Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 97

Thread: Underage is still Underage

  1. #61

    Default Re: Underage is still Underage

    Quote Originally Posted by TheQuestion View Post
    I think TS has failed to define what obscene is. and i'm just wondering are you continuing this train to nowhere to prove a point or are u really trying to raise awareness of "child porn" in this place?
    If I was trying to raise awareness it was not in for an area of "child porn" but rather how we are perceived as photographers and how photography is perceived by those not directly involved is a reflection of how we conduct ourselves. Our "professionalism" even as amateurs has consequences.

    From the comments we post, to even the picture, does and will colour someones interpretation of those here. If you like, a stereotype will develop, we can either try to take control of that, or we can let it be set by the media and the few who do not represent us all. The Moderators, I think, have taken steps to halt a direction that might not be in the best interests of all, while trying to not stiffle creative talent and exploration of a photographic genre.

    I started the thread because my response to Vince's underage comment became too long and I did not want to usurp a thread where someone was looking for genuine feedback on their photos. I do think certain shoots are "age" appropriate. And that models of a certain age should not be in certain shoots.

    Again, if this makes me a prude then so be it, but I feel there is both a legal basis and a moral one for my thoughts. Your morality is your own and you are free to disagree.

    As for defining what "obscene" is, are you asking for the legal definition as defined under Singaporean Law or my own moral benchmark?
    Canon 400D + BG-E3 . EF-S 17-85mm 4-5.6 IS . EF 75-300mm 4-5.6 IS
    http://aselley.zenfolio.com/

  2. #62
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Underage is still Underage

    You mentioned that "The law is deliberately vague on what constitutes an "obscene" act , and until it is fully tested in the courts will remain so. " - really?

    The CYPA which you quoted does not define what is obscene, although the Penal Code, which does, can be used as a starting reference point:

    Quote Originally Posted by Penal Code
    42. The word “obscene”, in relation to any thing or matter, means any thing or matter the effect of which is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.
    So if we use that as a yardstick (although this must be done with caution since the interpretation in one Act may not apply to another), the question is, does the act of photographing (which must be distinguished from the actual photographs taken) a child constitute the commission of an obscene or indecent act? The CYPA talks about an act, not about the creation of obscene photographs - hence the focus must be on the act.

    Lets strike out the easy bits first:

    1. Bikini clad model below 14 - You had said that "Bikini clad pictures would be more of a "grey" area, and would really come down to a court deciding if such were considered obscene."

    I respectfully disagree with your point of view that it is grey. Don't keep repeating what you read in the TNP in "grey" when you do not really understand what is so grey about it.

    If you really think that a court would deem the act of photographing a bikini clad model as "grey", then perhaps you live in a society far different from that we live in Singapore today.

    A simple illustration would summarily dismiss this point. We see bikini clad people in Sentosa every day, whether they be aged below 14 or above 14. Do you think these people are engaged in acts of indecency or obscenity?

    I think this sufficiently rests my case - but if you disagree, please feel free to substantiate and I'll provide a more detailed response - as of now, it is so clear to me that I don't think its worth the time to analyse this in detail.

    2. Nude model below 14 - Now even if your only research is the TNP where they keep repeating "grey" over and over; going by the CYPA, we must separate what is said there and what is said here. Even in the article, no one has discussed the act of photography itself.

    The article only talks either about distribution of obscene material, making of obscene films (video as distinguished from photos), or appearing nude in public or private.

    You will notice that at no point in the TNP where they discussed the creation of nude photographs, or for that matter, the act of photographing a nude model. At no point was the issue of age discussed.

    Hence, please do not keep using TNP as your basis of research because they discuss quite different issues.

    Now, onto the CYPA which you brought up again. Is the act of photographing a model in the nude considered as being "obscene or indecent" under the CYPA? This precise question has not yet been examined in the courts, and in my view, there is good basis for going either way.

    The question in my mind is, does the model feel that she is being violated or that an act of indecency has been done to her? If she is a willing participant, does that then constitute indecency/obscenity?

    It is instructive to note that the only reported case in Singapore discussing Section 7 of the CYPA - PP v Soo Hwee Keong
    [2007] SGDC 262 was brought on the basis that the "obscene or indecent" act was exposing of the penis and masturbating in front of the victim in question.

    The question now is, would the act of photographing a model in the nude constitute an act of indecency on the model?

    ~~~~~~~~~~

    On your Brooke Shields example, care to share if what she did was considered obscene? If so, please let us know. If not, please let us know why you are bringing up a non-obscene example in the US to support your position surrounding obscenity under Singapore law?

