Jump to content

Ontario to photographer: No nude shots of students


Recommended Posts

When I read this news story, my first thought was "Oh no, another pervert

photographer caught taking nudes in a locker room with a hidden camera" or

something of that nature.

 

But then, as I read the story, it because clear that the girls photographed had

been voluntarily photographed in the nude at the photographer's studio. So I

thought to myself, "Oh, so they were underage. Bummer, the photographer should

have checked."

 

Then I read that both young ladies (the high school students) were 18 years old.

I don't know what the law regarding the ability to enter into a binding

contract is in Canada, but in the US, it's 18. So for this purpose, in the US,

those kids would be adults and fully capable of agreeing to pose nude. In fact,

there are dirty magazines that are devoted to only raunchy photographs of

18-year-olds.

 

So I wasn't sure what the whole story was about. Turns out, the (female)

photographer did nothing illegal, although it was mentioned that had the two

girls been under 18, it would have been a felony. Yes, I took money out of the

bank yesterday. Had I done it with a gun in my hand, it would have been

robbery. The point being what? The writer wished it was a felony? The writer

felt it important that we know it could have been a felony but for want of a

birthday?

 

The photographer took nude photos of two 18-year-old girls who were both still

high school students (ah, that's the thing), carefully checked their ID, both

signed contracts of their own free will, and their photos ended up on a website

that the government is apparently monitoring, according to the story.

 

So where was the crime?

 

Well, no crime, apparently.

 

But Ontario is not going to allow it anyway. Funny, I usually envy Canada their

laid back, less puritan attitudes towards sex, nudity, and so on, compared to

the US. Apparently, this is not always the case.

 

In any case, here is the story and the link to it.

 

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070317/NEWS01/703170335/1002/NEWS

 

***QUOTE***

 

Ontario to photographer: No nude shots of students

 

James Goodman

Staff writer

 

(March 17, 2007) ? VICTOR ? An Ontario County woman who photographed at least 13

women ? including two Victor high school students ? for an adult Web site has

agreed not to take any more photos of high school students.

 

"She understands that photographing high school students is not in their best

interests," said Ontario County Sheriff Philip Povero.

 

The photographer made the commitment after being interviewed by sheriff's

deputies on Friday. No criminal charges were filed.

 

All of the women photographed were 18 or older, including the two women who at

the time were seniors at Victor Senior High School, Povero said.

 

Most of those photographed posed topless and voluntarily entered into a contract

with the photographer, who required proof that they were 18, Povero said. The

women were paid for their modeling and gave exclusive rights to the photographer

for future use of the photos, which were submitted to an adult Web site in Canada.

 

The name of the photographer was not released because she had not been charged

with a crime. Showing sexual images of someone younger than 17 would be a felony

under state law.

 

The investigation was reviewed with the Ontario County District Attorney's

Office, Povero said.

 

Photographs of the 13 women were taken over the past two to three years.

Sheriff's deputies, according to Povero, have been monitoring the Web site for

several months. "We will continue to monitor," said Povero, noting the evidence

does not show that a law has been violated.

 

Victor Superintendent Timothy McElheran sent out an e-mail to parents and

members of the community Friday that referred to possible exploitation of

several young adults from Victor.

 

"It is my hope that you will use this unfortunate situation to discuss the

safety issues associated with the Internet and the possible threat it poses to

the welfare of our young people," he wrote.

 

JGOODMAN@DemocratandChronicle.com

 

*** END QUOTE ***

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, my bad. I read that the photos were on a website in Canada, and Ontario...oh, oops. Well, my apologies, Canadians. It would seem that my initial presumption about Canadians being more laid-back about this sort of thing was correct - here it is a NY county that's forcing a stop to legal behavior. Sorry!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well Wigwam-here's one Canadian who doesn't see anything wrong with advising a photographer that perhaps posting nude or semi-nude pictures of a couple of high school girls on an adult web site may not be in their best interests. I belive in photographers rights but I don't see this as being anything to be concerned about. regards, cb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine that, a county in the U.S. forcing a stop to legal behavior. Hard to imagine! (said with

irony) Where did I read that a significant number of Americans, when read passages from the

Bill of Rights without knowing what they were being read strongly disagreed with a lot of it?

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The photographer made the commitment after being interviewed by sheriff's deputies..."

