Line between photography and pornography with kids

[danny_storm]

My wife and I have been debating an issue.

 

Growing up I had a father who's hobby was photography (he also

taught several classes in photography over the years). He took

photos almost daily of us and it's fantastic to be able to look back

on nearly every facet of our lives from birth the the present.

 

Along with all of the photos of our vacations, daily routines,

athletics, etc. about once a year he'd have us pose for a portrait

set. He had a studio in the basement of our home and he'd take

pictures of us in our dress clothes, play clothes, sports uniforms,

pajamas, sitting on our bike, posing with the dog and in various

states of dress including nude. MY DAD IS NOT A PEDOPHILE! He simply

saw an art in the subject of nude photography. It is important that

you understand this before hanging him in your comments.

He would ask us to wear different outfits and at the end he'd ask

for some natural shots. Why this didn't seem odd to us is that we

did it for him every year so we were just used to it and nudity (at

least for the boys) around the house was not a big deal. It was

agreed these photos were for the family only and if we didn't want

our brothers or sisters to see them they would honor that request

(which none of us cared except for my sister when she got a bit

older). He'd take some of us in our t-shirt, socks and underwear

then down to our briefs showing off our biceps. Then he'd ask us to

be naked and he'd take some beatiful pics of our natural bodies. We

did this right up until we were 17 or so (my sister I believe

stopped in her early teens). There are some of my brother and me

together also.

Okay, so that's not the typical dad with an instamatic I realize. He

simply loved photography and felt that we'd appreciate having these

records of growing up someday. I hadn't seen the pics for several

years but he recently gave each of us a disc of our own photos from

birth till our teens. I was thrilled to see them again and to look

and see how we grew and matured over that time was almost like

living it all over again. My pictures ranged from my birth in 1964

until around my graduation in the summer of 1982. I shared the

pictures with my wife and she agreed it was fascinating to see them

and could understand my happiness at having them.

SO THE QUESTION is should we do the same with our boys as they grow?

Attitudes have changed in the last 20 years and I wonder if they

would be seen as child pornography by some? We feel of course that

there are photos of artistic expression and then there are photos

for sexual gratification which of course these would certainly not

be. I have inherited some of my dads interest in photography or we

thought we might have him just do the pics as usual as he is a

marginally better photographer (published many times) and does most

of the portrait type photos for us now. Again, I know my father's

intent with these photos and it was all good.

Of course if at any time our boys were to feel uncomfortable doing

these we would certainly respect their feelings.

[kim_ramsey]

I am a fan of nudes also. However, I do find it very offensive to see a child over the age of 2 years nude. I don't know how the law reads on this subject. But, I would just about bet that any type of nudity of school age children would be considered child pornography. I don't doubt the intentions of you or your father. However, I do feel that in this day and age there is a fine line between pornography and nude art. And anything that involves children after the age of about 2 or 3 years would fall into pornography.

[jim_gifford]

<<Attitudes have changed in the last 20 years and I wonder if they would be seen as child pornography by some? >>

 

Yes, they could be seen that way by some people.

 

That doesn't equate to "don't take the pictures."

 

You have to decide what you want to do, artistically, and you have to decide whether there is too much risk of adverse reaction from any others who might see the photos. Will the pictures be developed and printed at a lab?

 

Be well,

[sandy_labana]

I would say no to taking nude pictures of kids over two years old. Nude

photos are not necessary to show growing up. Use some cover. Nude

photos can fall into wrong hands can be disastrous and prove very

embarassing. This is not a risk worth taking. Sandy

[rick_waldroup3]

This is ridiculous to think that you can not take nude photos of children over 2 years old. Porn is porn. It is very recognizable. Check out the works of Sally Mann and Jock Sturges. Children are beautiful in all regards.

[fk319]

I saw a cute butt shot of a family todler, my wife and I thought it was cute. The next shot was a frontal shot, we both imeadiatly said it should not be there. The CD was only to family members.

 

I have shoot my kids in the bath tub, I always make sure the genitals are covered or obscured. I have broken this rule three times. The last time, you have to really look at the picture, but only the origional, the reductions you could not tell. The other two time my children where just a few hours old.

 

For your specific question, I have a two young children, I think there are plenty of pictures to be taken with out such borderline pictures. Although all my pictures end up on the web, so I am very concous of what I post. But you see what your dad did, so it will need to be a decesion for you and your wife.

