in these kinds of videos and images are not protecting anyone.

These days the danger of being caught in "infringement" is world-wide, as witness a wanna-be anthropologist ("carbon-crystal") getting sued by a "native' informant he found driving a taxi in the capital in an Oceanic country which he assumed was "primitive"

We've reached the point where we can't show a baby crying in its mother's arms as they flee bombs going off in a war. We have to blur out the child's face. Why? To reduce the humanity does a disservice to their dangerous situation. The poor photographer's work is diminished who we have seen is taking a chance on getting killed in a war, and some have died already. Yet we edit their images, blurring the very point of them and mocking their work. Someone, somewhere, is going to cry out racist, misanthropic, pervert, "infringement", or whatever. So we are afraid to expose our thoughts verbally as well as artfully in our photos, even innocent ones. We've imposed censorship on ourselves, afraid of our own shadow.

So we are afraid to expose our thoughts verbally.

I’m not, and you certainly don’t seem to be.

 

Pregnant women are being bombed in maternity wards, kids are being killed coming home from schools, millions of people are becoming refugees, losing their homes and cities, so I’m not sure it’s a moment to … focus … on “poor photographers” or overblown worries about wokeness.

I’m not, and you certainly don’t seem to be.

 

Pregnant women are being bombed in maternity wards, kids are being killed coming home from schools, millions of people are becoming refugees, losing their homes and cities, so I’m not sure it’s a moment to … focus … on “poor photographers” or overblown worries about wokeness.

Yes, I watch my words carefully today. I think about what I say and how I say it aware that the thought police in society will jump on any "error" in choosing the appropriate word or inflection. Our photography and art have been affected as well. A lot of people are fed up with the constant criticism of our thoughts and words. So now even crying babies are forbidden to be photographed because there are a few perverts in society. And it's not some dystopian government imposing it on us. We're freely doing it to ourselves.

Yes, I watch my words carefully today. I think about what I say and how I say it aware that the thought police in society will jump on any "error" in choosing the appropriate word or inflection. Our photography and art have been affected as well. A lot of people are fed up with the constant criticism of our thoughts and words. So now even crying babies are forbidden to be photographed because there are a few perverts in society. And it's not some dystopian government imposing it on us. We're freely doing it to ourselves.

It sounds to me like you simply can’t stand the heat of opposing views to your own. In a free speech society, you can say what you like and people are free to opine on what you’ve said. If you’re self-censoring because of reactions you get, that’s your choice and simply part of airing your views and engaging in public discourse. Or are you suggesting that people who don’t like what you say or how you say it don’t have the same freedom of speech as you?

 

I’ve certainly modulated how I use language over the years but it’s come out of respect for certain people I’m talking to or about, not out of fear.

 

i think babies’ faces are being blurred out of respect for their privacy and not because of worry about a few perverts. I can understand why a mother fleeing a genocide might prefer her child’s face not be shown. I’ve noticed the blurs. I’ve also seen plenty of Ukrainian children interviewed full face on camera. You’re exaggerating what’s happening and hyperbolizing about your art being affected.

I stand by my previous response. My take is that - for photography and archival- purposes, there is perhaps a 'gray scale' between 'accredited photographers' and amateur photographers. Not in terms of subject matter but in terms of 'intent' and 'legitimacy'. The iconic image below shows a naked girl and I can't imagine that any archivist would ban this photo.

#/media/File:The_Terror_of_War.jpg

#/media/File:The_Terror_of_War.jpg

Edited March 16, 2022 by mikemorrell

Yes, I watch my words carefully today. I think about what I say and how I say it

I applaud you. I've been doing that since I had an excellent third grade teacher who encouraged her students to choose our words carefully, to notice all the nuances that different words convey, and to spend time thinking about what we might write or say before necessarily picking up a pen or opening our mouths. Would that more folks would follow your lead and be careful with their words, especially words that might harm or diminish others. Sounds like a good combination of self awareness and empathy. I'm glad to hear it.

Yes, I watch my words carefully today. I think about what I say and how I say it aware that the thought police in society will jump on any "error" in choosing the appropriate word or inflection. Our photography and art have been affected as well. A lot of people are fed up with the constant criticism of our thoughts and words. So now even crying babies are forbidden to be photographed because there are a few perverts in society. And it's not some dystopian government imposing it on us. We're freely doing it to ourselves.

 

 

All in the name of wokeness.

 

Yet in some instances the differing opinions on what should be done is not as important as what each particular person endorses on the topic "is it legal".

 

There is a 1960s british film set in a nudist colony where there is about 15 minutes total screen time of underage, under 14 year old naked children of both genders. Including a 5 minute synchronized fully nude diving routine by nude children of both genders between the ages of 5 and 10.

Film never censored, freely found and watched on the big tube thingy.

