Why is it ok for rock stars to have naked kids on their CD covers, but yet the law claims kids taking naked photos of themselves and emailing them is porn? Does this say this practice is ok ONLY for the rich and famous???
artistic license
Nudity is not pornography. Naked pictures of minors is not child pornography.
No matter what certain prosecutors claim, mere nudity is not in any way child porn.
And I am not friedo, despite our simulpost.
Ah, those were the days…
Seriously, art is art. IIRC there are not too many CD covers or other such “art” that show explicit genitalia, let alone those of children. Like a lot of crimes, proving intent or motivation goes a long way toward getting a conviction. The guy who took the Blind Faith cover, for example, waxed lyrical about the age of innocence and the transition to adulthood…
Some people take the attitude that anything that does not have black velvet and big eyes is porn, and others seem to think anything is art including wrapping objects in miles of cloth or immersing a crucifix in urine. (Maybe those guys should make Mohammed cartoons instead to reinforce their concepts of art and persecution.)
I have no idea - my theory is art is that which is recognized as art by people who can recognize art. (Based on Mark Twain’s definition of a dog.)
Don’t forget too - “Pretty Baby”, “Blue Lagoon”, and the book “Show Me”. What was that quote from ‘The Go-Between’? The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.
Bow Wow Wow caused a stir with a ‘life imitating art’ cover of an album, featuring a nude, underage Annabella Lwin in a photographic representation of Manet’s Lunch on the Grass.
Some of the tourist postcards here show little hilltribe children up in the North running around naked. The wife thought they’d be cute to send to friends in the US, but I said no way, they’d probably get confiscated for child porn! I was only half joking.
Good thinking. Things get worse when you use the mail.
She’s nude, but not in the way that usually causes problems. All the “important bits” are covered up. See?
In fact, I’m pretty sure that type of pose is often used in so called “non-nudes.” I was surprised it caused such a brouhaha.
It was a while ago. I didn’t post the url because of the sensitivity of these issues. I think Annabella’s parents may have caused a stink.
Haven’t some rock groups in fact gotten into trouble over this? The answer to “how do they get away with it” might be “they don’t”.
Who got in real trouble for an album cover? (or CD cover, {shaking cane} damn kids)
They do get in plenty of trouble when they don’t paste a picture on millions of gramaphonic recordings.
There was an even more infamous one by the group Scorpions, just Google Virgin Killer.
It appears that the scope of prosecutions has been widening - to encompass cartoons, bathing suit pictures, etc. So I think possession of the Blind Faith CD could be prosecuted as child porn.
I believe that there was only one famous case of something that someone could call child pornography on an album cover - the cover of the Blind Faith album called Blind Faith. (Icerigger says that there was another one called Virgin Killer by the group Scorpions, but I’ve never heard of it.) The record companies were wary about the cover even back then. Perhaps the reason that they could get away with it was that it was 41 years ago. We’re actually more sensitive about that sort of thing now than we were back then. In any case, if the claim is that rock groups are constantly doing this, well, don’t be ridiculous. There’s no trend here.
Heh. I saw that painting in London at the Courtauld gallery near Covent Garden, and the first words out of my mouth were, “Bow Wow Wow!”
The benefits of a classical education.
not legal advice. If you have legal concerns about pictures that you possess or are considering possessing, you should contact an attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.
I went to a high school in the US that had every National Geographic magazine going back to at least the year the school was founded, and some of those volumes included naked pictures of children. If they could sit there overtly with impunity for years, it seems pretty safe to say that the law doesn’t take notice of them.
It’s my understanding that child porn must be “sexually explicit”, and that mere nudity, without more, doesn’t consitute “sexually explicit” content, meaning those pictures of sub-Saharan tribal children aren’t illegal.
Case in point: Most Shirley Temple movies.
There is one trend that is significant.
Blind Faith, Blind Faith - British.
Led Zeppelin, Houses of the Holy - British.
Bow Wow Wow, See Jungle! See Jungle! Go Join Your Gang, Yeah. City All Over! Go Ape Crazy - British.
Scorpions, Virgin Killer - German.
Europeans have a famously different attitude toward mere nudity than do Americans. All four albums were released in various countries in Europe. Only the Led Zeppelin alum, which shows two younger nude children from behind and at a distance, was released in the U.S. And even for that, according to Wikipedia:
(If the Blind Faith nude album cover ever got released in the U.S. it was withdrawn almost immediately.)
BTW, the first two album covers weren’t even intended to be provocative. They were to represent innocence. Bow Wow Wow was being cheeky. Only the Scorpions cover was a deliberate “in-your-face.” And from what I’ve read over the years, none of the models thought the photo shoots were offensive or dirty.
Americans were puritanical back then. They are insane today. But nude children still represent innocence more than anything else.
The kid on the Nirvana’s Nevermind has a Wikipedia entry.