    ~~~~~~~~~~

    I also would like to underscore final point that Waileong has also brought up - that if the photographs in question are considered obscene or pornographic or otherwise illegal under Singapore law - there would be no distinction whether the model is 14 years old, 20 years old or 5 years old.

    Also, I have not yet encountered a case in ClubSnap at least where an model under 14 was used for nude photography - hence I think all these discussions on nude photography of under 14s are at best, theoretical.

    Hence, even if nude photography of under 14s do fall under the CYPA, I doubt that such things actually happen here in ClubSnap. All the nude shoots to date as far as I'm aware, are with above 14s.

    Quote Originally Posted by aselley View Post
    In the statutes, chapter 38, Part 1, 2. "child" means a person who is below the age of 14 years; "young person" means a person who is 14 years of age or above and below the age of 16 years.
    and....

    7. Any person who, in public or private —
    (a) commits or abets the commission of or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any person of any obscene or indecent act with any child or young person; or

    So legally there is nothing stopping you taking photos of children, be they yours, or someone else's. But there are laws against "obscene" photos and there are certainly laws against an "indecent act", especially with someone "under 16". The law is deliberately vague on what constitutes an "obscene" act , and until it is fully tested in the courts will remain so.

    This thread started because in another thread Vince wrote something to the effect that "age does not matter in photography". he is entitled to have this view, however I think this is wrong? It is misguided and legally it is in error. When it comes to someone who is under the age of 16 you are limited in the types of photography you can take. And I feel that since it is such a "grey" area that we as photographers can do more to protect not only ourselves but our hobby from the GWC and the very guys that the TNP article mentioned and the model "Amber" talked of. If you think I am wrong, and that these guys do not exist then I will happily shut-up and let this thread die.

    Is it legally and morally wrong for a father to take photos of his naked baby daughter, no.

    Is it legally and morally wrong for the same man to take photos of his naked 15 year old daughter, I would say yes, on both counts. If this makes me a prude or someone devoid of artistic vision, then I can live with that label.

    And Wailong, Vince may be sick of the half-truths and the spreading of legal rumour, but check the statutes its not rumour, its fact. And trying to justify an arguement for "arts" sake, will not change the fact that taking "obscene" photos of anyone under the age of 16 is illegal.

    Brooke Shields was 16, lucky for her, her parents consented to her involvement, so legally she was allowed to proceed as was the studio, but don't forget that at the time it still caused all manner of moral outrage, and as someone else pointed out in this thread the laws of the USA are not the laws of here...that's true: The laws of here are quite clear, under 16 and anything you do with the model had better not be obscene, indecent or able to be regarded as such.

    And I appreciate that he does not want to put me down and that he is sick of half truths, but the statute I quote is not a half-truth so why are people pretending it is, or rather looking for the legal loophole?
    Quote Originally Posted by aselley View Post
    Firstly, I never said taking fully clothed pictures of a minor is an illegal act. I would think (and am increasingly coming to see, foolishly hope) that a photographer would seek permission from the child's parents and/or guardian before taking such pictures. Bikini clad pictures would be more of a "grey" area, and would really come down to a court deciding if such were considered obscene.

    Again such is not illegal if it is not obscene. But it is a grey area...What I find so amazing is that in the shadow of TNP's article and accusations or rtaher insinuations leveled that you would even want to argue semantics and want to play in the "grey" area.



    But it is linked with age. Once again, from the original "sex sells' thread, "nude and semi nude photograph are allowed in Singapore, but with a legal age"...the legal caveat is age. So my original stance is that the quote by Vince "There is no concept of underaged when doing photography" was, and is, in light of current trends, thinking and media attention...naive, it sends a massage that as long as its a photograph its ok...and quite clearly, legally, that is not the case.

    I do not think age is irrelevant, from all he has said and defended, Vince does. He is the one that thinks art should be art and that "there is no concept of underaged when doing photography"

  3. #63
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Underage is still Underage

    No issues, in that case "correct permissions" are more of what is correct in the eye of each photographer; which in your case, is correct in your view.

    It is also my view that MRs have no legal basis in Singapore, but if you want to use them overseas, you can get them.

    Quote Originally Posted by aselley View Post
    Ok, for me, "correct permissions" is the use of a Model Release. If at some point I hope to enter a photographic competition, sell a photo for advertising or even to some stock gallery I need to ensure that I have the permissions to do so. So from a legal view I think as a "habit" it is a healthy one to get into, since it is possible that the organisation I deal with will require such, and proof of such.

    I am new to the forum, so if I have not gone into the archives to chase down your stance on MR's I do apologise. It is my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) that there is no legal basis for them here in Singapore, that they are not required and that they serve no real purrpose here. I know some photographers use and insist on them, while others couldn't really care less.

