# Partial baby/toddler nudes??? Help



## JenLavazza (Mar 2, 2010)

I have a question in regards to child porn laws.....  Most of you probably saw the photo I posted of my daughter in the nude wearing bunny ears for easter....she's 15 months old.  I would have NEVER thought this was an issue, but when my mother-in-law went to Walmart to develop it they gave her a hard time.  Does anyone know the laws in regards to this??  Look an Ann Geddes photos!  MOST of her babies are nude and there are calendars, cards, etc made with them.  I would never photograph my 5 year old in this manner...but a baby/toddler???  Nothing was showing...


----------



## JimmyO (Mar 2, 2010)

Definetly something ive thought about too. I think it would be based off of whether or not "anything" was showing besides butt or chest


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 2, 2010)

It seems like this is another unfortunate result of the sad state of our society.  

Obviously, we don't want child pornographers running wild, they should be punished to the full extent of the law (and more).  
However, it seems that our society is not capable of trusting the decisions of what constitutes wrong or right to low level employees...so companies like Wal-mart just tell their photo lab staff to say no to anything that might even remotely resemble something illegal/wrong etc.  

Besides the obvious exploitation of children, most people's views on what they are comfortable with, is going to be different.  For example, most people are OK with a nude toddler, especially on a beach or in the bathtub etc.  But 4 or 5 year old kids would probably be uncomfortable to many North Americans.  On the flip side, many European countries are a lot more laid back about nudity and they can actually tell the difference between nudity and sexuality.  Well, I think that most North Americans can tell the difference too, but here in N.A. we have a small group of overreacting, ignorant whistle blowers who have a much larger voice than their numbers should dictate.  

Sorry, went on a bit of a rant there.

Take the photos to a proper photo lab, instead of Wal-mart etc.


----------



## Phranquey (Mar 2, 2010)

Big Mike said:


> here in N.A. we have a small group of overreacting, ignorant whistle blowers who have a much larger voice than their numbers should dictate.


 
It's not much different south of the border, either.  If one crotchety lady hears something she doesn't like on TV, and makes a call to the FCC, look out ...  fines abound.  So, everyone is in CYA mode to avoid lawsuits.


----------



## FarrahJ (Mar 3, 2010)

I think the main problem is that she tried to print them at Walmart.  I'm surprised they didn't give her a hard time about needing a print release too.


----------



## JenLavazza (Mar 4, 2010)

Yeah, I keep offering to order her photos for her because I have a great place right in town that does them the same day and do an AWESOME job!  

She gave them a release to keep on file because they used to hassle her about it.  I think she's finally going to listen to me and not go there!


----------



## jennyjen (Mar 5, 2010)

Eh i dont think you really need to have your kid nude to take a good picture. Just put at little something over his/her body.


----------



## burnws6 (Mar 5, 2010)

I have a very good joke....but I'll stay quiet.


----------



## gian133 (Mar 5, 2010)

I had not seen the picture so i just went and looked at it. I think its good, and i can't believe people have a problem with that. I mean, every other baby picture these days is one of a kid laying in a basket. also nude with nothing showing. People these days are just unbelieveable.

Hope all works out for ya.

-Gian


----------



## IgsEMT (Mar 5, 2010)

*OUR society is full of idiots*.
Number 2 - why wallmart? why any local pharmacy at all?

go to winkflash.com, pay like 5-6 cents a print and it'll be same mediocre quality.


----------



## LBPhotog (Mar 5, 2010)

Here's my two cents:

I worked in a "retail" photography studio and we had certain "rules + regulations" when it came to doing baby nudes.  They were basically this, the child had to be younger than 12 months old and the idea had to be approved by "mom or dad" and you shouldn't be able to tell if the baby was "male or female" by the "identifying parts" if you looked at the print.  I currently work in a photolab and our rule is that the picture has to depict someone actually breaking the law; because, otherwise the authorities won't even look at it.

As for printing at the "big blue crappy lab", they may have their own regulations as to what they will, and wont, print. Just have mom try and print the image somewhere else and she might be more successful at the new place.

I, personally, have "nekid bum shots" of my daughter, and I love them (and will used them as blackmail fodder when she gets older).  But, nude babies seem to be a very polarizing topic - you either love them or hate them.


----------



## ArtphotoasiA (Mar 5, 2010)

LBPhotog said:


> They were basically this, the child had to be younger than 12 months old and the idea had to be approved by "mom or dad" and you shouldn't be able to tell if the baby was "male or female" by the "identifying parts" if you looked at the print.



It seams ok to me....  but make me wonder ...  our socierty is not only sik... is rotten!


----------

