Naturist Photography

Whether or not Julia Somerville is a fan of early Who singles, she certainly wasn't a fan of Boots in 1997. Her partner had taken a complete film of Ms Somerville's young daughter having a bath, and went to his local Boots for a standard D&P deal. Photo processors, like all members of the public, have an obligation to notify the police when they suspect illegal activity, and Boots have a particularly strong policy in this area. When chummie arrived to collect his snaps he was asked to explain their contents at the local police station. After an unpleasant few hours the constabulary were satisfied that nothing untoward was going on. Unfortunately, a Boots employee in search of some extra income and/or disgruntled that the police hadn't taken the matter further, tipped off a reporter, and the story made tabloid headlines for a few days. The employee was sacked. Note that nobody was ever charged, cautioned or arrested. Nor did the police leak the story to the media. The police interview is described as "unpleasant" because it is not pleasant having to explain completely innocent actions to a police officer, whatever the circumstances.

Could that happen to you? (The police station interview - not the tabloid headlines.) Unfortunately, yes, if you take photos that include naked children. Actually, nudity isn't necessarily that significant - in recent years Bournemouth police have taken action against several men who had been videoing children on the beach, and most of those children weren't nude. What arouses suspicion is when all or most of the subjects on a film are minors - particularly if the setting doesn't appear to be one in which nudity might be expected. So beach and pool pictures are a lot safer than woodland or indoors. The general advice is to avoid photographing children nude unless it's clear from the surroundings that the environment is a naturist one.

This problem of over-reaction by the well-intentioned and prurient has become more pronounced since these pages were first published. In late 2002, some UK schools and local authorities banned still and video cameras from school plays, carol concerts and Nativity plays, on the grounds that the images could be attractive to paedophiles. Needless to say, the 'net was brought into the story, with claims that images of toddlers dressed as angels were displayed and exchanged on kiddie-porn Websites. While the media were unanimous in condemning this stupidity (at least, I didn't come across any support), it does indicate the extent to which sections of society have become paranoid in regard to possible sexual exploitation or abuse of children.

The primary legislation dealing with images of nude children is the Protection of Children Act (POCA), 1978. Any photographer who might take photographs or make a videotape including images of naked children should be aware of at least the basic details of this law.

In early 2001, the I Am A Camera exhibition at the Saatchi art gallery in London was the subject of a police investigation. Amongst the exhibits were some photographs by Tierney Gearon featuring her two young children. In one they were full-frontal nude except for elaborate masks, in the other the young boy was urinating. The Sunday tabloid paper News Of The World tried to whip up antipathy to the exhibition of these photographs, and is believed to have been the source of at least one complaint to the police. The overwhelming majority of UK newspapers and commentators on TV and radio expressed outrage at the possibility of charges being brought over the images, which were featured prominently in their reports. Eventually the police decided that there was no need to take any action. Several Websites carry reports on the matter, but since all of these are news organisations, these reports may eventually disappear. Try The Independent and The Observer.

Even with bona-fide naturist photographs of children, there have been cases where social workers and others have decided that the images were direct or indirect evidence of abuse or paedophilia. While no court cases are known to have resulted, an investigation by social services or the police is unsettling and disturbing. If you are a single parent or step-parent - particularly one who is separated or getting divorced - or are fostering or adopting then the advice has to be "no photographs" unless you feel you can handle a possible investigation of your motives. In 1998, a woman who, with her new partner, didn't "cover up" their nudity around the house had custody of her children removed when her ex-husband objected to this behaviour. Fortunately, custody was restored in a widely-publicised judgement, with the original judge being heavily criticised, but it's up to you whether you wish to follow the path of discretion or valour.

The codes of practice applying to UK newspaper/magazine wholesalers and retailers generally prohibit these companies from handling publications which include images of naked children. That is the reason why H&E only uses photographs of adults. Mail-order publications (eg the CCBN magazine) do not suffer from this limitation.

If you bring into the UK naturist material showing minors, you might have it seized by Customs and Excise. In such a situation, you have to go through the courts to get your belongings back and prevent them being destroyed. Fortunately, following the high-profile "Tower Productions" case, Customs are now much less likely to try to seize naturist books, magazines and videos. Note that in a case like this, one is presumed guilty until one proves one's innocence.

Final point: how young does someone have to be to be a "minor"? The answer in the UK is 18 years - prior to May 2004 it was 16, but the change in the law relating to images of children was retrospective. Elsewhere in Europe and around the world different standards may apply. Outside UK it is prudent to regard 18 - or even 21 - as the age of becoming an adult. Where the age of a person in an image is unknown, a UK court will operate on the apparent age.

None of those who have contributed to this page have had legal training. If you are at all uncertain about a specific image or about photography in a specific situation, you are advised to obtain advice from someone who is formally qualified to give it. CCBN members should be able to obtain such advice via CCBN Head Office.

If you come across child pornography - report it immediately. If the source is on the 'net, contact the Internet Watch Foundation.

If you search the Web for "Julia Somerville daughter bath" or something similar, you will find numerous Webpages describing the events summarised at the start of this page. Most of those other reports are erroneous, some wildly so. For example, it appears to be generally accepted as fact that an arrest took place - it did not. Many reports state that the photos were taken by Julia Somerville - they were not. Additionally or alternatively, it is reported that police interviewed Julia Somerville. They did not. And so on.There may be a lot of information on the Web, be aware there is also a lot of misinformation. Truth is often duller than the enhanced version presented on the Web.

Last updated 2006 August 1 (all links checked, many required updating).
 
Copyright © assigned to NUFF by author Tim Forcer

Naturist Photography homepage

Full NUFF Contents

New to naturism?

Copyright stuff

Comments and suggestions welcome