The ethics of photographing 'children' in BJDdom

· How do you feel about photographing your 'underage' dolls naked?

If I get a doll with a character that would make them underage I don't think I'd have a problem photographing them naked depending on the situation and the actual age of the doll.
I mean I know tons of kids who gotten naked in pictures and they're realy kids, as long as the situation isn't a sexual one then I don't entirely see the problem. Kids, or at least a lot of the one I know, quite like to run around naked and so why should a child doll be any different.
However when you get to the teen stuff that's where it gets iffy for me. However you have a doll who is fifteen who has a tattoo on her rear, I know fifteen year olds who have boob shots online etc, it doesn't make it right but at the same time thats life.
And seeing how the photo would be to show off said tattoo then as long as you make sure it's a situation that isn't some sexual thing or is at least done tastefully I don't see a problem. I know many fifteen year olds who'd happily whip thier butt out for the camera to show off a tattoo or not.

· Do images of naked underage dolls cause you any disquiet/moral dilemma?

That depends on the situation in which the doll is in.

· Are you concerned by sexualized images of underage dolls?

Not really, as long as it doesn't progess into photographing real girls. Besides go onto the myspace/facebook/bebo of any girl from 13 onwards and you're likely to fine at least one or two photos where they're trying to be sexy.

 

After spending much time thinking about this for a long time before posting.. I see nothing wrong with posting the nude images of the child doll if you are not doing anything sexual with them. If you are showing your own body blushing, tattoos, etc. I don't see any problem with it. Just as long as it's not pornography.

I think with these pictures, the doll could lose the "sense of person" or something like that. But, that's from my view point. From not owning a doll yet.

 

I don't know if dolls really have any rights to protect. They're just resin, I see no problem with photographing them without clothes to show an element of the sculpt or other things that are totally non-sexual. Even with humans, they take nudie pictures of their little kids all the time.

However, when you start putting them in sexual positions, it's just wrong IMO. Children should not be depicted in that way in any form, in my opinion. At least I won't look at it.

 

DamirSoull, I'm sad that you had to go through that stuff. That's really hard. I hope you have help around you to deal with that.

I agree that these are not children, or young women, or beautiful boys. They are things. What is real is us - and it's peices of us that we put into them that animate them. So I guess that, if I wanted to take pictures of a model of a young girl in compromised situations, I would not worry that I was a pornographer or a paedophile, but I would wonder what was going on in my head. This would be an aspect of myself that I would be degrading.

 

i dont think i would be offended by that, just as long things are done with tact or done for a purpose in a story then it wouldnt bother me, dont let your creativity be bogged down by what people might think ^_^

 

I have no interest in looking at nude child dolls- unless in a body comparison photo thread.

 

There's a definite difference shown.
If the subject is shown in a risque pose, there's no doubt the intention of the photographer.
Just as there's a difference between nude art and pornography.

 

What difference does that make?
It's still with a nude model.

(sorry for double post)

 

Foo_fox, it does make a great difference! It's so obvious I am not sure I should start explaining O_o A body comparision photo thread is for checking how one doll looks with another, what are its proportions and resin colour. It's not a nude photo session. It's just a nude doll. No meaning behind it.

edit: I think I should add that nude photo sessions don't bother me whatever there is a meaning behind them or not (I am with DamirSoull all the way!), but understanding that there is a difference should help you with understanding others.

 

I personally think for dolls and humans there is a big difference between nude photography and erotic/pornography. An image that contains nudity does automatically have to be sexual in content or intent - the same can be said for images where the subject is clothed.

As I don't believe that all nude images are erotic/pornographic age is irrelevant. However when it comes to erotic images age does make a difference, this can be both moral and cultural - what one person sees as too young another person may not. Even so society puts a limit on what it considers suitable.

How much this applies to dolls is hard for me to say...

 

If it were just nude, I don't think it's an issue. I'm a purveyour of erotic arts, but when I see depictions of kids in sexual positions it GROSSES me out!

However, I don't think there's anything wrong with nudes. How many of our parents took bathtub pictures of us? XD

 

It's...still a nude doll. Photo shoot or not.

 

Something the mods themselves might not have considered, but which we dealt with on a game-fiction board, is that this is a non-age-restricted board that is hosted on a US site.

What this means is that if, at any point, little Sally Age 13 is browsing pretty dolly pictures and mom looks over her shoulder and FREAKS, the site, the mods, and the site owner can be sued. For real money. In a real court. For kiddieporn.

And---and this is the big point, folks, so let us not hear any hysteria about Freedom of Speech and Rights--it does not matter if the case goes to court or is thrown out. It will cost everyone who has been named in the suit real money. Money to hire a lawyer. Money, if necessary, to travel to the state in question to defend themselves. Real money that none of them have. And let me repeat myself here, it does not matter that these are dolls, it does not matter that there is no justification for such a suit, once such a suit has been filed, it costs money to defend yourself even to get it tossed out.

 

The only issue i have with this, while your point is understandable, is that these are still dolls, not actual children. And just how many of these dolls are quoted by the company to actually be of a legal age? The oldest Volks goes up to, if i'm remembering correctly, is SD17, so they havent hit legal ages yet. Luts has a few in the 19 range, but most are also 17 and below as well.

