Talk:Indecent pseudo-photograph of a child

I placed a NPOV tag on this article for the following reasons:
 * Some areas regarding the proper interpretation of British law with regard to indecent pseudo-photographs of children that are currently not yet settled by a court of law (so far as I know) and thus opinion, are at times presented as if they where fact. Statement that present opinions about the interpretation of the law should be clearly indicated as such and attributed to who made them. Areas where a court has settled the issue to any degree should be made clear.
 * Which opinions are stated as fact? lmno 16:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems many of the issues I had with facts vs. opinions in the article have been addressed. --Cab88 20:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The article should distinguish between what the legality of pseudo-photographs of children and and non-legal opinions on the subject. Not everyone agrees any or all of the pseudo-photographs covered under British law should be illegal.


 * It quite simply does not matter whether everyone agrees that "any or all of the pseudo-photographs covered covered under British law should be illegal"; what matters is that they are illegal. Which opinions are controversial?lmno 16:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * From a British legal standpoint it doesn't matter since it's illegal in UK regardless of personal opinion. But the discussion in this article this UK law should not simply be about what the law in the UK says on the subject but also the opinions pro and con of  Britons on the subject. Thus for NPOV purposes it is relevant to present pro and con with regards to this law.  --20:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Other countries have laws covering "Indecent pseudo-photograph of a child" such as the United States (see Protect Act of 2003). Thus maybe this article should either be expanded or the title changed to something like "Indecent pseudo-photograph of a child under British law". (Note: I corrected the link as it was inaccurate).
 * The what act??? Child Protect Act of 2003 Where does this come from? Google knows not. lmno 16:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Name of act was wrong. It's been fixed. --Cab88 20:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

--Cab88 14:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This article comes across to me me as having more of the tone of a law professor's lecture as opposed to an encyclopedic article.

The Cupid painting...indecent setting...gimme a break! People trying to say there's anything "indecent" in any way whatsoever about such a painting have to at least be borderline psychotic. --DanielCD 20:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The Cupid painting...indecent setting...gimme a break! People trying to say there's anything "indecent" about such a painting are simply wrong in my opinion.

Note: lmno's response is to the now-overstruck statement above. I rephrased it with less aggressive language, as I think my sentiment was a bit over the line. --DanielCD 15:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That is your POV and you are welcome to it. However, just becuase YOU consider an image to be perfectly decent does not mean that everyone else will see things the same way; consider this from a UK Court of Appeal judgement: "If the test for deciding whether a photograph is indecent or not is whether or not it is the kind of photograph which appears in medical text books, then many of the photographs with which these courts are all too familiar could not be classified as indecent." lmno 07:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I strongly disagree. I don't care what the courts say; the courts aren't God. To re-write history because of a modern agenda is just BS. And I didn't mean "perfectly" decent by any means. My point is that this is wrong, and yes, if the courts call that painting pornography, they are wrong. That part is not an opinion, because their judgement itself is completly subjective. The wrongness is in people thinking their subjectivity is objective fact, perhaps the same thing you were saying to me. I can't imagine anyone using that painting for arousal. Yes, that's just me, but it is quite hard to even imagine such a thing.


 * I'm not laughing at you when I say this; I'm talking about them. But...medical textbooks...ha! That's the crudest thing I think I've heard in a long time. Art is art for some people; because others misuse it does not make it absolutely default to indecency. Then again, I may be reading that line you quoted out of context. --DanielCD 15:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The line I quoted is from an appeal in which the appelant argued that the image he was found in possession of could not be indecent since it's like could be found in medical textbooks. The Court rejected his argument. This presumably means that an image can become indecent becuase the person "using" it does so for "improper" reasons. But we are not talking here about the correctness or otherwise of the views of the people enforcing the law, we are talking about the law and the way in which it is being applied here and now. The "Cupidon" painting could not currently get you in "locked up" in England, but if you chose to recreate the image photographically (giving rise to an image looking almost exactly the same), it would be unwise to bet on an acquital should the matter go to court! lmno 17:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we are arguing in a kind of circle and I think I've misinterpreted things a bit. That is probably so, but the image on the computer screen is a reproduction, isn't it? So is it a crime for me to look at the article with that picture in it? What if I printed the article out? You don't have to answer these, I am just interested in what the answers would be and am going to do some more looking. --DanielCD 18:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You obviously know more than I do, so I'll shut up for now, but I do find your discussion educating. I changed the article a bit, it says "an edited photograph of" the painting can be considered pornographic. Is that right or should it be "any photograph"? If this is wrong, please LMK and I'll fix it or you can do it. I just have strong opinions and jumped the gun with my first statement. I'm going to do some more reading before I try to do any more major content editing here. --DanielCD 18:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we we are aguing at all - it seems more like a discussion ;-)
 * According to the logic used in these matters, the onscreen image would have to be a "copy of a photograph". So, yes, it would be a crime for you to look at an article with the image in it - so long as you did so knowingly (i.e. that you knew the image would be indecent). Similarly if you printed it, the printed image would be a "copy of a photograph".
 * A painting might not "appear to be a photograph" for various reasons I hope the article points out. A photograph of a painting will possibly show the painting hanging on the wall with the frame etc. This will make it clear that the image shows a painting. But the "editing" that a photograph of a painting might need to make it appear to be a photograph might be simply a reduction in resolution and cropping of the image to remove the frame.
 * This is an area that is beset with strong opinions. I consider the law in this area to be dangerously vague - but I have tried to keep my POV out of the article; in doing this I might have gone a little too far in the other direction and might appear to be presenting the opposing POV. But I do consider it important that this article is a secription of the law as it is, not a discussion of controversies in the surrounding area - such a discussion would be appropriate to the child pornography article, for example.
 * Please do make content modifications. If we disagree, we can take a discussion to the talk page. If we can agree, the changes make the article stronger. lmno 22:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I am not saying that English law would consider Cupidon to be illegal. I used the image because it shows a naked child and probably is not illegal - an English judge would probably baulk at the idea of describing such a painting as indecent since he probably considers himself to be educated. However, I note that English Police advocate extending the law so that it covers other forms of representation, which would probably include drawings and paintings. lmno 22:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Changed a reference to section 1(1)(c) of the 1978 Act. It does not in fact require prosecution to prove an intention to show or distribute an image - An anonymous user - 24/Jan/2006 17:15 GMT &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.130.78 (talk &bull; contribs).