 

There are people who will try to hang you if you bring that video up, or even point out it exists. Claim its "kiddie porn" but will fight you tooth and nail on how their collection of nude 5 to 15 year old children by sally mann and sturges are completely innocent and wonderful art works

There are people who will try to hang you if you bring that video up, or even point out it exists. Claim its "kiddie porn"

Hyperbolic rhetoric about hanging aside, people have disagreed about art and morality from the beginning of time. Someone disagreeing with you about a video is not grounds to use "wokeness" as an excuse to dismiss them. Maybe ask them why they think what they think. Start a dialogue. They, and you, might learn something.

 

Sally Mann had her own troubles in terms of moral questioning of her work. And Sturges was forced to take down some of his photos from PN, at which point he chose to leave here instead of accede to the prude police. So, your assumptions on the innocence and acceptance of Mann and Sturges relative to the British nudist colony film are lacking merit.

 

I haven't seen the film, but from your brief description it doesn't sound like it would bother me. Neither do Mann or Sturges. I don't consider myself "woke," but I do consider myself sensitive to the way many women have been abused and aggrieved from a male-dominated society that has ignored workplace abuse and sexual power politics for way too long, that is until some strong women started coming forward to enlighten society.

 

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. And don't reduce all that you think of as "wokeness" to some of the sillier tales, which do exist and which right-wingers like to solely focus on.

I applaud you. I've been doing that since I had an excellent third grade teacher who encouraged her students to choose our words carefully, to notice all the nuances that different words convey, and to spend time thinking about what we might write or say before necessarily picking up a pen or opening our mouths. Would that more folks would follow your lead and be careful with their words, especially words that might harm or diminish others. Sounds like a good combination of self awareness and empathy. I'm glad to hear it.

There's a difference between saying things offensively and saying things that some people find offensive but that I feel are the truth and should be said. I try to avoid the former but will say things that fall into the latter category. If people don;t "get it" that's really their problem.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

Sam, what others may read as an overused colloquialism, I read as significant. Overgeneralization can be generous.

 

FWIW, when I do street work (which seems to have vanished into the haze), I usually ask the subject(s) if it's ok. To me, doing this in the case of children is amplified considerably given the increase of child abuse and child kidnapping.

Exactly. My question is: Why, throughout the thread, have you made it your problem?

 

You're the one with all the complaints here ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you say, "If people don't get it, that's really their problem," it's hard to square that with all the complaining you're doing about what others say on these subjects and all the ways in which you make yourself, and photographers, victims.

 

This is where empathy and understanding can play a role. I have used terminology that I didn't mean offensively and didn't know it would be taken that way. If someone, however, is offended, I will usually ask them why. I have to say, most of the time I get a reasonable explanation. Now, even if I see the other side and still don't find the term offensive, why would I not use the preferred term to avoid further offending the person who was offended? It seems so easy and decent a thing to do.

 

If you want to be called Alan, I call you Alan. If you want to be called Al, I call you Al. If you want to be called Mr. Klein, I call you Mr. Klein. If someone wants to be called Ms., I call them Ms. If Leslie is offended when I use the pronoun "he," I use "they" instead. I know I didn't mean "he" offensively but now I also know what Leslie wants to be called, so I do it.

 

If you want to speak your truth, speak it. I think you should. I speak mine as well. But I don't expect there not to be strong disagreement with some of my truths. And when people disagree, I don't become "afraid to expose my thoughts." I either try to express myself more clearly or walk away unafraid.

 

Well said

If people don;t "get it" that's really their problem.

Exactly. My question is: Why, throughout the thread, have you made it your problem?

 

You're the one with all the complaints here ...

The thing I find annoying

I just think we're going too far.

We've reached the point where we can't show a baby crying in its mother's arms as they flee bombs going off in a war.

The poor photographer's work is diminished

Someone, somewhere, is going to cry out racist, misanthropic, pervert, "infringement", or whatever. So we are afraid to expose our thoughts

We've imposed censorship on ourselves, afraid of our own shadow.

I think about what I say and how I say it aware that the thought police in society will jump on any "error" in choosing the appropriate word or inflection. Our photography and art have been affected as well.

When you say, "If people don't get it, that's really their problem," it's hard to square that with all the complaining you're doing about what others say on these subjects and all the ways in which you make yourself, and photographers, victims.

There's a difference between saying things offensively and saying things that some people find offensive

This is where empathy and understanding can play a role. I have used terminology that I didn't mean offensively and didn't know it would be taken that way. If someone, however, is offended, I will usually ask them why. I have to say, most of the time I get a reasonable explanation. Now, even if I see the other side and still don't find the term offensive, why would I not use the preferred term to avoid further offending the person who was offended? It seems so easy and decent a thing to do.