    But they do serve a purpose overseas and as such I feel that they are a good practice to get into. But this is a personal thing and thus my caveat of "correct permissions".

    Hope that makes it a tad clearer.

  4. #64
    Member TheQuestion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    PenguinVille.
    Posts
    1,089

    Default Re: Underage is still Underage

    Quote Originally Posted by aselley View Post
    If I was trying to raise awareness it was not in for an area of "child porn" but rather how we are perceived as photographers and how photography is perceived by those not directly involved is a reflection of how we conduct ourselves. Our "professionalism" even as amateurs has consequences.

    From the comments we post, to even the picture, does and will colour someones interpretation of those here. If you like, a stereotype will develop, we can either try to take control of that, or we can let it be set by the media and the few who do not represent us all. The Moderators, I think, have taken steps to halt a direction that might not be in the best interests of all, while trying to not stiffle creative talent and exploration of a photographic genre.

    I started the thread because my response to Vince's underage comment became too long and I did not want to usurp a thread where someone was looking for genuine feedback on their photos. I do think certain shoots are "age" appropriate. And that models of a certain age should not be in certain shoots.

    Again, if this makes me a prude then so be it, but I feel there is both a legal basis and a moral one for my thoughts. Your morality is your own and you are free to disagree.

    As for defining what "obscene" is, are you asking for the legal definition as defined under Singaporean Law or my own moral benchmark?
    i'm not asking for your MORAL benchmark i'm asking for what the law states it is. The whole thread you've been on a moral high horse and thus has had a reverse effect instead of attracting people to your cause you're just turning people off.
    Opinions are like A-holes. Everyone's got one.

  5. #65

    Default Re: Underage is still Underage

    I refer to your original post.

    1. I contend that taking normal clothed pictures or even bikini-clad of under-16's does not constitute "exploitation" under Singapore law, contrary to your position. Do you have a legal basis for calling such activity "exploitation"? Because that is a very strong word you've used.

    2. I have no issue with the illegality of pornographic or obscene material but I don't think that is limited by age under Singapore law. Meaning one can get prosecuted for possession of such material regardless of the age of the subjects depicted in the photos.

    3. Therefore when we say age is not an issue for photography, the meaning is that as long as you don't do pornographic, padeophilic or obscence pictures, it doesn't matter if the model is 6 or 60.

    4. As for whether one should seek guardian's permissions, model releases, etc. or whether one should even shoot under-16 pictures, that is a moral question and not a legal one. You can take your stand, I can take mine, we don't have to agree as long as we are clear that we are disagreeing only because of moral principles.

    Quote Originally Posted by aselley View Post
    I was going to post this in the thread from which inspired it:
    http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=440225
    but decided it was not place to usurp the thread where a photographer is seeking real input into his work.

    I guess that in the face of the TNP/"nude" sensationalist "journalism" I am still amazed by the number of photographers who see age as irrelevant and who participate in shoots with underage models without a thought to any legal or illegal activity.

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    There is no concept of underaged when doing photography. We are not talking about sex or statutory rape here.
    No what you are talking about is "exploitation of a minor" So while you may actually agree with that statement...the law does not, the "sensationalism of the TNP article certainly has leanings that are not" and if you look at the recent Bill Henson photography scandal in Australia, then its safe to say that the majority of the public see underage as a very important issue when it comes to photography. So while it is nice to suggest "art is simply art", the recent controversies, the complete lack of Model Releases, suggests that this is in fact not really the case.
    Last edited by waileong; 25th November 2008 at 11:32 AM.

  6. #66

    Default Re: Underage is still Underage

    Quote Originally Posted by TheQuestion View Post
    i'm not asking for your MORAL benchmark i'm asking for what the law states it is. The whole thread you've been on a moral high horse and thus has had a reverse effect instead of attracting people to your cause you're just turning people off.
    Actually I think it's the trying to mix moral and legal that's made his stand weak. If he had taken a strong and pure moral stand only, I think people would have respected him a lot more. You know how it is, people respect and look up to leaders with strong moral principles, even if they don't necessarily agree. It's the leaders who do not have a clear moral compass that cannot command respect because people see them as unprincipled.

  7. #67

    Default Re: Underage is still Underage

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post

    42.
    The word “obscene”, in relation to any thing or matter, means any thing or matter the effect of which is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

    So if we use that as a yardstick (although this must be done with caution since the interpretation in one Act may not apply to another), the question is, does the act of photographing (which must be distinguished from the actual photographs taken) a child constitute the commission of an obscene or indecent act? The CYPA talks about an act, not about the creation of obscene photographs - hence the focus must be on the act.
    Surely the act of taking a photograph would "tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter" This must be inclusive of not just the product but also the creation of the product.