 

We call that intimidation. It is pretty obvious they leaned on her heavily "in her best interest" as they put it. Coercion, intimidation, and threats. After all, they'd been 'monitoring' her Canadian website for over three months - why? And when she didn't do anything wrong, well, we'll just go have a little chat with her, make her see the light.

 

A different photographer might have told them to get stuffed. And found themselves being audited by the IRS, having their studios inspected by local zoning authorities, being pulled over for 'tail-light out' whenever they drove a car, etc.

 

No, no one 'made' her stop. But the 'chilling effect' of that little talk comes through loud and clear. We don't like what you do - if you know what's good for you, you'll stop it. To hell with the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Wigwam-I certainly understand what you are saying but it's possible you're jumping to conclusions here. As the name of the photographer was not released, I guess the newspaper could not interview her and get her take on the situation so we don't know if she felt intimidated or just agreed; it's just possible that you're jumping to conclusions. cb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles, I could well be wrong about how the 'interview' went down. But I spent ten years in law enforcement, and while I'm not Sgt Joe Friday, I know some of the tactics used pretty well.

 

"Why don't you open the trunk and let me look inside?" is a way of saying "I can't legally search your trunk, but you really had better open it for me voluntarily." It is said as a command imperative, not a casual question. It's all about body language, tone of voice, facial expression, and people's nature fear of the police.

 

People who have never had an angry cop trying to 'persuade' them to do something 'in their best interest' probably have a hard time imagining such a scenario, but it is done all time - not even illegal for them to do it. They don't come right out and say that if you refuse to do what they want you to do, bad things will happen to you - they just imply.

 

But yes, the 'interview' could have been totally innocent. My gut tells me otherwise, but I have been wrong before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>> But yes, the 'interview' could have been totally innocent. My gut tells me otherwise,

but I have been wrong before.

 

Since you don't really know, perhaps it'd be good not to speculate it was not innocent.

Sounds

like you have a deep-seated agenda...

www.citysnaps.net
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Wigwam-an interesting topic and I like the fact that we could exchange views in a polite/civilized manner. Either one of us could be wrong-I hope it's you but I can be naive about things. As far as where all this actually took place Canada/U.S.), which was in part your original point after all, as Emily Latella in the original Saturday Night Live series used to say..."never mind". cb :-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's clearly more to the story than the newspaper reported. That may be why Mr. Goodman seems to be making a point of reiterating that no law was violated.

 

<p>My own speculation is that the "monitors" (and their bosses at the District Attorney's office?) were becoming very aroused.... at the prospect of scoring a high-profile child pornography bust that would launch their political careers into high orbit. Then, when they triumphantly and heroically hauled in the Evil Child Pornographer for an "interview," they were more than disappointed to find the launch scrubbed.

 

<p>So the best they could do to wipe some of the egg off their faces was to proclaim that it <i>would</i> have been a felony if only the models had been a few months younger, or if the photographer's paperwork were incomplete. That way they (and the school officials) get to the booby prize (as it were) of asserting their credentials as Highly-Effective Vigilant Defenders Of Our Precious Children, even though the case didn't give them what they really wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It is pretty obvious they leaned on her heavily "in her best interest"<BR><BR>

 

You'd better go back and read that quote again:<BR><BR>

 

"She understands that photographing high school students is not in <i>their</i> best interests" (italics added). Is that a problem? Eighteen may be the legal age of consent, but it says nothing about maturity. Two girls, still in high school and living at home, capable of dealing with the seedy side of the real world? Give me a break!<BR>Personally, as a public official, I'd rather deal with the fallout from being a little overzealously proactive than with the aftermath of a tragedy: "Why Didn't You Do Something To Prevent This?" Well, maybe they did.<BR><BR>

 

You also have to consider that the events as they actually happened may have been much different than they way they appeared in the press. Wigwam, if you really were a cop, I would think you'd understand that....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William-- I find increasing excuses for increasing "overzealousness" scary. I

know, we're protecting kids so who cares about anyone's civil rights, we're protecting

ourselves from terrorists so who cares about our individual privacy, we need to run a well-

healed

military so who cares about the lives of those we weed out on trumped-up notions of

military stability, we have to protect (an old one) the institution of marriage so who cares

about the freedom of interracial couples to marry. Protection is necessary but often winds

up

smothering the protected. There's got to be a balance and many of us feel the scales

tilting

way in the direction of monolithic authoritarian crazy people who happen to be in charge

of

some governments.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victor NY is just a town away from me, and I've been following this in the paper for the last couple days. IMO, it's a combination of bad judgement on the girls and photographers part, the desire not to have that sort of thing going on in a small town, the desire for the press and political figures to have something to jump up and down about, and finally, the fact that the whole Rochester area is far more conservative than most people realize. The outcome is probably the best compromise given the overall situation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

 

Point made about my misquote - thanks for that.

