Sep 3, 2008 15:32
15 yrs ago
7 viewers *
English term
make an image/ take an image
English
Art/Literary
Linguistics
Sorry, this isn't a job-related query. Just something I was just reading on the BBC website which puzzled me a bit.
So a vicar has admitted possessing indecent images of children. The sentence goes:
"He admitted 12 charges of making indecent images of children, four of taking indecent images and five of possessing images on his computer. "
What on earth is the difference between "make an image" and "take and image"??
Thanks!
So a vicar has admitted possessing indecent images of children. The sentence goes:
"He admitted 12 charges of making indecent images of children, four of taking indecent images and five of possessing images on his computer. "
What on earth is the difference between "make an image" and "take and image"??
Thanks!
Responses
| 4 +2 | making images includes downloading images |
Ken Cox
|
| 5 +3 | drawings / photos |
Sheila Wilson
|
| 4 +2 | make/take |
Jennifer Levey
|
| 5 | subtle matter of preference/meaning |
John Alphonse (X)
|
References
| The Cleveland Plain Dealer (reg. req.) r... |
d_vachliot (X)
|
Responses
+2
24 mins
Selected
making images includes downloading images
and that's what it probably most often means, judging from the ghits, while 'taking images' presumably means photography.
see e.g.
According to The Home Office in Britain the law is the following:
Section 160 of The Criminal Justice Act of 1988 made the simple possession of indecent photographs of children an offence. This is a Serious Arrestable Offence carrying a maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment. Note: The term "make" includes downloading images from the Internet and storing or printing them out. R v Bowden (J) 1999.
This does not mean that anyone that accidentally receives Child Pornography e-mailed to them and does not download it, copy or print, but deletes immediately will get a knock on their door.
http://www.wiredsafety.org/resources/editorial/0002.html
see e.g.
According to The Home Office in Britain the law is the following:
Section 160 of The Criminal Justice Act of 1988 made the simple possession of indecent photographs of children an offence. This is a Serious Arrestable Offence carrying a maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment. Note: The term "make" includes downloading images from the Internet and storing or printing them out. R v Bowden (J) 1999.
This does not mean that anyone that accidentally receives Child Pornography e-mailed to them and does not download it, copy or print, but deletes immediately will get a knock on their door.
http://www.wiredsafety.org/resources/editorial/0002.html
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Brie Vernier
: makes sense
4 mins
|
| neutral |
John Alphonse (X)
: British law is apparently classically flawed! "Lol!" It's just that I disagree with what they constitute as the definition of "make". And why the five charges for possession & not 17 for "making" when their definition of "downloading" is under Sec. 160?
9 mins
|
|
in what way flawed?
|
|
| agree |
Madeleine MacRae Klintebo
: With you on the make/take issue, but any idea about the difference between "make" (download and store) and "possess on his computer"? True, he could have received images on a CD, but that's unnecessary precision in my view. But then I'm not a lawyer...
1 hr
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Sorry, Ken, obviously you had the most accurate answer, with references and all, all along!"
+3
10 mins
Sheila Wilson
Spain
Spain
Native in English
&
English
Spain
20 years producing 100% natural English
Native in: English (Variant: British) 
Works in: English, French to English
Related KudoZ points
:
31
drawings / photos
It's rather odd wording, but criminal charge wording has to be legalese and is often a bit odd.
Making an image would be creating it with your own hands (drawing, sketching, painting, sculpting, ...)
Taking an image would need a piece of kit (still camera, video camera, ...)
Making an image would be creating it with your own hands (drawing, sketching, painting, sculpting, ...)
Taking an image would need a piece of kit (still camera, video camera, ...)
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Taña Dalglish
: You phrasing is perfect .. better than what I was thinking (LOL!). Good luck.
4 mins
|
| agree |
Cagdas Karatas
7 mins
|
| agree |
d_vachliot (X)
42 mins
|
18 mins
subtle matter of preference/meaning
Good question! From my experience as photographer and former student of photography, I recall my art photography teacher using the word "making" to emphasize that you are calling upon the process of creation combined with a specific intent when composing and exposing an image, whereas "taking" almost has a connotation of stealing or randomness. This is perhaps only a subtlety shared in the art world, and in general there is really no difference between the two terms, and nothing is implied as extreme as one meaning you are the creator of the photo versus simply grabbing someone else's photograph (the latter of which would come under "possessing" - being in the possession of). "Take a picture," is the most common and accepted usage, but if you stop and think about the implications, "making" a photo (or "making an image" as this teacher specified) is probably a more accurate rendition of the process. But again, almost everyone in layman's terms uses "take". I wonder, in fact, about the socio-cultural implications of this... By the looks of the world we probably could use a little less taking and a lot more making!! I think the impact of our words is grossly underestimated on what manifests as "reality"...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 23 mins (2008-09-03 15:55:51 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I would just like to note that in both instances here, we are referring to the photographic process and not to drawing or painting or any other medium! Thanks!
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 23 mins (2008-09-03 15:55:51 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I would just like to note that in both instances here, we are referring to the photographic process and not to drawing or painting or any other medium! Thanks!