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    Bikini: I respectfully disagree with your point of view that it is grey. what is so grey about it.

    If you really think that a court would deem the act of photographing a bikini clad model as "grey", then perhaps you live in a society far different from that we live in Singapore today.

    A simple illustration would summarily dismiss this point. We see bikini clad people in Sentosa every day, whether they be aged below 14 or above 14. Do you think these people are engaged in acts of indecency or obscenity?
    No, taking photos on the beach at Sentosa regardless of the age of those pictured would constitute "street photography", an organised shoot, outdoors or in a studio could very easily be legally classified as obscene if the model was also under 16 (you misquote the ages the ACT applies to)

    The act of being on the beach at Sentosa is not obscene or indecent the act of photographing them may be, and the further act of publishing those photos online would almost definitely be.



    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    2. Nude model below 14 - At no point was the issue of age discussed. Hence, please do not keep using TNP as your basis of research because they discuss quite different issues.
    I don't. I merely use it as an illustration of how the art of photography can be twisted by those not involved and that it is the responsibility of those engaged to enusre that it is seen as art and it is conducted professionally.

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    Now, onto the CYPA which you brought up again. Is the act of photographing a model in the nude considered as being "obscene or indecent" under the CYPA? This precise question has not yet been examined in the courts, and in my view, there is good basis for going either way.

    The question in my mind is, does the model feel that she is being violated or that an act of indecency has been done to her? If she is a willing participant, does that then constitute indecency/obscenity?

    It is instructive to note that the only reported case in Singapore discussing Section 7 of the CYPA - PP v Soo Hwee Keong
    [2007] SGDC 262 was brought on the basis that the "obscene or indecent" act was exposing of the penis and masturbating in front of the victim in question.
    So we have gone from underage to now including Models of all ages. Nice jump to twist the thread to suit your stance. If the Model consents to the shoot, then photographing her may still be considered obscene, but that would depend on the nature of the shoot. So it might not be obscene to the photographer or the model, but it still legally may be so.

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    The question now is, would the act of photographing a model in the nude constitute an act of indecency on the model?
    I guess you would have to ask the Model. But what might not be considered an act of indecency on the day of the shoot, may indeed be considered such at a later date. You may end up with a case of "word against word" when it comes to photo usages and dissemination.

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    On your Brooke Shields example, care to share if what she did was considered obscene? If so, please let us know. If not, please let us know why you are bringing up a non-obscene example in the US to support your position surrounding obscenity under Singapore law?
    Her mother, the director, and those associated with "Blue Lagoon" were accused of Child exploitation...all she did was bare her breast on the screen. You decide whether it is obscene or not? Many people at the time felt it was.


    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    I also would like to underscore final point that Waileong has also brought up - that if the photographs in question are considered obscene or pornographic or otherwise illegal under Singapore law - there would be no distinction whether the model is 14 years old, 20 years old or 5 years old.
    So are you saying that legally nude photography of someone under 16 is legal by your reading of the law?

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    Also, I have not yet encountered a case in ClubSnap at least where an model under 14 was used for nude photography - hence I think all these discussions on nude photography of under 14s are at best, theoretical.

    Hence, even if nude photography of under 14s do fall under the CYPA, I doubt that such things actually happen here in ClubSnap. All the nude shoots to date as far as I'm aware, are with above 14s.
    But the law says 16 and above. Does it not?
    Canon 400D + BG-E3 . EF-S 17-85mm 4-5.6 IS . EF 75-300mm 4-5.6 IS
    http://aselley.zenfolio.com/

  8. #68

    Default Re: Underage is still Underage

    It is very easy to continue to return to the post and refute or condemn my thoughts and my understanding of the Law as it relates here in Singapore.

    But I note that none of you state your stance and beliefs? You may have indeed gotten sick of stating your stance elsewhere but the nature of forums is that new people join them and if you are on one for any length of time you will have to repeat yourself or withdraw from the process of helping new people understand.

    So I ask you, what do you consider is legally obscene in Singapore? At what age do you consider nude photography in Singapore illegal? At what point is the dissemination or posting of such material illegal?

    Forget the moral issues if you like, but rather than just tell me how wrong you feel I am, why don't you tell me exactly what your understanding of the law is as it relates to underage (what is underage for you?), as it relates to nude photography or bikini photography (as an organised shoot not some group Sentosa shot)?
    Canon 400D + BG-E3 . EF-S 17-85mm 4-5.6 IS . EF 75-300mm 4-5.6 IS
    http://aselley.zenfolio.com/

  9. #69
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Underage is still Underage

    I wont bother with the multi-quoting and will instead number my points to suit your points:

    1. Obscene Act vs Obscene Object - First, you need to examine the context of "obscene" under the Penal Code (which I already said must be read cautiously since importing the definition from one statute in interpreting another may not always be applicable).