 

If you want to be called Alan, I call you Alan. If you want to be called Al, I call you Al. If you want to be called Mr. Klein, I call you Mr. Klein. If someone wants to be called Ms., I call them Ms. If Leslie is offended when I use the pronoun "he," I use "they" instead. I know I didn't mean "he" offensively but now I also know what Leslie wants to be called, so I do it.

 

If you want to speak your truth, speak it. I think you should. I speak mine as well. But I don't expect there not to be strong disagreement with some of my truths. And when people disagree, I don't become "afraid to expose my thoughts." I either try to express myself more clearly or walk away unafraid.

Please disregard.

Exactly. My question is: Why, throughout the thread, have you made it your problem?

 

You're the one with all the complaints here ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you say, "If people don't get it, that's really their problem," it's hard to square that with all the complaining you're doing about what others say on these subjects and all the ways in which you make yourself, and photographers, victims.

 

This is where empathy and understanding can play a role. I have used terminology that I didn't mean offensively and didn't know it would be taken that way. If someone, however, is offended, I will usually ask them why. I have to say, most of the time I get a reasonable explanation. Now, even if I see the other side and still don't find the term offensive, why would I not use the preferred term to avoid further offending the person who was offended? It seems so easy and decent a thing to do.

 

If you want to be called Alan, I call you Alan. If you want to be called Al, I call you Al. If you want to be called Mr. Klein, I call you Mr. Klein. If someone wants to be called Ms., I call them Ms. If Leslie is offended when I use the pronoun "he," I use "they" instead. I know I didn't mean "he" offensively but now I also know what Leslie wants to be called, so I do it.

 

If you want to speak your truth, speak it. I think you should. I speak mine as well. But I don't expect there not to be strong disagreement with some of my truths. And when people disagree, I don't become "afraid to expose my thoughts." I either try to express myself more clearly or walk away unafraid.

I'm trying to make conversation by addressing the unintended consequences of new social rules that go overboard. I only spoke to blurring a crying baby in a war zone. Wouldn't it be more understanding and empathetic to show the baby's face? How is blurring it protect the baby from perverts and pornography? That seems silly considering the point of the photo or video and where and why it was shot. As someone else stated, it seems we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Well, leave it to the kids to come up with privacy and copyright with found photos. The job of the archivist is mainly to deal with other people's material and some of it was copyrighted at one time or maybe still is. The job of the archivist is to sift out what needs to be archived balanced with copyright. And for the women and for the young people, maybe privacy is a concern.

 

One of my concerns is the growing number of real time archivists who without consideration of any consequence, or child’s consent, regularly publish images of their own (and others) children (naked or otherwise) on Social Media Platforms; platforms which provide nothing within a coo-ee of de-identification, constituting publications which are essentially irrevocable.

 

WW

I only spoke to blurring a crying baby in a war zone. ... How is blurring it protect the baby from perverts and pornography?

The problem is your assumption that the blurring is done to protect the baby from perverts and pornography. I can't imagine that's the reason editors are blurring the faces of babies in a war zone. I can think of many other reasons that are more likely the case, starting with respect for the privacy of those suffering.

 

[Remember, the thread began about archiving pictures of naked babies. You introduced the blurred faces of babies in war. And now it seems to me you're confusing naked babies with babies in a war zone.]

 

Anyway, you're choosing to focus on the blurred faces, complaining and expressing your feelings of victimization by social decisions that don't reflect your values. I'm afraid it's a cross we all have to bear. I'd like "In God We Trust" to be removed from our currency. Haha. Good luck with that. I don't carry it around with me. And I actually understand it, even though I don't like it.

 

You're focusing on the blurs when, in fact, I have seen numerous interviews with Ukrainian kids and seen plenty of images of babies with their parents where their faces aren't blurred. Haven't you noticed them? It's likely that, in those cases, permission was obtained.

 

Naked babies in pictures are a different matter altogether, having nothing to do with the blurs you're talking about, and I'd imagine perversion would come in regarding those decisions. But, to reiterate, the blurring of babies' faces in war is an entirely different matter than how to deal with naked baby pics and decisions regarding those two situations are made for different reasons.

A little further research shows that there is quite a bit of concern for women and children and predators due to the Ukraine situation, especially human trafficking of young girls often unaccompanied and on the run. One possible reason responsible editors have decided to hide their faces. Safety.

 

UNICEF REPORT

It is and has been for years, (in mainstream media) common practice for editors to consider all circumstances and then if appropriate, provide anonymity for any victim.

The anonymity can be provided by word editing (removing name/age/address/description etc) and/or image editing (pixelating/blurring etc).

This is not a new concept in professional/responsible news-gathering and publication.

 

WW

Whatever the reason the editor blurs the image of the faces and bodies, it takes away from the power of the image. Can you imagine this photograph if that was done? This photo helped create opinions in America that the US should get out of VietNam.

 

 

Link: The story behind the heartbreaking photo of Vietnamese girl burned by napalm, 40 years later