From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Problems of Faked Photos
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:06:23 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <mike02560920813212603@batpad.lgb.ca.us>, mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (mike batchelor) writes:
> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
# # Far be it from me to agree with anything Ronzone writes, but this is
# # not how child pornography is viewed.  In a Supreme Court ruling
# # (Ferber 1982), the court found such pornography harmful in part
# # because it constituted "a permanent record of children's participation
# # and the the harm to the child is exacerbated by circulation."  So, I
# # wouldn't be surprised if not only making the boys/pony photo but also
# # just circulating it is illegal.  (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.)
# 
# I'm not a lawyer, either.  I wasn't addressing the legal aspect of the
# distribution of the picture.  If you want to get nit-picky, almost
# everything posted to a.b.p.e is is violation of someone's copyright.
# 
# I completely disagree with the SC ruling you mentioned.  A person who
# merely distributes or possesses a photo like the boy/pony image has
# hurt no one, and has contributed nothing to a crime which has already
# taken place.  I don't think that a photo like that even constitutes
# proof that a crime has been committed, especially if it is in
# electronic form.  It is within the realm of possibility to completely
# fake such an animation on a lowly IBM PC.  It's a routine matter for
# anyone with some graphics skills to fake something like that on a high
# end graphics workstation.  Transferred to videotape, you could not
# tell the difference between a forgery, and a live scene.

However, it would be very wise for a person who engages in such
media manipulation to keep clear evidence that the pornography in
question was produced without involvement of children, just to
avoid prison time.

# Marina Sirtis of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" fame is suing Event
# Horizons BBS for distributing a faked GIF of her and William Frakes
# (Cdr. Riker) engaged in intercourse.  As much as I admire Marina, and
# I sympathize with her distress, I don't think she has a leg to stand
# on.  The faked image is very well done, and except for the incongruous
# expressions on their faces, I could not tell that it was not genuine.
# I don't think there is any way to tell where the faces were taken from,
# so there can be no proof of copyright or licensing violations.

However, there is (or at least used to be) a crime in California
called "criminal libel" for this sort of fakery.  I know that one
of the pornographic newspapers sold in Los Angeles in the mid-1970s
ran a photograph of Angie Dickinson's head put on the body of a 
naked woman masturbating, and was hauled into court on this criminal
charge.

# The point of all this is that I do not think that photographic
# evidence is sufficient any longer to prove that a crime has been
# committed.
# 
# [] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us

Very true, but altering of photographs to deceive people as to
someone's actions should be evidence of at least libel as a civil
matter.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
There can be no peace as long as AB 2601 lives.