art nude feud

[pammie]

saw this on msn...............bang goes my next idea for a nude shoot............!!

A diocese is taking legal action against a photographer who used a village church for an erotic photoshoot.
The pictures of semi-naked models cavorting amongst gravestones and inside the church were taken at St Michael Penkivel Church in Cornwall.
Now photographer Andy Craddock is the subject of legal action by the Diocese of Truro for trespass and not having permission to take photographs, accusing him of blasphemy.
Mr Craddock, his girlfriend and a couple of models used the 13th century church without the Reverend Andrew Yates knowing and then published the pictures on his website.
St Michael Penkivel was used in Rowan Atkinson's 2005 comedy Keeping Mum, which also starred Dame Maggie Smith and Kristin Scott-Thomas, about a serial-killer in a quiet village.
Mr Craddock, who said he wanted the pictures to add to his portfolio, runs a studio featuring fetishist and erotic photography in St Austell.
He said: "All I know is I'm being threatened with legal action, I don't understand it and I don't see the photographs as offensive, it's art."
Jeremy Downing, a spokesman for the Diocese of Truro, confirmed legal action was being taken.
"The Church deplores the use of sacred space in this way," he said.

[Alan Duckworth]

I seem to remember Bob Stephenson, who is the best church photograper I have ever met, saying that he always sought permission from the incumbent, prior to starting photographing, and a few bob in the box always seemed to help. But I never remember seeing anything but record shots, perfectly printed etc, fom Bob. Perhaps it was the models that upset the Reverend, combined with the lack of permission. Perhaps the moral is, it always pays to ask. There are thousands of places of worship in these islands. If the first one objects, there are others to try.
By the way, Pammie, I hope you are soon fighting fit again.

[keith richardson]

I have photographed a few churches in my time, and especially if going inside the building, I always ask permision. Its not always granted and like Alan says, there are plenty more to go to if that happens.
Personally my thoughts on this case is that Andy Craddock knew that they would say no and that is why he didn't even consider asking. It is stupid and ignorant of him to just go ahead anyway and then try to plead his innocence and say he is a victim.
I have had a look at hs website and I can see why they are upset. It seems as though he has gone out of his way to be offensive and trespass on as much tradition as he can. I am not a Christian by any means but I do have respect for other peoples views and certainly wouldn't sit someone in the font, or on the altar in a church, take a picture and then stick it on my website. ( never mind what he has his models doing there).
The next time some innocent photographer goes along there, to photograph this church, or any other church in the diocese, he will find it more dificult, simply because of the actions of selfish idiots like this queering the pitch for everybody else.

Thats my thoughts anyway.
keith.

[cameraclix]

As a "pro" I consider it improper for me to comment on the actions of my colleagues, thus will make comment from my own business dealings.

In my innocence, several years ago, I used to provide proof pictures to private "nude" clients via a website with an evident copyright mark across the image, stating my business name. I no longer do this for the following reason> A client took the proofs, then decided they didn't wish to purchase a portfolio or prints (I was disappointed but that's life). The images all had my company name in the filenames and 2 years later when I was checking my google rankings I was highly dismayed to discover my "proof" picture being used as the centrepiece of a website advertising the sexual services of my ex-client. I sent a polite request that she removed the picture, to which I received an impolite reply. I then took legal action against her. I shoot nudes professionally and avoid porn/blatant sex like the plague. That image on a sex site, that was coming up in a google search for my business name could have been highly damaging to my reputation....and thus HAD TO BE STOPPED!

I have many thousands of picture on my Cameraclix website, the client decides if they wish to be in a password protected area or not. On one occasion I placed totally innocent family portrait pictures in an open area and the family were upset with me and threatened legal action. I removed the pictures from my site within minutes of receiving the angry phone-call and wouldn't even put them back on view in the password area until I had settled things down with the family.

As a "pro" you are only as good as your reputation...which can be GOOD...or bad! You have to work hard to get a Good reputation and keep it. Sadly simple slip up, bad decisions or not knowing when to eat humble pie can easily produce a poor reputation...which is sickeningly easy to keep!

John