    The definition of obscene in the Penal Code was provided to interpret what constitutes as "obscene" matter. In the Penal Code, the word Obscene is used with "obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation or figure, or any other obscene object" - ie the object itself is obscene. This is largely in the context of sale and distribution of obscene items although there is a small mention of obscene act in public.

    This is why the defintion is geared towards "in relation to any matter or thing".

    By contrast, the CYPA talks about doing an obscene act with a young person. Hence, the act itself must be obscene, not so much the creation of an obscene image. Both are different concepts legally.

    I give you a clearcut example. I hold in my hand, a pornographic magazine (which surely will fall under the Penal Code). The magazine is sealed and the young person cannot see its contents. I sell the magazine to the young person . This act would be caught under the Penal Code under selling of an obscene object, regardless of age of the recipient. However, the act of selling itself - do you think it is an "obscene act"? I didn't touch her private parts in making the sale - I didn't expose myself when selling, I didn't masturbate when selling. Hence, the act of sale is not an obscene act, but I did sell an obscene object.

    Now, looking at the CYPA again, what is caught by Section 7? It is not the sale or creation of an obscene object, but the commission of an obscene act!

    2. Sentosa - I first apologise for the under 16 vs 14 mistake I made, although that has no bearing on my points.

    I am surprised that you take the view that taking photos on the beach is "street photography" and there is an exception - but taking photos of the same thing indoors or in a studio is obscene. This is such a strange concept that I cannot even beign to grasp it.

    Next you say that wearing a bikini on the beach is not obscene, yet taking a photograph of a bikini clad person on the beach is obscene!! Or for that matter publishing a photo of a bikini clad person on the beach is obscene!!! Gee, the whole Portraits section should be closed down because we are all engaging in obscenity - same goes for Swimsuit Illustrated etc.

    I have great difficulty grasping this and I'm not sure anyone here can even begin to grasp this.

    3. Twisting the thread? - You said - "So we have gone from underage to now including Models of all ages. Nice jump to twist the thread to suit your stance. If the Model consents to the shoot, then photographing her may still be considered obscene, but that would depend on the nature of the shoot. So it might not be obscene to the photographer or the model, but it still legally may be so."

    Nope, I didn't change my stance or twist the thread. I quote my comment here again:

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    Now, onto the CYPA which you brought up again. Is the act of photographing a model in the nude considered as being "obscene or indecent" under the CYPA? This precise question has not yet been examined in the courts, and in my view, there is good basis for going either way.

    The question in my mind is, does the model feel that she is being violated or that an act of indecency has been done to her? If she is a willing participant, does that then constitute indecency/obscenity?

    It is instructive to note that the only reported case in Singapore discussing Section 7 of the CYPA - PP v Soo Hwee Keong
    [2007] SGDC 262 was brought on the basis that the "obscene or indecent" act was exposing of the penis and masturbating in front of the victim in question.
    Please tell me where in the above quote have I twisted the thread to suit my stance? I didn't even mention age in the above quote.

    4. Indecency Goal Posts Moving!

    You said - "I guess you would have to ask the Model. But what might not be considered an act of indecency on the day of the shoot, may indeed be considered such at a later date. You may end up with a case of "word against word" when it comes to photo usages and dissemination."

    Oh my, a new legal concept! What is not obscene on the date of the shoot will mysteriously turn out to be obscene when X days have passed.

    Even though it is the same act we are talking about!

    5. Brooke Shields - I'm not familiar with that case, and in any event, that is not applicable under Singapore law I merely asked to see if you had more details whcih we can all read about.

    6. Legality

    You said - "So are you saying that legally nude photography of someone under 16 is legal by your reading of the law?"

    Nope, I quote what I said again:

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    I also would like to underscore final point that Waileong has also brought up - that if the photographs in question are considered obscene or pornographic or otherwise illegal under Singapore law - there would be no distinction whether the model is 14 years old, 20 years old or 5 years old.
    What I said is that illegality of pornographic images in Singapore is independent of the age of the subject depicted.

    I quote Wai Leong's explanation as well here in case you want to read a different person saying the same thing:

    Quote Originally Posted by Wai Leong
    2. I have no issue with the illegality of pornographic or obscene material but I don't think that is limited by age under Singapore law. Meaning one can get prosecuted for possession of such material regardless of the age of the subjects depicted in the photos.

