photography [videography] of a long list of sex acts ">New law banning photography [vide...

New law banning photography [videography] of a long list of sex acts

57 posts
12 Dec 2014
Imagefield
Photographer
Imagefield
[ inaccurate topic title corrected by Administrator ]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a-long-list-of-sex-acts-just-got-banned-in-uk-porn-9897174.html

A quick look round the images on Purestorm found many images that could be considered as illegal if made today.

Then there appears much confusion on how this law could be applied as many terms are significantly 'woolly'

Posted 12 Dec 2014
Edited by Jacqui 27 Dec 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Does this apply to photography as well as videography?

Posted 12 Dec 2014
Imagefield
Photographer
Imagefield
yes any photography media


Posted 12 Dec 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Do you have a link that clarifies that?

Posted 12 Dec 2014
Imagefield
Photographer
Imagefield
The law itself appears to ban publication rather then manufacture - its therefore down to the definition of what is shown in the image as defined in
the Video Recordings Act 1984

which is

'Interpretation of terms.

(1)The provisions of this section shall have effect for the interpretation of terms used in this Act.
(2)“Video work” means any series of visual images (with or without sound)—
(a)produced electronically by the use of information contained on any disc F1. . . magnetic tape [F2or any other device capable of storing data electronically], '

this latest legislation extends the law to cover 'the internet' in addition to any recorded media.

Posted 12 Dec 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
It still seems to be referring to video to me (rather than stills photography).

Posted 12 Dec 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
From what I can tell it applies to video so that it is in-line with R18 BBFC classifications on discs that can be bought in sex shops. The BBFC, who set the guidelines and ATVOD enforce them are both video/film oriented organisations, their rules/regulations don't apply to still images.

Posted 12 Dec 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
And this article speaks purely of film/video:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/11269271/Spanking-and-caning-just-two-of-the-sexual-acts-now-banned-in-British-porn-films.html

Posted 12 Dec 2014
Imagefield
Photographer
Imagefield
Yes the legislation certainly has its foundations in the furore over video nasties in 1983/4

However the definition used in the act is 'Any series of visual images'

Which could easily apply to a body of work/portfolio depicting one or more of the listed activities; context would be important.
But the legislation itself is as I said very woolly and ill defined.

Not sure where PS could get clarification?




Posted 12 Dec 2014
paulbatterbury
Photographer
paulbatterbu..
I wondered when someone was going to bring this up.

It is odd when you think so MP's and scandal, you pictures one tied up and gagged, and with a femdom miss whiplash and yet now, to produce and host media such as this in the UK s is illegal.

There has been a complete lack of thought into this. The government want to ban porn, possibly because it is an unregulated industry, where it is very hard to track and tax. Many people make a living from it (not always through choice) and regardless if it is soft or hard, the bans hit hard on imagery where the female performers are mainly involved, the ban list doesn’t really float my boat, but I feel that if the ban enough of what female performers and models can do, it is the first best step they can take to stamp it out completely.

I have spoken to a few people this week, a few have quit, and few are now moving away from the UK and a few have decide to fight. And I talking mainly about the guys who produce, good, clean and tasteful bondage images and video.
This law does affect me, as everything I do is outside the UK, but non e the less it has made me angry




Posted 12 Dec 2014
Bob
Photographer
Bob
Imagefield

A quick look round the images on Purestorm found many images that could be considered as illegal if made today.

Utter b0ll0x! Purestorm doesn't host Video On-Demand pornography.

The Act is only bringing pornsites which stream video into line with the video sales regulations.

Even the above link provides a simple explanation plus a link to the Act, so anyone who thinks it refers to photography either hasn't bothered to read the Act or must be too thick to comprehend it.

"The Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014 requires that video-on-demand (VoD) online porn now adhere to the same guidelines laid out for DVD sex shop-type porn by the British Board of Film Censors (BBFC)."

Personally, I don't see what the fuss is about as in my view the internet should be no different from the cinema theatre or the sex shop and it should not be pretty much completely unregulated in the way it has been for much of its existence.

Bob
Posted 12 Dec 2014
Imagefield
Photographer
Imagefield
I wonder how Terence Young would get round handcuffing the sparsely clad Ursula Andress, so that she slowly drowned during the making of Dr No ? Oh and bob; play nice
Posted 12 Dec 2014
Edited by Imagefield 12 Dec 2014
Bob
Photographer
Bob
Imagefield

I wonder how Terence Young would get round handcuffing the sparsely clad Ursula Andress, so that she slowly drowned during the making of Dr No ?

He (or more likely the distribution company) would just seek classification for the film before putting it out.
Seemples!


Posted 12 Dec 2014
Imagefield
Photographer
Imagefield
Bob
He (or more likely the distribution company) would just seek classification for the film before putting it out. Seemples!
Indeed so an artist would seek permission of a civil servant who .... (and knowing a good few civil servants) I think they would pay it safe and say no. Whatever you think of the artistic merits of Dr No it may/would be either censored or self censored. Smaller companies not having the gravitas of a James Bond Production would most likely be expected to self censor. However the main protests appear to be coming from Feminist groups, also 3 MPs are said to be wanting to debate the amendment with a view to changing if not removing it. The addition of the list is not simply the extending the law on DVDs to cover the internet, its much more pernicious, as was the method of the lists introduction which was un-debated and 'well managed'.
Posted 12 Dec 2014
Chandos
Photographer
Chandos
Too late for Max Mosley who might be spared the blushes from UK distributers. One wonders if this law was brought in to protect MPs private kinky videos being released from within the UK so close to the General Erection next year. Notice it does not stop videos of this nature that came from overseas.

Posted 12 Dec 2014
Edited by Chandos 12 Dec 2014
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join