orrie smith wrote:
A photographer also has a moral responsibility to the subject he is shooting. If someone shows or states an objection, we should respect that wish. If you are photographing someone, especially a child, in a bathing suit, it could be construed as porn, and you may be hassled by the law for the porn rather than the photography. Just because something is legal does not necessarily mean it is right. Common sense goes a long way to showing respect.
I raise this question. I know the above statement is correct in today's legal arena, I have to live with it, like it or not. Question; If a photo is construed as porn, why is the subject not construed as indecent dress (or undress?) Just wondering.