The "offence" Of Painting Indecent Images?

[Khandro]

Whether or not the charges of abuse against a minor by Rolf Harris are true or false has yet to be proven, but I hear he is to be charged with 'Making indecent images of children'.
Does such an offence exist?

[hc4361]

"Section 1 PCA1978 covers a wide range of offences concerning indecent photographs of children. Furthermore, it extends to the making of 'pseudo-photographs', defined as 'an image, whether made by computer graphics or otherwise, which appears to be a photograph'"

Basically it means downloading. Distributing would be uploading.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/

[EDDIE51]

Here is another recent case of 'making indecent images of children' that was discussed on AB
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-23724806
Now it looks like Rolf has been up to the same thing.

[hc4361]

Rolf 'made' four images, serious grade unknown, the chap who worked with children in Eddie's link 'made' over 600, some of which were the most serious.

[shoota]

If they are paintings I can't see any grounds for that part of the case proceeding unless there is another clause tucked away somewhere that covers non electronic/photographic images.

[Khandro]

The history of art objects is riddled with images of the most obscene nature; Greek vases, Japanese prints (not to mention English ones!) the sculptures of the temples of Khajaraho showing sexual congress between humans and animals, etc. but I don't see why it would contravene any law to make images of whatever you like, perhaps where it is displayed may be a different matter, though it's hard to see the British Museum being prosecuted for its possession.

[shoota]

Unless, perhaps, they were painted from photographs or a computer screen?

[hc4361]

They are not paintings. If they were he would be charged under the Obscene Publications Act.

[Khandro]

//They are not paintings. If they were he would be charged under the Obscene Publications Act.//
How do you mean?

[hc4361]

This man was convicted for discussing obscenities against children online - fantasising.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-19627049

[Peter Pedant]

The views and tastes change from age to age K

Look today at those po-faced Iranians today and wonder how anyone could have written the Rubaiyat in the past.

The victorians sewed stocking onto piano 'legs' because they were legs and thought to be indecent - yes I am talking about a piano not the muzak nor the performer.

[hc4361]

Khandro, paintings, literature and other works of art considered obscene are covered by the Obscene Publications Act.

Harris has been charged with 'making indecent images' under s.1 of the Protection of Children Act. This specifically refers to downloading indecent images of children.

If it were paintings, he would have been under the Obscene Publications Act

[hc4361]

Peter, that's simply not true about the piano legs.

They didn’t cover their piano legs because they were sexually suggestive. This myth has a definite literary origin, because it was actually the Victorians who scoffed at the Americans for being so prudish. Captain Frederick Marryat, author of the classic The Children of the New Forest (1847), reported in his Diary in America (1839) that American women disapproved of the word ‘leg’ and insisted that ‘limb’ be used instead. He also ‘unearthed’ the story about the Americans covering piano legs because they were suggestive of naked human legs – but it seems that the American lady he spoke to was pulling his leg, seeing her opportunity to gull a naive English tourist. That hasn’t stopped the myth from being repeated time and time again ever since – not only about the Americans, but about the Victorians too!

http://interestingliterature.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/ten-myths-about-the-victorians/

[Buenchico]

The law is affected by an odd legal precedent.

The legislation (the Protection of Children Act 1978) originally referred only to 'photographs' but it was later amended to include 'pseudo-photographs'. The maximum penalty for possession of such indecent images was 2 years imprisonment but the maximum penalty for taking or making them was 10 years imprisonment. In a court judgement (which, to me, makes no sense) a judge decided that downloading such images constituted 'making' them. So Alf and Bert could be in possession of identical images but Alf (who was given them on a disk) could only be sentenced to 2 years but Bert (who downloaded them from the internet) could be sentenced to 10 years.

The law has since been amended anyway (so that the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment in all cases) but the definition of 'making' still includes downloading because of the earlier precedent.

Paintings aren't directly affected by the provisions of the Protection of Children Act 1978, which relates to 'indecent' images (e.g. simple nudity), but any depicting sexual activity with minors could fall foul of separate legislation.

[Khandro]

Chris; //Paintings.................. depicting sexual activity with minors could fall foul of separate legislation.//
Are you thinking that depicting such activity in the form of a painting or drawing is in itself a criminal act? Wouldn't it be the manner of displaying it that could fall foul of the law? I can think of art exhibitions in galleries open to the public which have been closed down for such reasons, but as far as I know, no prosecuction has taken place against the artist for making them.

[boxtops]

I understood that taking a photograph is described as "making an image".

[Khandro]

It seems that drawing is undoubtedly making an image, but it is not "making and image". ?

[Old_Geezer]

I think you could be forgiven Khandro. Describing downloading as creating is ridiculous. Sure you end up with a file on your PC that wasn't there before so I can see how the description could be defended, badly, but everyone accepts it is the original file in as new place as well, not something newly made. Yet another example of how folk with responsibility seem to find it difficult to think through the decisions they make, and end up confusing normal folk.

[Old_Geezer]

Taking a photograph would be making an image. It would be an original not a copy.

[Old_Geezer]

Posing victims, or even having them around to paint, in order to make a new painting would be an offence (I would hope).

[douglas9401]

Odd that the adverts popping up on this page include photos of babies and various childrens favourite snack foods, among others.
Need to get a filter tweaker in.