Babies Making Babies ...

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Here's how we differenciated between "nude" and "legal". A nude person is just a nude person. A nude person being touched by another person could be considered porn, even if it's really non-sexual touching.

As for underage nude persons, I fortunately never came across that. Had I, I would have called the cops. Obviously, no one is going to arrest someone taking naked pictures of their baby in the tub, although a lab worker is within their rights to refuse to do the job on the grounds that they find it offensive or questionable.

I've printed plenty of nude people, and some risque shots in some cases. I've never had anything that might be considered real porn come through my lab, but it's been close in some cases. I know the mini lab processed porn. I do not believe it's illegal if the people are obviously consenting and of age.

Underage kids in sexual situations, were I working in a lab, would warrent a call to the cops. Who took the pictures? I would be afraid that I could be busted for possession of child porn, and possibly as an accomplice were I to process such a thing.

[TeslaRecoil]

Yeah, the kiddie-porn thing could be a problem ...

Although, the age of legal consent in New York State is 17, so I don't think it would have incurred any criminal penalties.

The store policy isn't very specific. It says we are not to develop anything vulgar or tatseless. But that's really up to the person developing them to decide. The only thing it mentions specifically is that photos of people "in the act" are not to be developed.

Basically, as long as no one's getting hurt (i.e. no kiddie-porn, no abuse, nothing dangerously criminal), I'll turn a blind eye to it. If you want nude photos of yourself or your girlfriend, take as many as you want. If you want a picture of yourself smoking the fattest blunt in the history of weed, snap away. I really don't care. If you're taking pictures of you and your friends bashing car windows (which has happened), or pictures of naked kids (which has happened), then we'll have a problem.

You really do have to use common sense, though. I had a lab tech that wanted to call the cops because someone dropped off photos of naked kids. The pictures were of twins (a boy and a girl) who couldn't have been older than 18 months. Taken out of context, that could have been a problem. The rest of the roll showed the kids' mother giving them a bath, playing around the house with them (fully clothed), and of them sleeping in their parents' arms. No reason to call the cops there.

Hell, if that were reason enough to call the cops, my parents would be in jail, because there's all kind of pictures of me as a baby, in diapers ... or less.

If you guys are nice, I might even post them

[Barefootgirl]

If anyone was stupid enough to put child porn pictures through a commercial photo lab, it would be incumbent on the lab tech to call the cops, but I don't think the lab technician would be charged with possession ! Discovering the crime doesn't necessarily make you an accomplice, after all. Of course, if you made surreptitious copies before phoning the police, and kept them for yourself, then you WOULD be guilty of possession of kiddy porn and as such deserve a short sharp session as Bubba's new "friend".

Like Drugslinger's parents, mine also had an unaccountable urge to take pictures of me without my babygro on...including one very incriminating one of me and another baby, in the paddling pool, jsut in our vests

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Well, you're probably right about the lab tech being charged with possession, especially if all he did was find and report it. Were it me, I'm make sure I my butt was clean and clear on that, though. That's not the sort of thing you want hanging over your head for any reason.

[kerrisan]

That reminds me of a quote from Hope Floats:

(can't remember all of it but it went like this: )

Boss (teaching Birdee how to develop pictures): Now, sometimes we get pictures of a, umm, "questionable nature." Now when that happens, we just hand 'em over and don't say anything.
Birdee: Ohh . . . umm . . .
Boss: But first, we make a copy and put it in this drawer. You can look at 'em anytime you want, you just can't take 'em home with yeh.
Birdee: . . .

Where exactly is the line drawn? When people are COMPLETELY nude or . . .?

[Tria]

Obviously, no one is going to arrest someone taking naked pictures of their baby in the tub, although a lab worker is within their rights to refuse to do the job on the grounds that they find it offensive or questionable.

Don't be so sure, a young couple got arrested because of photos of the mother breastfeeding.... And if I could find the article I'd show you but it was awhile ago.

[Greenday]

I highly, HIGHLY doubt a photo lab would be brought up on charges if the pictures that came out were of kiddie porn. Just as long as you take certain precautions such as putting them in a secure area where no one would look at them, there would be no reason to get arrested. The worst that would probably happen is to be asked by the cops who was the person who owned the film.

As for deciding what is questionable, whether it is just skin or anything in the act, I'm guessing most places leave the choice up to the person developing it. So it really comes down to personal preferences.

[DerangedHermit]

A question that I didn't see answered:

Was she attractive?

[Bugg]

Lab Techs are clear when it comes to that, I had it happen, we called the police, somewhere along the line you fall into some type of law enforcement role in that situation (basically being honor-bound to deal with it properly if the situation arises)

[Jester]

I live in one of those tourist towns where Girls Gone Wild stuff, and THEN SOME, goes on...and people love taking pictures of such extracurricular activity.

There used to be a photo lab down here (since gone out of business) who had a very simple policy. They would print your pictures for you and be very professional about anything..."as long as it doesn't involve children or animals." And that worked for me...er, uh, for people who engaged in such extracurricular activity.

[TeslaRecoil]

A question that I didn't see answered:

Was she attractive?

Not to be crude, but not from the point of view of the pictures

[Barefootgirl]

Don't be so sure, a young couple got arrested because of photos of the mother breastfeeding.... And if I could find the article I'd show you but it was awhile ago.

I think this is the story;
http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues.../feature2.html

It sounds like a case of an over-cautious lab tech (which I don't criticise, i'm glad he was concerned enough to ask someone better qualified), meeting an over-enthusiastic prosecutor and Social Services dept.

The circumstances of the story do sound a trifle odd, but certainly not pornographic. Incidentally, my sister still breast-feeds her son, and he was 2 in February.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

This makes my blood boil.

Yes, how sick and perverted of them to have a baby suckling on a woman's breast. Don't they know that tits are only to be used as sex objects? What's wrong with these weirdos? I mean, wouldn't breasts have milk in them or something, if that's what they were meant to be used for?

You know, I have a baby, and I am feeding her the way nature intended, and I have considered taking similar pictures of her for my own personal use. Thank God for digital.

[TeslaRecoil]

Don't they know that tits are only to be used as sex objects? What's wrong with these weirdos? I mean, wouldn't breasts have milk in them or something, if that's what they were meant to be used for?

They have MILK in them???? And I just thought they were fun to play with (kind of like the stress balls on the counter in the drug store), and could serve as pillows, if need be ...

[DGoddessChardonnay]

I have just one word for these morons that want to take such pictures:

Polaroid

I mean, who wants to include those pictures in their family album anyways? Could you just see them showing their kids photos of way back when they were young and dumb . . .

*grabs brain bleach*