 

Frank

[twmeyer]

Take whatever photographs you want, but do not use any commercial photo processors. They are <i>required</i> by Federal Law (in USA) to report any images that may be construed as child abuse/molestation. This is how Jock Sturges' business as a commercial photographer was ruined and his personal and private life totally disrupted for years. All of his negatives, enlargers, even his unexposed paper and 8x10 film was confiscated (and exposed) by the FBI. He made 35mm photos on slide film that he would print and give to his subjects as gifts for posing for his images made with 8x10 camera/film. That film was taken to a commercial lab in the USA where the staff was <i>required by law</i> to report that photographs where made of a naked grown man touching a naked young girl (father and daughter, on the beach in France surrounded by family and friends). <p>There are other instances of families seperated because of photos made of parents bathing their infant children. There are threads here on photo.net that link to published articles about these cases, and not very long ago, either.<p><i>Do not use commercial processors for your personal photographs</i>. Make them as an archive of your life, process and print them yourself. But not for public display and you'll be okay. Be discrete, unless you have an excess of cash and time and a desire to visit the Supreme Court for a chat. <p>50 years ago, my Dad filmed my brother and I fighting in the bathtub (I was about three years old). Today, he could be locked up for that sort of thing. For us, those films are hilarious, precious and poignant family heirlooms (Howdy Doody washrag puppets!)... t

[hakon_soreide]

This is a rather problematic issue where the line between what goes and what doesn't seem rather fuzzy.<p>

First of all, I think there are few things worse than abusing children, and those who do deserve whatever it is that other inmates do to them in prison, and when I hear stories about angered parents that maim or kill the abusers of their children, I don't feel any more sympathetic about them, and think they just had it coming.<p>

But, what is abuse? What is pornography? What is a natural display of the human form?<p>

I think different people have slightly different views about those three questions, but the bottom line, the way I see it, is if the child has come to some kind of harm, bodily or mentally from it - not just right away, but also in the long term - if the experience of being photographed in the nude felt anything but natural, and - which is the difficult bit these days - what if the picture came into the hands of someone who used it for sexual gratification?<p>

It is particularly when it comes to the latter that there is a widespread paranoia. Paedophiles do have easy access to images on the internet, and it's become easier for them to make images on their digital cameras with the <i>intent</i> of being used for sexual gratification.<p>

We all know this, and for most people this is very disturbing, even to the extent that we would stop ourselves taking pictures of, or even looking at naked children (unless they were our own) because, although we know it ourselves we're not, others might get the wrong idea and think we were perverts.<p>

Nudity in itself, regardless of age, is not obscene, and far from pornographic, and nor is depicting it in images, and I'm sure that for naturists there is something very liberating about walking around naked as they can also cast off the artifice of those notions, but still, there is a line between what goes and what doesn't. Looking at any picture we all recognise the difference between what is tasteful and what is pornography, but the line is different for different people.<p>

Legislation on these things, created to protect the children from any would-be abuse, have to be placed at the stricter end of things, or it wouldn't work.<p>

[chris_waller]

The work of Jock Sturges and Sally Mann has been castigated in some quarters but the legions of self-appointed moralisers. I think it was Oscar Wilde who said, "Show me a moraliser and I'll show you a hypocrite". I would rather the powers-that-be directed their energy to protecting children against drug-pushers and people who carry knives and guns. And I think children should be protected against television and advertising. And cynical merchandising. And dying of easily treatable diseases, and poverty, and malnutrition, and war, and landmines, and ... all the things caused by the people doing the moralising.

[beno_t_marchal]

<p><i>I wonder if they would be seen as child pornography by some?</i><br>Some

probably would but that tells you a lot more about the viewer than about the

photographer.

<p>As long as you follow in your dad's steps meaning (1) the photos are a natural, family

thing and (2) you respect the child right to say "no," I don't see why you should not go

ahead if it makes sense to you.

<p>Obviously be respectful of the laws and use some common sense. Regardless of the

risk of being "turned in" by a lab operator, you may want to process those images at home

for privacy. You never know if the lab operator does not make a second copy for his or her

"use."

<p>As you're saying <i>attitudes have changed in the last 20 years</i> and they

probably will change more in the future. You may take pictures that everybody finds

natural today, that don't involve nudity and still your children (and maybe yourself!) will

find them offensive in 20 years time. Conversely, hopefully, child nudity in a family

environment will be normal again in 20 years...