It might be presumptious of me, but i often wonder about parents like th emother in the hypotetical little Sally situation. Chances are litle Sally had baby dolls, barbie doll, and all sorts of other dolls and prolly still does. Did her mother swipe the dolls into another room anytime she wanted them in a different outfit? ...and would she give little sally a blindfold when she goes to school and changes for gym? ^^;;

If were're talking comparison photos, where you've got two nude dolls lying next to eachother, then i cannot comprehend why anyone would freak--even if our dolls are a little anatomically correct. (And by 13, i dont care what school system, i know i'd seen much more detail on a piece of paper in health class than a doll will eer provide XD;; ) If we're talking risque stuff that should much rather be on condoll or something.....then theres a reason we don't allow that here, and a reason theres an age limit there.

 

double post, please delete

 

A child-like doll is supposed to be like a kid, so it's obvious and natural that some people find nude pics of such dolls disturbing. Sure, it's a doll and you can't hurt it, but when you put a kiddie doll to a big doll's crotch and take a photo, it's kind of obvious what idea the photo is supposed to give us. For some it won't be disturbing, because these are only dolls, and for some it will be disturbing, because the scene clearly shows what the author had in mind.

 

The point I was making is not that the dolls are dolls. The point is that there are situations that could cause substantial legal hassles to the mods, website and owner of the website regardless of the facts as long as the appearance is there.

Think of this. How many of you have had Photobucket censor your pictures by removing them? And yet they were dolls and you could prove they were dolls, right? Nevertheless...I don't know of anyone that has ever had photos reinstated by Photobucket, and I don't know of anyone who has ever had to deal with a lawsuit, even one that was dismissed, without incurring a financial burden.

 

ok I know I am going to be flamed for saying this but.. they are just dolls... how can u gaing a lawsuit of some sorts when your exposing a doll? its not hiven a living bean?

I know most people here see them has much more then dolls, becouse they guive them such a psichological density that they to them transcend the doll condition but I beleave that what is to be discussed here should be more of an artistic parameter then one of a sociological and psichological parameter, that the trancending the doll condition issue is to be discussed (imo off course if u guys want to discuss that just say the word :P)

To me what is important is the nature of the fotography and your intention whille doing it, after all every art object has to have an intention, thouse photographers mentioned in the first post they were controvertial becouse they had something to express they are controvertial not only in what u see in them but what they want people to see in them. So the big issue is what do u want to express in your photography? is it erotic, is it playfull, is it a way for people to see that to you they are more then just a doll?
Becouse yes I understand that to most people they are much more then just dolls, and u can discuss that in a variaty of ways, by making the photograph so real that i can't draw a line in were the doll ends and the human exposure biguins is one of them. but in the end the big issue is this they are not human no matter how u love them and the characters u atribute them so u can do what ever u like whit them.

Now the fact that the doll is 15 to me takes another issue in hands, does the aperrance of the doll serve for what u want to express or is that going to take your photography to another level, becouse yes photographing a doll that looks like a child is completelly diferent of photographing one that looks like an adult, it will transmit a totally diferent fill and idea. its diferent not becouse its roung but becouse some people may think its roung, and becouse the image will be completelly diferent.

Another thing to consider is the US ideology (yes I know I'm going to be flamed again but ust bear whit me for a second) and why am I saying this, becouse expoing this kind of photoatgraphy in an american context is totally diferent that in an european one, and I'm not saying this in a bad way, but in fact american ideology is totally diferent from european one, european magazines have no issues in exposing the breasts has it may be considered artistic but god forbids u do something like that in an american magazine, it will raise all kinds of issues and it will never reach the public.

And I totally agree on Torrens aproach of the little Sally issue, we are forguething that to a child dollys are just dollys, we has adults are the ones that make them much more then that, for a child her inocence will never think bad of a doll showing her butt whit a tatoo, she will think its funny mostly, and probably draw something of her butt whit crayons but nothing big of it, becouse childreen are inocent they will never see harm in that, we are the ones that make things more then what they are.

 

The point is not the intention of the photographer, but the reaction of the viewer and the degree of action that reaction inspires the viewer to take.

As Victoria Victrix mentioned, DoA is hosted on a U.S. site, and is thereby subject to U.S. laws regarding the portrayal of minors in pictures.

The unfortunate reality in the U.S. is that anyone with the money and/or the moral agenda can bring a lawsuit against another person, company, etc. To continue Victoria Victrix's example, it doesn't matter if the pictures at which Sally is caught looking are of children or dolls. One more time: it doesn't matter if the pictures are of children or dolls. What matters is if, when Sally's mom sees her looking at a picture of a nude doll on DoA, she interprets it (rightfully or otherwise) as indecent and in violation of the law. Whether or not this picture is or is not in violation of the law is up to a judge/jury determine. However, as Victoria Victrix has said, what must be considered is whether Sally's mom is offended (freaked out) enough by what she has seen in this picture of a nude doll to spend the resources--time and money--to bring a lawsuit against the site hosting the picture in question.

When you say you can't understand why someone would bring a lawsuit against a picture of a nude doll because "it's just a doll," you're looking at it from the perspective of someone involved with the hobby and able to accept pictures of dolls for being just that: pictures of dolls. This is not the perspective of someone completely unaware of what BJDs are. There are many people willing to sue first, ask questions later in the name of....well, a variety of things: morality, protection of children from indecency, the list goes on.

And just a note: I'm not trying to cast mothers in a poor light. Sally's mom could just as easily have been her dad.

 

So she is supposed to be only 15 years old? how did she manage to get a Tattoo? it is not legal for minors to get them where I live.... Just throwing that out there. I personally do not think any photos of a doll are wrong, I think it is just another art form and I do not give my dolls a age, Etc,Etc, they are dolls to me and even though I have my favorites they are just that, Dolls (sorry if that offends the BJD masses, but that is how I feel about it)