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
Brie Vernier
: That's all well and good, John, but it obviously doesn't fit the given context
7 mins
|
|
Ok! Ok! I see your point. I'll remain with the philosophical aspect myself as the law on this is completely whacked anyhow (and this is not to imply that child pornography is ok!). Thanks for your comment.
|
+2
1 hr
Jennifer Levey
Chile
Chile
Native in English
&
English
Chile
Human-scale Globalization
Native in: English (Variant: British) 
Works in: Spanish to English, French to English, English to Spanish, and 2 more.
Related KudoZ points
:
23
make/take
I saw that article, too, and I read it as meaning that he had 'made' images in the sense of printing them in some way (i.e. he converted virtual images to physical ones), and that he had 'taken' images in the conventional sense used in photography, i.e. that he 'pointed the camera and pushed the button'.
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Demi Ebrite
: I think he made lurid images using photoshop, perhaps printing them off, actually took some photos personally with a camera, and kept some stored in his PC ~
1 hr
|
| agree |
John Alphonse (X)
: I agree but Ken's law defines making as copying a file to your HD as "making" (???)
2 hrs
|
Reference comments
58 mins
Reference:
The Cleveland Plain Dealer (reg. req.) reports a disturbing story regarding a lawyer who serves as a defense expert in child porn cases (Ex-prosecutor now toppling porn cases). The defense expert, a former prosecutor,
has developed a computerized courtroom exhibit that he uses to demonstrate how, with a $650 PhotoShop software program, adults can be digitally morphed into appearing as if they are children, and vice versa.
The reason this is relevant is because the Ohio law requires that:
a prosecutor must prove that a digital portrait of suspected child pornography is, in fact, a picture of a child. To meet that requirement, the image must be authenticated as a child and not an adult digitally enhanced to look like a child. [...]
Well, that's the freakin' point isn't it? That is, people can make images that appear to be children engaged in sexual acts, but aren't children. How can you conclusively demonstrate the point in court without showing some of those images and how they may be made?'
*****
Proof of the victim’s identity can become an issue for us. Despite Congress’ best efforts to make images of child pornography not involving a real child (such as morphed child pornography images) illegal, there’s at least one Circuit in the U.S., the ninth Circuit where California resides, that has said that for an image to be considered illegal it must involve a real child. Therefore, we still, in many cases, must prove that a real person was involved. Again this refers strictly to a child pornography case.
has developed a computerized courtroom exhibit that he uses to demonstrate how, with a $650 PhotoShop software program, adults can be digitally morphed into appearing as if they are children, and vice versa.
The reason this is relevant is because the Ohio law requires that:
a prosecutor must prove that a digital portrait of suspected child pornography is, in fact, a picture of a child. To meet that requirement, the image must be authenticated as a child and not an adult digitally enhanced to look like a child. [...]
Well, that's the freakin' point isn't it? That is, people can make images that appear to be children engaged in sexual acts, but aren't children. How can you conclusively demonstrate the point in court without showing some of those images and how they may be made?'
*****
Proof of the victim’s identity can become an issue for us. Despite Congress’ best efforts to make images of child pornography not involving a real child (such as morphed child pornography images) illegal, there’s at least one Circuit in the U.S., the ninth Circuit where California resides, that has said that for an image to be considered illegal it must involve a real child. Therefore, we still, in many cases, must prove that a real person was involved. Again this refers strictly to a child pornography case.
Reference:
http://importance.corante.com/archives/004616.html
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/2001/op01_20-po01_20/p2c.html
Peer comments on this reference comment:
| agree |
Demi Ebrite
: That's an inside view of US law in action for you! How unfortunate if the morphed subjects in the images have children that look like their patrents! It would seem that the 'intent' of the viewer should be at issue . . .
1 hr
|
|
Yes, the whole thing is grim.
|
Discussion
Thanks everyone else!
"Clause 53 of the Sexual Offences Bill
The problem of “making”
In the Protection of Children Act 1978 (PCA) Parliament created a series of offences
which relate to indecent photographs of children, viz: s1(a) “taking” and “making”,
s1(b) “distributing” or “showing”, s1(c) “possession with a view to distribution”,
s1(d) “publishing an advertisement”. A “child” includes someone appearing to be
under 16 and “indecent” implies some sexual element.
(...)
In 1999 the Appeal Court in three cases (Bowden, Atkins and Goodland) upheld the
view that “making” did not only include pressing the button on the original camera,
but also copying an existing photo or just saving a file to disk. This came about
because the PCA did not actually define “making” and so the court used the normal
dictionary meaning, despite the technology involved being very different from that
which Parliament would have been aware of in 1978. In 2002 in the Westgarth Smith,
Jayson case, the Appeal Court ruled that voluntary browsing through indecent images
so that they appeared, even momentarily, on the screen was also “making”.
(...)
Case law has created a broad
definition of “making” and the lack of statutory defences to this offence make
every investigation illegal. A simple fix would be to redefine “making” to exclude
incidental copies.