Oh this raises all sorts of interesting legal, artistic, free-speech, and privacy issues! An excellent way to start the week.

So there’s clearly a difference between photos of adult men playing volleyball on a public beach in their skimpies (no expectation of privacy) and photos of underage boys participating in a school event (hm…some expectation of privacy? I dunno). Obviously a big part of the issue is context: if the photos of the boys had been posted on a sports site, there’d likely have been little foofarah about it; since they were apparently mixed in with racier pictures, they are magically transformed into masturbation fodder, which is understandably disturbing to the sensibilities of the boys and their parents. But whoever took the photos, while perhaps lusting in his heart, did little other than document a reality: these boys were in fact wandering around the pool in eensie swimthings. But it’s interesting how the same photo can be two different things, depending on whether it’s on the boy’s auntie’s beeming website (”Here’s our little Bobby on the day he won a medal”) or wankoff.com intermingled with scanned porn.

But what’s the answer? Prohibit photography at school swim meets except by blood relatives with appropriate ID? Unlikely. And is the fact that someone finds an adolescent male attractive necessarily “shameful”? There’s the profit question, of course, if the photos are on a pay site, but still.

I’ll be really interested in what others have to say about this!

I have to ask in a tactfully way as possible. :)

Does anyone know what sites this was posted on?

I’m with emb, the issue is tricky and important. If we want the gay community to be legitimized and not cast as perverts we need to help draw the line clearly. To suggest that it’s not as bad for boys to be sexualized as a teen, or that there’s little harm because they were at a public event is to accept a scenario that allows pervs to prey on kids. The sexualization of an unaware, or unwilling person is wrong and probably criminal. When that victim is underage it is worse. I suggest that any photos of students has copyrights shared by the student and the school. If these photos are used by anyone other than those two it should be criminal. Schools or students could sue for infringement. Give the atorneys something to chase, help the municipalities a hand locating the pervs and give the victims a sense of power to fight the pervs that want to use them sexually.

That’s a really interesting idea, Rikard–there’s precedent for it in concerts and theatrical productions (no cameras, please), as well as professional sporting events (though there the limit is on personal v commercial use). There’s obviously an enforcement problem, with the way this stuff spreads across the web, but in principle it may be sound policy that protects scantily-clad underage boys (and, one assumes, girls, since there are probably similar photos of young ladies out there).

You raise a thornier issue with the statement that “sexualization of an unaware, or unwilling person is wrong and probably criminal.” That depends on the circumstances, probably. Is it wrong or criminal for a homo photographer to take photos of swimwear-clad men playing volleyball or football or just walking on a public beach, and then post them on “Sexy Men On The Beach” dot com? Principle’s the same: some guy just playing with his frisbee is suddenly oggle-able around the globe for utterly prurient reasons. On the other hand, nothing untrue or misleading has been done to the photo: he WAS on that beach, he WAS wearing those speedos, he DOES have that body (that he was clearly not shy about showing).

So on the bigger picture (so to speak), I dunno. I like the school copyright notion, though.

purrr, emb likes my idea :) Enforcement is always a problem, but there is a place in law, or ethics for the idealistic statement. Saying it’s wrong, saying it out loud and refusing rhetoric accepting of it bluntly. There is now way to criminalize someone who documents the world around them (here is the beach the day I was there), but paying to view the documentary beach photos, or using them as an enticement (like these? see more explicit pics inside) should be. It’s ok to peddle the flesh, but you have to get a model release signed. We all have the same right to our own image as the beautiful and famous, but unlike the famous we have not relinquished an expectation of privacy by promoting our image.

On a legitamit newspaper’s high school sports site, a company advertised sports pictures (via a google ad). Parents went to these sites expecting to see sports sites…and found pictures of there kids..not playing the sport…but just pictures of bulges in the bathing suit..adjusting oneselves, pics that showed pubic hair. So to answer the question..what were parents checking gay porn sites for..it didn’t happen that way.
Getting back to point…after googling this particular website…loads of gay sites popped up..and that’s where hundreds of sites popped up with pictures of sports players. This person(s) sells these pictures for a profit to gay men. The boys are underage. He is getting off scott free…while Scott Cornelius is the one being investigated. Allen Rockwell….takes pictures of trains, planes and everthing else. Allen exploited the San Diego area aquatic boys for years. Scott was the photographer of grey speedo boy. This is not a matter of relinquising expectation to privacy but rather. taking inappropriate shots for commercial purposes and financial gain without model release or contract.
Using secretive devices, remote cameras, utra zoom lenses to get a sneak peak…shows the intent.

Take what this guy “Heddi” says with a grain of salt … he’s been spouting this stuff all over the internet for over 6 months now. I could go line by line through his post and correct all his errors (and made up facts) but I’m not going to change his mind so there is really no point. He’ll keep saying whatever he wants and it will continue to get repeated until so many people are saying it that it’s assumed to be fact.

This guy is happy to throw around the names of Scott and Allen but he himself will always hide behind a made up screen name, that way he can never be held accountable for his slanderous statments.

I’ve followed this story since the beginning and I can say that it is about 5% facts and 95% homophobic hysteria stirred up by people like Heddi that obviously have an anti-gay agenda.

For an example of a real provable fact, I happen to know for a fact that Allen has gone to the “San Diego Area” once to shoot a college level rowing competition…. Yes once. I’m not sure how that gets blow up into “exploited the San Diego area aquatic boys for years” but I’m sure you can thank “Heddi” for that little tidbit of false information.

Question what you hear. Question even more what you read on the internet.

Emb and Rikard,
You guys are right. These athletes were in public, they were performing for the public, the public was allowed to photograph at the event, etc etc etc. This is not a matter of hidden cameras in the locker room, “secretive devices” (whatever that means) or “up skirting”, these are people (regardless of age), contrary to what the zealots will tell you most of them are college or university age that are performing for the public at public venues. Unless these sports venues want to ban photography entirely I do not see this debate ever being resolved. Little Jonhhy’s mother can post her photos from the big game to any number of photo sharing websites and people can take them (it’s not right, but it’s done all the time) and repost them anywhere they want, I’m not sure how this can be stopped.

I think the real crime here is the hysteria that people like “Heddi” are stirring up and the misrepresentation of facts that is reflecting badly on the gay community as a whole.

Well, I’ve stayed silent on this issue for months now… maybe it’s time to add a few facts to the load of (well, you know) that people like Heddi have been spreading around the internet.

Yes, this is Allen, one of the guys referenced in the above post by Heddi, or whatever your real name is.

Here are a few facts:
1. I’ve been a sports photographer for a few years now.
2. I shot mostly college level events but have occasionally shot some high school events as well.
3. I never marketed my products as anything other than sports photography, I never used words like sexy, hot, gay, erotic or anything remotely similar in my marketing of my work.
4. My target audience has always been athletes, parents, families, fans and anyone else that wanted to purchase my work.
5. I have never excluded any group from purchasing my work … if gay men have purchased works from me I would have have no way of knowing, there is not a sexual orientation check box on the order form.
6. I have NEVER knowingly provided images (for free or for sale) to porn websites.
7. Every event I attended was a public event on public property and open to the general public.
8. Every event I attended allowed public photography.
9. Often I was invited to events and given press credentials by the organizers.
10. Selling sports photographs (regardless of age of the athletes) is 100% legal.
11. Model releases are not required for photos of people taken in public unless that image is to be used in advertising another product (billboards, magazine ads, product label, etc) Images simply sold as images do not require model releases (again, regardless of age).
12. If you look at my images and see something sexy in them, that is your problem … not mine or the athlete’s problem. You see what you want in the photos, I cannot control your thoughts.
13. As the previous poster said, I was in San Diego once to shoot a college level rowing event. I’m not sure how that translates to years of exploitation of boys.
14. If someone is indeed taking my images in violation of my copyright and reposting them to porn sites please tell me who and where and I’ll deal with it. So far nobody has been able to tell me this.
15. Every serious sports photographer uses what Heddi calls “Ultra Zoom lenses”, I’m pretty sure that’s not a crime. Find me one sports photographer that’s not carrying at least a few big white Canon lenses.
16. Regarding Heddi’s claim of “secretive Devices” and “Remote Cameras”, at ONE swim meet (which I was invited to by the organizers) I was working alone and set up a camera on a tripod directly in front of and in full view of the officials desk (after getting their permission) with a radio controlled shutter trigger so I could get a shot looking down the starting blocks as the men and women dove into the water. So devious!!!!

Sorry to introduce facts into the argument Heddi but someone had to do it.

Oh … one more thing Heddi. Show me ONE photo of mine where I have cropped the photo so that it’s just a shot of a (as you say) “bulges in the bathing suit”. Show me ONE! You can keep repeating the same crap over and over as long as you want, but show me ONE photo like that if you can. And I’m not talking about a photo that someone else has cropped and reposted, I’m talking about one of my photos that _I_ edited.

…all that being said, I want it to be clear that if someone is taking my work and reposting it to porn sites I STRONGLY object to that and would sue for copyright infringement if I could find out who’s doing it.

Take care all,

Allen

Allen, you call yourself a sports photographer. You are not. You used boys for your own financial gains. People were afraid to join your website and chose not to. You are not allowed to take pictures of boys because no event will give you a press pass. If allen snaps was legit, you would still have a business. There now is a law in place. You would not get away with what you did. You were all over San Diego HS taking pictures. Not just one high school or event. Joan wants nothing to do with you after your mislead her. You yourself destroyed your crediabilty. However, people assumed you were a professional sports photographer not a photographer who posts for the gay population. Your being gay has nothing to do with this. Your lack of integrity does.

Well, how would did these people find these sites: by googling gay swim, etc.? I mean, someone, somewhere was looking for these pictures - how did they find them? Think about it.

Would there have been such a furor if these pictures had been of girls in bathing suits?

I think not.