<p>--ben

[J.W. Wall]

You might find that a court would consider that a child had no real opportunity or capacity to "say no" because of their age (right up to majority). There's an argument that the adult managed to force the issue just by virtue of their position. Some will never believe they're art, and you may find those folks on your jury. Social and legal penalties are very stiff. Photos fall into wrong hands. IMO, it "ain't worth it" man!

[twmeyer]

"<i>what if the picture came into the hands of someone who used it for sexual gratification?</i>" This is something I don't get... what if it did? What if a tree fell in the forest and there was nobody there to hear it? Would it still be pornography if you never knew of this private act? Would you be harmed?<p> Some people get sexual gratification from handling women's shoes... shall we burn our wives shoes when they are worn out? Shall we obsess/fret that some one will take those shoes to bed? <p>Recall Duchamp's lesson: This Is Not A Pipe. Those shoes are <i>not</i> your wife. That photograph is <i>not</i> your son... t

[andreas_weber]

> ... However, I do find it very offensive to see a child over the age of 2 years nude. ...

 

> And anything that involves children after the age of about 2 or 3 years would fall into pornography.

 

That means, on their 3rd or 4th birthday children turn pornographic for you? You must be kidding.

 

Danny, I think all information you need is in this thread.

 

- Don't let anybody see the pictures, especially no commercial photo processor. (http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/01/31/kincaid/index.html)

 

- Make very, very sure, that when you ask your kids to undress, they really *mean* "yes" when they *say* "yes". Children tend to give the answer they think will please the asking parent. Taking photos of children who are nude anyway (as Sturges does) doesn't harm anyone. If you ask them to undress, there is the possibility to hurt them, even if you don't mean to.

 

Andreas

[karen_hendrix]

Very interesting topic. I have a 1-year old and a 2-year old and wonder when it will be "inappropriate" to photograph them nude. Two things I do believe are truths, not opinion:

 

-The difference between pornography and art is both in the eye of the person taking the picture and in the eye of the person viewing it. If it is intended to be art and all participants understand and agree to that, then it is art. It's only when somebody thinks about it as smut that it becomes trash.

 

-Children cannot keep secrets. Be prepared for the possible uproar over this issue when your child tells somebody outside of your family.

 

Another thought: maybe it's this paranoia and concern about child nudity that creates the obsession with pornography (similar to the weight-loss craze in the USA just leading to more over-weight people). Perhaps by not taking these photos, you could be encouraging this anti-nude mentality.

 

karen

[twmeyer]

"<i>The difference between pornography and art is both in the eye of the person taking the picture and in the eye of the person viewing it.</i> <p>This is a thinking that I have distilled a little further: <p><b>art is both in the eye of the person taking the picture and in the eye of the person viewing it.</b>... t

[kim long- cincinnati, ohio]

So... would this image be considered offensive/ pornographic? My daughter was 5 here, and the crinoline was always one of her favorite dress-up pieces. I took this shot on a tripod when I was expecting my son. I have a few more from this session of just my daughter. Since she is topless and over 3, would you classify it as pornographical? I'm certain she didn't feel uncomfortable or coerced. However, we are fairly relaxed in our house and while we are hardly nudists, we are also not uptight about nudity.

 

This is an interesting discussion...<div></div>

[kim long- cincinnati, ohio]

I meant to add that I also have photographs of my children playing the the bathtub that adorn our bathroom walls. I printed them myself. Had I had them done at a lab, from the sounds of this discussion, it sounds as though I might have gotten into serious trouble, since yes, my daughter was nude (though largely covered in bubbles from the bath), and she is nearly six. My son is an infant so I guess that wouldn't be an issue. I would post one here as an example, but sheesh, I wouldn't want my kids taken away from me.

[karen_hendrix]

Kim - Beautiful picture,as usual. I would definitely not consider this pornography, as I'm sure that you don't. Even if the fact that she was naked was more obvious and central to the photo, I wouldn't view it as pornography because it is obvious that it was meant to be a precious keepsake, not a sexual message. To me, clothes would have taken away from the innocent and pure message that was trying to be conveyed. So, why would anyone make a blanket statement that nudity over a certain age is inappropriate? I know that we all try to do our best to protect our children, but at what price? I would rather my children be comfortable with their own body, than to risk making them paranoid about it in an effort to avoid the very small possibility that someone would do them harm. Maybe someone who is more conservative with regards to nudity can respond to that.