    3. Therefore when we say age is not an issue for photography, the meaning is that as long as you don't do pornographic, padeophilic or obscence pictures, it doesn't matter if the model is 6 or 60.


    Quote Originally Posted by aselley View Post
    Surely the act of taking a photograph would "tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter" This must be inclusive of not just the product but also the creation of the product.

    No, taking photos on the beach at Sentosa regardless of the age of those pictured would constitute "street photography", an organised shoot, outdoors or in a studio could very easily be legally classified as obscene if the model was also under 16 (you misquote the ages the ACT applies to)

    The act of being on the beach at Sentosa is not obscene or indecent the act of photographing them may be, and the further act of publishing those photos online would almost definitely be.

    I don't. I merely use it as an illustration of how the art of photography can be twisted by those not involved and that it is the responsibility of those engaged to enusre that it is seen as art and it is conducted professionally.

    So we have gone from underage to now including Models of all ages. Nice jump to twist the thread to suit your stance. If the Model consents to the shoot, then photographing her may still be considered obscene, but that would depend on the nature of the shoot. So it might not be obscene to the photographer or the model, but it still legally may be so.

    I guess you would have to ask the Model. But what might not be considered an act of indecency on the day of the shoot, may indeed be considered such at a later date. You may end up with a case of "word against word" when it comes to photo usages and dissemination.

    Her mother, the director, and those associated with "Blue Lagoon" were accused of Child exploitation...all she did was bare her breast on the screen. You decide whether it is obscene or not? Many people at the time felt it was.




    So are you saying that legally nude photography of someone under 16 is legal by your reading of the law?



    But the law says 16 and above. Does it not?

  10. #70
    Member TheQuestion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    PenguinVille.
    Posts
    1,089

    Default Re: Underage is still Underage

    Quote Originally Posted by waileong View Post
    Actually I think it's the trying to mix moral and legal that's made his stand weak. If he had taken a strong and pure moral stand only, I think people would have respected him a lot more. You know how it is, people respect and look up to leaders with strong moral principles, even if they don't necessarily agree. It's the leaders who do not have a clear moral compass that cannot command respect because people see them as unprincipled.
    exactly and its that point that he doesn't seem to be getting...all he's coming off as now is a demagogue trying to make people afraid of their shadows.
    Opinions are like A-holes. Everyone's got one.

  11. #71
    Member TheQuestion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    PenguinVille.
    Posts
    1,089

    Default Re: Underage is still Underage

    Quote Originally Posted by aselley View Post
    It is very easy to continue to return to the post and refute or condemn my thoughts and my understanding of the Law as it relates here in Singapore.

    But I note that none of you state your stance and beliefs? You may have indeed gotten sick of stating your stance elsewhere but the nature of forums is that new people join them and if you are on one for any length of time you will have to repeat yourself or withdraw from the process of helping new people understand.

    So I ask you, what do you consider is legally obscene in Singapore? At what age do you consider nude photography in Singapore illegal? At what point is the dissemination or posting of such material illegal?

    Forget the moral issues if you like, but rather than just tell me how wrong you feel I am, why don't you tell me exactly what your understanding of the law is as it relates to underage (what is underage for you?), as it relates to nude photography or bikini photography (as an organised shoot not some group Sentosa shot)?
    we don't have to state our beliefs etc its you who has to prove your case/point if you want to bring people over to your pov.
    Opinions are like A-holes. Everyone's got one.

  12. #72
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Underage is still Underage

    We do not believe in moralistic arguments simply because there is no point as different individuals have different moral views.

    Here is my view on the legal position in answer to your questions:

    1. Obscene - anything pornographic is legally obscene.

    In my objective view, artistic nudes are grey although in my subjective view, they shouldn't be.

    2. Nude photography, if considered obscene under point (1) above, will be obscene regardless of age. A photograph which is not obscene the model is 30 years old does not magically become obscene just because the model is 12 years old.

    3. Dissemination or posting - again, the issue is whether the matter itself is obscene. Dissemination is merely one act which will get you nailed, in addition to the others such as sale, exhibition, circulation etc.

    4. Bikini photography, whether in my objective or subjective view, will not be considered as obscene, regardless of the age, setting, location of the shoot itself. I'm very surprised someone actually takes the view that bikini photographs are obscene.


    Quote Originally Posted by aselley View Post
    It is very easy to continue to return to the post and refute or condemn my thoughts and my understanding of the Law as it relates here in Singapore.

    But I note that none of you state your stance and beliefs? You may have indeed gotten sick of stating your stance elsewhere but the nature of forums is that new people join them and if you are on one for any length of time you will have to repeat yourself or withdraw from the process of helping new people understand.

