Re: Re: Re: A serious but strange short survey


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Chuck(G) on September 01, 2002 at 23:13:04:

In Reply to: Re: Re: A serious but strange short survey posted by Rick Denney on September 01, 2002 at 22:02:10:

Yes, but looking at it in terms of the legal definition makes sense.

F'rinstance, an x-ray (radiograph) is a photograph, but not taken using visible light, nor using a camera. How about a PET-scan? Or NMR image? The job of the legal definition is to be as inclusive as possible (both Canada and Australia have had to amend their legal definition of photograph a few times to keep pace with technology) and let the courts sort it out.

One state in its kiddie-porn law has even coined a new term "pseudo-photograph" to reflect the montages now made by digital means. The US 9th Circuit (the renegade of the Federal courts) has so far tossed out a kiddie porn montage because there is no actual real human being involved. I suspect that it will eventually be overtuned by a higher appellate court, but at least in the 9th Federal Circuit, the decision stands--it isn't photographic pornography if created by manipulation or other means, so that the "victim" represented isn't a real person. But even then, that's a slippery slope. Suppose a porno operator grafts a different ear or a second navel onto an otherwise real person? Makes me glad that I'm not involved in the legal wrangling part of this field...

The problem is that widening the definition has to make room for things like painting or other expression without completely trampling the 1st amendement.

So your question isn't all that new--the courts have been struggling with it for quite some time.



Follow Ups: