Children as art

[mrsbrown]

This is interesting. I found it after reading this newspaper article.

It seems to suggest that the recent photo of Rose and I cannot be published, either on the web or in a book or newspaper. I didn't obtain a permit for Rose to "work", and she's been photographed naked.

OTOH, you can't deny that she was fully supervised.

Hmmm, looking a bit more closely, Abjet was clever. I can't even see Rose's nipple. (I'm pretty lazy, I have a 900mm x 600mm copy of that photo in my hallway, about 3m away from my current location, but I looked it up online and zoomed in, rather than get out of bed)

Comments

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

Utterly ridiculous! I couldn't read all of it, but skimming those laws would seem to suggest that yearly Father Christmas photos fall under the child employment restrictions, since money is being made from the photos. As if that industry wasn't insane enough!

Love the photo, utterly gorgeous shot, both technically and because of the models.

[mrsbrown.livejournal.com]

The santa photo may be a way to argue for change.

It's obviously ridiculous in that case, although I suspect that paid child models will be used for the advertising shots and nobody will worry about the rest.

OTOH, maybe those of us who want photo's of our kids published online should just inundate the permit people with applications.

[basal-surge.livejournal.com]

Collapsing their bureacracy could be the way to go.