As many of us all know about the topless model publicity stunt event where J arvis Cocker of Pulp got heckled by her , Linsey Dawn Mackenzie out on the field during the Pulp vs Blur vs Oasis Soccer 6 charity game event in 1995 and we have ALL seen it and its still openly publicated everywhere as it was a public press event…well, it turns out she was actually 16 or 17 then in 1995 and it was legal age to pose and publish nude in 1995 in the UK (where it happened and where she is from.) That law however got overturned in 2003 making it 18 to legally pose and public nude. So does that now make those old pics that are online and published print of the event and video illegal now? And many fans that may have shared it on their music fans sites or linked it? Most Only just found out about her age or who she technically was and about that new and old law as it was recently a topic of debate among our fan circle. Even i always thought she was like 20, 25!!! Didnt know she was even a professional model til a year ago or so, myself. Thought it was some fan. Lol.
Dont know UK law as im a young American, nor the full story behind what happened exactly. And given this is such a huge part of Pulp/Blur/Britpop history…
So now anyone who posts it on a music fanclub or social media or had or ever linked to it …is that now illegal? Or if so, only in uk? Or? What if posted in different countries? Given that law changed but at the time it was taken and originally published was when it WAS legal? And what if fans in the usa post it. Its still everywhere.
Was a big public event. Still available even on publication sites and fan sites, mags.
And there are many numerous pics of the publicity stunt. Just google it. Afraid to post it now!
Just type Linsey dawn Mackenzie Jarvis.
Assuming anyone over 25, 30 in the UK already knows of this.
For the record, Jarvis did nothing wrong and acted completely appropriately. He didnt even know what was going on.
Supposedly her agency hired her to streak the field and go after the band players on the field. He had no idea what was going on. Nor do i think he even had a clue who she even was.
She had previously streaked another soccer field during a broadcasted game earlier in the years or something…so thats why she was hired.
Anyone know the legalities? Its still on some fan and Britpop sites…and over the decades, fans have posted it to their britpop site archives and such.
Morally it feels wrong now. Legal or not.
Personally, ive never shared it, but seen it posted and mentioned for years now, now by tons of previously unknowing fans.
Many people are under the impression that “nudity” of a minor automatically equals “child porn.” In America, at least, that is not the case. Note the qualifying words and conditions in the link below.
A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive.
I recall reading a discussion recently about some very well-known photographer who published some book (decades ago?) which included several naked pictures of her young children, celebrating the innocence of youth and their rural life. While I’m sure there are those would see it as CP, I gather there’s been no such legal repercussions for her.
As I understand, as Bootb points out, the rule is whether the photo appears to exploit children in a sexual way. (As I recall, there was some similar logic in a judgement in Canada about public nudity for adults, as part of the complaint about going topless for men vs. women - if it appeared to be for sexual reasons, it was illegal) Similarly, there’s to cover of the Blind Faith album still for sale on Amazon.
So I guess the question would be for the photo in question - does she appear to be flaunting some things or acting in a sexually suggestive manner? How strongly would you bet your next 2 to 5 years the answer is no?
This is not what you were talking about, but similar
Naked children of all ages are easily available in print and on line. Some are tasteful and artistic, some are clearly designed for the prurient interests of those who like that sort of thing. In the US, at least, most are perfectly legal.
As an addendum, the photo in question is available on Shutterstock. Considering that they are a prominent company, and thus are easy to find by the authorities, one would lean towards the idea that the picture is legal.
David Hamilton is the name that comes to mind for me. He was very famous in the 70s for photographing young girls and women. I believe he was the one that made the “soft focus” style of pictures popular. According to Wiki, he killed himself when he was in his eighties because several of his younger models went public with rape allegations.
I’m not sure if you can really make a law that is retroactive like that. I think @Procrustus is a lawyer, maybe he can weigh in on that. The closest to that in the US I can think of is Traci Lords but she was actually underage when she made her movies. Once her real age was known, owning or selling the movies was illegal.
You can’t make it a crime retroactively, but you can make it a crime going forward. Like prohibition, they couldn’t prosecute for your alcohol you had before, but they could make it illegal now. So, I think the government could in theory change the age of “minor,” for example, for the purposes of laws prohibiting exploitation of minors. Of course, any such law would have to survive a first amendment challenge.
I’m no expert, but I’ve heard there is some pornography out there that feature women between the ages of 18 and 21. Could the government pass a law that the new legal age is 21 and outlaw all that stuff? It would be an interesting legal battle.
Sure you can—the OP is asking about the UK, not the US. Not every country constitutionally prohibits ex post facto laws. In theory the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the UK is a signatory, prohibits them for criminal legislation, but
The relevant body could also pass a law making it illegal to possess such images. The creators of the image would be off the hook for making it, but anyone who kept it after the law would be in non-ex-post-facto violation.
I was specifically not going to mention David Hamilton - the joke is that he invented smearing Vaseline on the lens.
Note the law prohibits not only making CP, but also distribution and possession. So if the government were to make it illegal to possess, it would be illegal. The Canadian government (let’s pick on them some more) after a mass shooting, has made possession of magazines holding more than 5 rounds illegal. So, they are illegal, no matter that you bought something like that legally the week before.
Of course, we’re back to the “sexualization” issue. Otherwise, we turn into the pope who had workers go around chipping of the genitalia and painting on fig leaf coverings for many famous renaissance works. (Not to be confused with the one who commissioned wall paintings of naked women for his bathroom in the papal fortress.) After all, there’s a specific term ( putti ?) for those little naked cherubs flitting around the edges of baroque art.
Was it a supreme court judge who is alleged to have said “I can’t define pornography, but I know it when I see it”?
Its so weird how on earth it still remains on rexfeatures/shutterstock (which is UK based, making it even more wild) and other british stock image things. You would think they would have a disclaimer on these? They have those people can purchase to license, too. That’s crazy and weird. Is it some sort of court protected image now?
Well…even the USA …cos the majority were younger than 35 yrs old USA Britpop fans that were even more totally unaware given this was mostly a british thing and not a thing here originally and like almost 30 years ago…and obviously not in tune with UK laws, understandably. And most had/have no idea her age or anything about her unless one were to look it up or told by someone else. And most just went by “shes just some porno model in the UK” . There needs to be a disclaimer on those stock images…or the images removed.