    So I ask you, what do you consider is legally obscene in Singapore? At what age do you consider nude photography in Singapore illegal? At what point is the dissemination or posting of such material illegal?

    Forget the moral issues if you like, but rather than just tell me how wrong you feel I am, why don't you tell me exactly what your understanding of the law is as it relates to underage (what is underage for you?), as it relates to nude photography or bikini photography (as an organised shoot not some group Sentosa shot)?

  13. #73
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    23,686
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: Underage is still Underage

    it all depends on the image taken, if it is obscene then it is obscene
    if it is not, then it is not

    but to be safe, if you intend to shoot nude children, then i would advise to have their legal guardian present at the shoot
    a signed letter of approval would be better. just in case, you know.

  14. #74
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Underage is still Underage

    First para - accurate statement of law
    Second para - good practical advice without purporting to couch it as a legal position.


    Quote Originally Posted by ortega View Post
    it all depends on the image taken, if it is obscene then it is obscene
    if it is not, then it is not

    but to be safe, if you intend to shoot nude children, then i would advise to have their legal guardian present at the shoot
    a signed letter of approval would be better. just in case, you know.

  15. #75

    Default Re: Underage is still Underage

    Actually Vince given the points below except where I have noted you and I are very close to being on the same page.

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    We do not believe in moralistic arguments simply because there is no point as different individuals have different moral views.

    Here is my view on the legal position in answer to your questions:

    1. Obscene - anything pornographic is legally obscene.

    In my objective view, artistic nudes are grey although in my subjective view, they shouldn't be.
    Totally agree, the trouble is Art is so subjective, some people relate to it and see merit, some see smut...so I think Artistic is always going to be a grey area.

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    2. Nude photography, if considered obscene under point (1) above, will be obscene regardless of age. A photograph which is not obscene the model is 30 years old does not magically become obscene just because the model is 12 years old.
    This is one point we may have to agree to disagree, take this recent post: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=440674, for me personally I like the message the photo is trying to convey, the idea of sexual forbidden fruit for me sends one message if the Model is 22 than if she is 12. One I can appreciate the other I can't...or ratehr objectively I can, yet I can't remove the subjective with Models I consider underage.

    So I hope we can just agree to have differing viewpoints on this.

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    3. Dissemination or posting - again, the issue is whether the matter itself is obscene. Dissemination is merely one act which will get you nailed, in addition to the others such as sale, exhibition, circulation etc.
    I agree with this, but as an almost unrelated question: If you posted a nude photo of a Model or even a clothed one of her online without her explicit permission is this allowed in Singapore? What about profiting from the photo?

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    4. Bikini photography, whether in my objective or subjective view, will not be considered as obscene, regardless of the age, setting, location of the shoot itself. I'm very surprised someone actually takes the view that bikini photographs are obscene.
    I actually don't. Personally I love attractive women in Bikini's, so another side question, is a thong-bikini or those often called "Brazilian" legal attire on Singapore beaches? As for the age of the Model I guess on this matter I think it depends on the nature of the posing being done as to my feelings...but this I admit is a moral and therefore subjective judgment.
    Canon 400D + BG-E3 . EF-S 17-85mm 4-5.6 IS . EF 75-300mm 4-5.6 IS
    http://aselley.zenfolio.com/

  16. #76

    Default Re: Underage is still Underage

    You still don't understand why we prefer to debate on legal and not moral grounds? If legal questions already create such heat, what do you think will happen if we started a moral debate? It'll be like the pro-lifers vs the right-to-choose debates!

    I hope you realise you've been given free legal advice and opinion which would ordinarily cost you over $200 an hour. And while no lawyer can guarantee his legal opinion until it is tested in Court, I believe vince's opinion is sound and you shoul strive to understand it, regardless of what you personally feel is right or wrong.

    That's how the law is. There are many things I feel are wrong in this country, but until the laws are changed I still have to accept these unjust laws and will rely on expert opinion on those laws regardless of my own beliefs.

    As for what I think is obscene or illegal, it follows from the above that it's irrelevant. Only the correct interpretation of the law matters. And as I have no wish for this to transform into a roe vs wade debate, I shall refrain from pitting my moral stand against yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by aselley View Post
    It is very easy to continue to return to the post and refute or condemn my thoughts and my understanding of the Law as it relates here in Singapore.

    But I note that none of you state your stance and beliefs? You may have indeed gotten sick of stating your stance elsewhere but the nature of forums is that new people join them and if you are on one for any length of time you will have to repeat yourself or withdraw from the process of helping new people understand.