 

I really appreciate this topic, it has made reminded me of how I truly feel about the subject. Living in the midwest has started to turn me too conservative in subjects like this because everyone else around here is. The entire neighborhood must have seen my two-year old daughter naked while we were potty-training her. Did the thought cross my mind that someone would view her in a sick way? Of course. But I'm not going to teach her to be afraid of the world. My child, my choice. Nobody should be judging that decision (even my mother-in-law to her dismay). - Karen

[danny_storm]

Thanks for all your responses. We have decided to continue photographing our boys nude. If at some point they seem or convey in anyway that they are uncomfortable with it we will tell them they are under no obligation to do it. At that point I would tell them they may want to take the pictures themselves so that they do have this wonderful record of growing up. With the digital camera and remote control it will be easy for them to do so. The body is beautiful at every age and we see no shame in photographing it. We were a bit surprised that no other parents claim to photograph their children in this way so maybe we are a bit odd?

[corrie sweiger]

I wouldnt even begin to call your father a pedophile-but i also worry about what someone could use these images for if they found them. The dangers it would be to your father-and also, it could 'fuel' a real pedophile if they got hold of them.

 

My other concern is that children often find things like this fun, and nothing to be ashamed about as children, but may grow up and look back at it as being exploited. (obviously not in your case-and thats good-and it sounds like your father wasnt forceful with it at all which is a releif).

 

I do take pictures of my own children in the nude,both boys, but very young. (and i do print them myself-its crazy to see what people see as offensive-a guy here in ontario got his pictures taken away at a walmart for bathtub pictures of his 15 month old..)

 

I think that whenever my children are old enough that its unacceptable for my children to play in the nude in our backyard, then i'll probably cease to photograph them that way.

 

There is no specific 'age' when children should no longer be seen nude. I think with our society though, innocence is taken away far too early.

 

I think that europe can get away with this quite a bit more because the society doesnt put so much sexual pressure on younger people. People outside of north america are also quite a bit more comfortable in their birthday suit-nude beaches, camps, resorts,-siblings will change clothes in front of eachother till their adults and think nothing of it. Obviously they dont see that as sexual otherwise they wouldnt do it.

 

I think its great that your family can have that innocence in today's society-it's rare. However I would just strongly caution you to be really careful. I know your intent is not perverse-but might not always be looked upon as innocent by others.

[Jochen_S]

I have no kids and am glad not to live in the US. I'll also never understand religious moralists demanding male soccer players to cover their knees.

 

My personal opinion about or against nudity is: at least a slip or swimming trunks in front of strangers or cameras. With girls I'd say topless is O.K., if nipples are hidden.

 

In the US with all these unemployed witchhunters around I'd be VERY careful. Maybe a picture of a swimsuit wearing female minor getting rid of jeans and t-shirt on the beach could already be porn? - ...

 

As a parent you have double responsibility! You shall not only prevent your children from being harmed by others; you shall also educate them in a way that will prevent harm and truble caused by your child!

 

As a former law student taught to fear the worst, I imagine the following scene: You don't establish a strict anti nudity rule like the example I quoted above - as far as I know children don't use sophisticated logic, including 3 layers of exemptions... - and after some vacation you 're into deep trouble: While you were doing overtime to afford films and processing, your children talked the preacherman's daughter into "playing grandpa" at your basement studio using your SLR without your knowledge and not caring about the real grandpa using only B&W...

 

Children are a unreliable source of dangers by their nature! Be aware; don't give them hints to cause more trouble than necessary! There are witchhunters among kindergartenwardens and elementary school teachers. Although they might believe in doing the absolutely right and best thing for everybody, I'd avoid anything that might sound suspicious if told by a child.

 

Please check localy if wearing a slip is "dressed" enough. Practical thinking I believe it wouldn't harm the documetation of physical growth.

[Jochen_S]

Excuse me, while reading through

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1863073

 

I felt a need to post a link here. Especially the postings of Luis Bascones and Andrea Garza made me think again.

[ericamcdonald]

For now why not just take the unclothed photos in an unposed fashion? All little kids

love nakedness as it is a natural state. Capture them in their unselfconscious joy when

it is a normal, appropriate time for them to be without clothes. Why make a small

child pose nude or pose at all if these are being taken to recall who and how they

were naturally when young? When the child ages enough to want to be covered,

respect their newfound desire for privacy. When later still they are old enough to have

a rational discussion about whether they want to be photographed nude, posed or

otherwise, you'll have their decision to follow.