 

As far as their (the students) ability to deal with the real world, give *me* a break. Either 18 is or it is not the age at which people can sign legally-binding contracts. If it is, then it is. I'd love to have a few 'do-overs' for some stupid decisions I made along the way, so how about it?

 

If I were a public official, I would hope I would have the intestinal fortitude to say to an aggrieved public that since no laws were broken, there was nothing to be done about it - if you don't want your adult-age high school kids to sign legally-binding contracts to pose naked on the internet, better do that parent thing and tell them not to do it.

 

Of course, municipalities and counties usually have zoning capability - so if it is really a problem, they do have recourse.

 

As whether or not I worked in law enforcement, if you question my honesty, send me a private email and I will give you the information you need to independently prove my past affiliations - no need to insinuate that I might just be a liar.

 

Fred, I'm right with you.

 

Conrad, I get your point, but it's too bad the photographer wasn't willing to tell the sheriff's office where to get off. This kind of knuckling under leads people to believe it is legal to quash civil rights whenever a couple of young ladies make bad decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get it about the cops methods of getting something done 'off the books'- my dad was a cop for over 22 years. I get it (and wholeheatedly agree) about the age of majority being 18 - I saw that happen during the Vietnam era. I get it about not all 18-year-old girls being as innocent as we'd like to think they are (think 'teen pregnancy'). I get it about young women either rebelling or perhaps trying a 'jump start' for an acting or modeling career by having the pictures shot (they wouldn't be the first to do that by a long shot). I've even been approached on that basis several times, with no modeling fee involved in the discussion. You'd be surprised how many young women just want nude photos of themselves just so they can look back one day at how pretty they were when they were young.

 

It sounds to me more like one of more of the girls was the close relative of someone important in that particular small town, and their way of stopping the photographer and to 'civil-rights lawsuit-proof' themselves at the same time was to have the cops roust her and get her to 'understand it's not in their (the girls') best interest'. I wonder what's happened to the photos...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder if she'd have "understood" as well if it hadn't been an armed group with arrest powers (and the ability to traffic ticket the hell out of her) who'd talked with her? Not that ANY threats were made, mind you, just a nice little conversation...at the jailhouse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wigwam, I wasn't questioning your honesty. I was just surprised that someone with your background would accept anything the press says at face value. The media have their own agendas (along with a lot of folks posting here, apparently). After 20 years with a rather large southern California agency, I learned never to trust a reporter or a lawyer, and always to fly under the radar on a slow news day. Also, never to let 'em promote you beyond first-line supervisor.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

 

I got out of law enforcement when I realized I'd be dealing with the same people for the rest of my life. It gave me a very poor impression of people in general, because I only dealt with the small percentage of people who are complete knuckle draggers and those whom they victimize. After awhile, you start to think that everyone is that stupid and dishonest, which is only nearly true. Everybody is 5150, every driver is deuce. My only friends were cops, nurses, ER workers, and those who worked shifts and could stomach cop humor, which is scary to civilians. My non-cop friends were starting to drift away.

 

I had no desire to be that depressed and isolated for the rest of my life. I went back to college and got into computers. Photography came later, or rather returned from my high school days. And yes, I avoid reporters and lawyers when I can. I am a fan of the police and the difficult job they do. I also know more or less all of the tricks and shortcuts, and I know that power tends to be corrupting.

 

I took the news story more or less at face value because it was not written from the usual "we're out to get the cops" point of view and was rather written from the small-town-reporter "look, we caught the bad guy" point of view. The report seemed to be decidedly on side of the police, not suspicious of them, as reporters in larger cities usually are. So there was no reason for me not to trust direct quotes. That was my reasoning, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...