    So I ask you, what do you consider is legally obscene in Singapore? At what age do you consider nude photography in Singapore illegal? At what point is the dissemination or posting of such material illegal?

    Forget the moral issues if you like, but rather than just tell me how wrong you feel I am, why don't you tell me exactly what your understanding of the law is as it relates to underage (what is underage for you?), as it relates to nude photography or bikini photography (as an organised shoot not some group Sentosa shot)?

  17. #77

    Default Re: Underage is still Underage

    Quote Originally Posted by waileong View Post
    You still don't understand why we prefer to debate on legal and not moral grounds? If legal questions already create such heat, what do you think will happen if we started a moral debate? It'll be like the pro-lifers vs the right-to-choose debates!

    I hope you realise you've been given free legal advice and opinion which would ordinarily cost you over $200 an hour. And while no lawyer can guarantee his legal opinion until it is tested in Court, I believe vince's opinion is sound and you shoul strive to understand it, regardless of what you personally feel is right or wrong.

    That's how the law is. There are many things I feel are wrong in this country, but until the laws are changed I still have to accept these unjust laws and will rely on expert opinion on those laws regardless of my own beliefs.

    As for what I think is obscene or illegal, it follows from the above that it's irrelevant. Only the correct interpretation of the law matters. And as I have no wish for this to transform into a roe vs wade debate, I shall refrain from pitting my moral stand against yours.
    I didn't ask you for your Moral stance I asked you for your understanding of your legal one.

    It could be that you feel exactly as Vince and understand as he does, but I was simply asking what your legal understanding of the situations are.

    I think a moral argument or rather debate can be fun (if conducted with respect) and agree that here is probably not the place to have it....that place would be the pub over beers, so we could get really heated LOL
    Canon 400D + BG-E3 . EF-S 17-85mm 4-5.6 IS . EF 75-300mm 4-5.6 IS
    http://aselley.zenfolio.com/

  18. #78
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Some equitorial, tropical isle
    Posts
    2,398

    Default Re: Underage is still Underage

    Quote Originally Posted by aselley View Post
    Her mother, the director, and those associated with "Blue Lagoon" were accused of Child exploitation...all she did was bare her breast on the screen. You decide whether it is obscene or not? Many people at the time felt it was.
    Anyway, its rated NC16 by MDA. If its obscene, it would have been banned...
    MDA rating on The Blue Lagoon

    The piont is, if you find bikini clad is already obscene, then your tolerance level for a liberal society is actually quite low.

  19. #79

    Default Re: Underage is still Underage

    How sad that one has not seized the moment to be gracious here.

    Quote Originally Posted by aselley View Post
    Actually Vince given the points below except where I have noted you and I are very close to being on the same page.



    Totally agree, the trouble is Art is so subjective, some people relate to it and see merit, some see smut...so I think Artistic is always going to be a grey area.



    This is one point we may have to agree to disagree, take this recent post: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=440674, for me personally I like the message the photo is trying to convey, the idea of sexual forbidden fruit for me sends one message if the Model is 22 than if she is 12. One I can appreciate the other I can't...or ratehr objectively I can, yet I can't remove the subjective with Models I consider underage.

    So I hope we can just agree to have differing viewpoints on this.



    I agree with this, but as an almost unrelated question: If you posted a nude photo of a Model or even a clothed one of her online without her explicit permission is this allowed in Singapore? What about profiting from the photo?



    I actually don't. Personally I love attractive women in Bikini's, so another side question, is a thong-bikini or those often called "Brazilian" legal attire on Singapore beaches? As for the age of the Model I guess on this matter I think it depends on the nature of the posing being done as to my feelings...but this I admit is a moral and therefore subjective judgment.
    Last edited by waileong; 25th November 2008 at 01:42 PM.

  20. #80

    Default Re: Underage is still Underage

    My stand is in post #65. I also refer you to post #71 as why I'm not answering your other questions about sentosa and dissemination.

    Unlike vince I am not qualified to give legal opinion but even if I were, I doubt I would give you mine as I see vince's advice has not been appreciated or even acknowledged.

    Actually I doubt it's even been understood.

    I doubt we'll ever go drinking together.

    Quote Originally Posted by aselley View Post
    I didn't ask you for your Moral stance I asked you for your understanding of your legal one.

    It could be that you feel exactly as Vince and understand as he does, but I was simply asking what your legal understanding of the situations are.

    I think a moral argument or rather debate can be fun (if conducted with respect) and agree that here is probably not the place to have it....that place would be the pub over beers, so we could get really heated LOL
    Last edited by waileong; 25th November 2008 at 12:56 PM.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •