'Fairy Photographer' taken to court over 'child pornography'

puppygirl · Post by **puppygirl** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:09 am

Interesting story, a university tutor and part time professional photographer was taken to court over taking artistic nudes of children on commission for the girls parents.

What's your take on this? Me personally I can see why they did it but it still seems a little OTT to me. I'm also slightly worried that this might set a trend, I know that my parents have nude photos of myself and my siblings from when we were young.

wingyding · Post by **wingyding** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:46 am

Damn. I can see why there could be a problem with taking nude photos of ten year old girls. But I think it's unfair to charge the guy with possession of child pornography, nevermind *creating* it, because, hey, the kids' parents are right there.

Honestly, the opinion I have of this guy's behavior is a lot like the opinion I have of Michael Jackson's. Even if he was completely innocent in agreeing to do what he did, it was a really dumb idea to do it. I mean come on, you are taking nude shots of young girls and taking them to be developed by someone else. You should have known how that could go very badly.

Post by **steyn** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:14 pm

personally from an artist's point of view, the legal system is killing all things nude, not just pornography

But from a common sense of view, no matter how much people will pay you, stay clear of taking pictures of nude children, even if it's for a medical journal, you know in the end, someone's gonna call it child pornography and you're going to get in trouble.

[Edited on 7/8/2008 by steyn]

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:10 pm

Am I going to get in trouble for owning a VHS of The Secret of Roan Inish, which includes scenes of a little boy running around "without a stitch"?