Wow. Yet more info to consider. They don't have to prove that? Then that could be license to call anything porn. Am I right or missing something? --DanielCD 20:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are (slightly) missing something here - the license they have to call a lot of things involving children pornography arises from the word "indecent"; the point at issue here is the difference in meaning between the (actual) wording of "with a view to..." and "with the intention that..." The Court of Appeal considered this in R v Dooley [2005] EWCA Crim 3093. In ruling, the judge at first instance said: "It seems to me that what the prosecution needs to prove is that a participant downloads a particular photograph or image in the knowledge that it is likely to be seen by other participants who have access to same folder into which the image goes." lmno 23:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Editing
"data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a pseudo-photograph." - This means, basically, any digital photo. Right? Why don't they just say that?

But what possible criteria could there be for this? Practically any digital image can become part of a pseudo-photograph. So, be definition, all digital photpgraphy and stored visial electronic media of any kind is illegal. What about regular photographs and paintings? They can be scanned... Shouldn't they be outlawed too? I know I'm being sarcastic, but ...who knows, maybe not. These questions are for me as much as anyone else as I think the article should definitely not leave these open. --DanielCD 19:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This means, basically, any digital photo. Right? Why don't they just say that? they don't say that because what they are trying to do is to make the Act as general as possible. They are trying to avoid the act being tied down to a specific form of technology and inapplicable to any developments that might come further down the line. For example, what exactly is a "digital" photograph? Does it mean that every pixel is described with a specifc value of luminosity and brightness? Or an RGB value or somesuch? What about an image that is created from a description of curves? That is a little stretched as an example of the types of arguments that lawyers might try, but hopefully it gives an idea. It's hard to think of what new technologies might come into play in a few years :) lmno 22:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

How to improve this article
Some suggestions for improving this article:
 * The concept of "Indecent pseudo-photograph of a child" is not unique to British law. The US has the Protect Act of 2003 which also defines a similar concept. Also German and Canadian law ban such pseudo-photographs too. As such, this article should either have it's title changed and a separate on the general concept be written or expand this article to cover the concept in general and under the laws of other countries.
 * The article presents a lot of speculation about what might be illegal under British law. Such speculation should be attributed to notable British legal experts, commentators, etc. Issues that have been settled by courts should be made clear with issues not yet settled could have the opinion of legal experts offered instead.
 * While the article present the arguments that have been used to justify making "Indecent pseudo-photographs of a child" illegal, it does not present opposing views. For NPOV purposes, counter arguments should be added.
 * In the US, the Supreme Court struck down a previous law banning "Indecent pseudo-photographs of a child" (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition). The courts rational should be included in discussion of the subject. The current ban of "Indecent pseudo-photograph of a child" within the "Protect Act of 2003" has not be fully tested in the courts yet.
 * There are also some, while agreeing with the general concept have issues with how the laws in their respective countries have been written, especially the issue of being overbroad. This should be addressed. --Cab88 21:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that; it really helps me put more focus on the problem. --DanielCD 21:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is about an element of English law and as such need not even entertain what might happen in America, where the phrase "indecent pseudo-photograph" is NOT used. Furthermore, it is a description of the legal situation. You will not get very far in an English court trying to argue with the judge about why idea of criminalising pseudo-photographs is abhorent to some people. Some people believe that "property is theft" - why does the article on theft not entertain these viewpoints? An exploration of why virtual child porn should be legal is not appropriate to a desciption of the existing legal situation. lmno 22:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, perhaps we need a separate article that covers altered photos in general, where we can talk about it in a general sense and mention US and other countries' views and laws. I'll look around, there might even already be one. --DanielCD 23:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * :-) Someone else thought that we should talk about pseudo-photographs in a wider sence, so.... Try pseudo-photograph :-) lmno 09:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Do those other countries use the term "Indecent pseudo-photograph of a child"? If not, then the article is fine. I believe Wikipedia policy is to prefer simpler titles. There is no need to disambiguate if the term is unique, just because some other countries have similar concepts. Perhaps we could have a general article covering fictional child porn (currently the only place that covers the legal aspects of fictional child porn is in lolicon, which doesn't seem quite right), but I think someone should go ahead and write that article, rather than saying this article needs to change. Mdwh (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge?
I wonder whether we should merge Indecent photograph of a child with Indecent pseudo-photograph of a child. The former isn't very good and this needs lots too. R v Bowden (1999) needs to be slotted in somewhere too. Secretlondon 11:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Pseudo photographs are not photographs?
Do we have a source to know that an actual photograph of a staged act can't come under this law?

Whilst I'm convinced by the logic, I also note there are no sources here, and we can't be sure that a court will see it in the same way. (One could argue that the set of images which appear to be photos also includes as a subset actual photos.) Mdwh (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)