GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   14 year old girl appeared toless in FHM (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=767727)

SykkBoy 09-11-2007 08:15 AM
14 year old girl appeared toless in FHM
 
Quote:
FHM has been censured by the Press Complaints Commission after it published a topless photo of a 14-year-old girl without her consent.

The PCC said the photograph, included in a gallery of mobile phone snapshots, was a "serious intrusion" into the girl's privacy and had a "significant effect" on her emotionally and at school.

Moreover, the commission added that the Emap men's magazine's failure to respond more quickly to the complaint "aggravated what was a significant breach" of its code of practice.

The parents of the girl complained to the PCC after the picture was published in the April 2007 edition of FHM. They said the photo was taken in 2005 when their daughter was 14.

FHM said it received around 1,200 photos of women either topless or wearing lingerie for publication each week. It added that it was "extremely surprised" to learn that the girl was 14 "as she certainly appeared to be older", the PCC reported in its ruling today.

"The magazine had been informed that the complainants' daughter was in a cohabiting relationship with the person who submitted the photograph and, in those circumstances, no further enquiries about the image were made," said the PCC.

"Nonetheless, the magazine - which had introduced new measures to ensure that the situation would not occur again - confirmed that the image would not be republished or syndicated and offered to write a private letter of apology to the complainant."

The PCC said the publication of the photo was a "serious intrusion" into the girl's private life.

"This would have been the case regardless of how old she was, but the commission was particularly concerned about the impact on the girl in light of her youth," the regulator added.

"The magazine had clearly not taken any sort of adequate care to establish the provenance of the photograph and whether it was right to publish it.

"It should have been much quicker to recognise the damage that publication would have caused the girl, and offered to publish an apology or take other steps to remedy the situation to the satisfaction of the complainant.

"Failure to respond in a swift and proportionate manner aggravated what was a significant breach of the code."

The parents' complaint against FHM was upheld by the PCC.

A spokesman for FHM said: "Naturally we regret any distress caused to either the girl or her parents by the publication of this picture. When the picture - a posed, topless shot - was submitted to us for publication it appeared to be of a much older girl taken by a male friend. The information with which we were provided also suggested this was the case.

"Although we continue to receive more than a thousand such pictures a week for publication from readers, we have now discontinued the particular feature in which a 3cm high version of the original picture was published.

"We have also put in place still more stringent measures aimed at preventing people who submit pictures from misleading FHM as to their provenance. Again, we can only apologise for any upset caused to the girl's family."
http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspub...166722,00.html


um, wow...imagine if one of us had "accidentally" published a topless picture of a 14 year old...still more shocking...a 14 year old living with the person who took the picture? um, how old was this person? Isn't this production of CP?

who 09-11-2007 08:18 AM
one rule for them.....

thumbsdepot 09-11-2007 08:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SykkBoy2 (Post 13071420)
Isn't this production of CP?
Child nudity does not always equal child pornography. The determining factor with child pornography is not whether the child is nude, partially nude, or fully clothed. The determining factor is what the child is doing and/or having done to him/her is.

http://www.asacp.org/page.php?content=faq#3

tranza 09-11-2007 08:26 AM
It's just amazing that FHM didn't care at all to check the girl's age.

SykkBoy 09-11-2007 08:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thumbsdepot (Post 13071455)
Child nudity does not always equal child pornography. The determining factor with child pornography is not whether the child is nude, partially nude, or fully clothed. The determining factor is what the child is doing and/or having done to him/her is.

http://www.asacp.org/page.php?content=faq#3
True, although had it been one of us, that's what they would have tried to get us on....

Angie77 09-11-2007 08:37 AM
Why didn't they check her age? WTF

vidvicious 09-11-2007 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranza (Post 13071470)
It's just amazing that FHM didn't care at all to check the girl's age.
actually most of these mags dont' .. damn they don't even own most of the contetn shown in the magazine .. On numurous occations I've spotted some of my photography in Maxim and Summums (french Maxim) ... They claim that those photos are open source. we used for promo by one of the clients i sold the image too .. I don't think that's very fair but then again life isn't fair ...

Kevin Marx 09-11-2007 08:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thumbsdepot (Post 13071455)
Child nudity does not always equal child pornography. The determining factor with child pornography is not whether the child is nude, partially nude, or fully clothed. The determining factor is what the child is doing and/or having done to him/her is.

http://www.asacp.org/page.php?content=faq#3
yes.. nudity does not equal child porn. There are lots of naturist sites out there where someone can see naked underage children.

As far as FHM goes, this doesn't surprise me. I had a shot of a model published online by FHM and I didnt' find out about it until the shot had probably 200 million views or so. The picture actually won a contest that the girl had submitted the image for.

When someone told me my shot was on FHM I contacted them and said WTF are you doing, you don't have a right to publish that picture????. They said that the model gave them rights to it.... to which I said... and who gave them to her?

I threatened a copyright suit, etc etc... to which I learned infringment cases can run in th range of 250K or so to prosecute... to whit I said.. how bout you put that picture back up with my copyright info and contact info???

They don't care.. they know you won't sue them. They won't steal from someone that has money (i.e. playboy, maxim, etc).. but they don't give a shit about a little guy... you don't have the money to do anything about it.

Regarding publishing a picture of a 14 year old. Hey... they got permission from the photographer... that's all they care about. Remember the old saying.. it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission? There ya go.

[ScreaM] 09-11-2007 09:00 AM
They should have checked her age.

SykkBoy 09-11-2007 09:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks (Post 13071633)
yes.. nudity does not equal child porn. There are lots of naturist sites out there where someone can see naked underage children.

As far as FHM goes, this doesn't surprise me. I had a shot of a model published online by FHM and I didnt' find out about it until the shot had probably 200 million views or so. The picture actually won a contest that the girl had submitted the image for.

When someone told me my shot was on FHM I contacted them and said WTF are you doing, you don't have a right to publish that picture????. They said that the model gave them rights to it.... to which I said... and who gave them to her?

I threatened a copyright suit, etc etc... to which I learned infringment cases can run in th range of 250K or so to prosecute... to whit I said.. how bout you put that picture back up with my copyright info and contact info???

They don't care.. they know you won't sue them. They won't steal from someone that has money (i.e. playboy, maxim, etc).. but they don't give a shit about a little guy... you don't have the money to do anything about it.

Regarding publishing a picture of a 14 year old. Hey... they got permission from the photographer... that's all they care about. Remember the old saying.. it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission? There ya go.
damn...time to start up a print magazine..... ;-)

Scott McD 09-11-2007 09:07 AM
She still got her tits out for a pic at 14yo though...

stev0 09-11-2007 09:08 AM
FHM has topless photos?

SykkBoy 09-11-2007 09:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stev0 (Post 13071675)
FHM has topless photos?
Apparently, in the UK

gleem 09-11-2007 10:22 AM
Quote:
"Nonetheless, the magazine - which had introduced new measures to ensure that the situation would not occur again - confirmed that the image would not be republished or syndicated and offered to write a private letter of apology to the complainant."

I'd love to see those measures, short of requiring copies of pic ID's with the same girl holding it up in a pose taken right after the nudes, there's no way to prove age..:error

Fletch XXX 09-11-2007 10:25 AM
youd think they need *gasp* some kind of age-proof


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123