Church to sue photographer over erotic snaps.

Trojan911

wrote:

Church to sue photographer over erotic snaps
on 01/08/2009 14:34:48


A diocese in the UK 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.

"The pictures would be deeply offensive to people who view the place for regular worship.

"That's not what these buildings are intended for and he is deliberately taking advantage of the situation.

"Whether he's gone in there legally or illegally he is using the setting for an entirely improper purpose.

"By anyone's reasonable standards of decency this is beyond the pale."

New one on me....


Source

Morrisseeee

Some will say: "meh!, so what",
some: "the dirty scoundrels, castrate them",
some: "I wanna see those pics!",
etc etc.......:pac:

/Me, I'm googling "sue" "cornwall" "naked" :P

Meh, I was expecting worse (or better?!) images...

NilByMouth

Morrisseeee wrote: »

/Me, I'm googling "sue" "cornwall" "naked" :P

well any joy?Just wondering should i bother googling it aswell:D

Morrisseeee

My OH interrupted me, and that put a stop to my gallop/gooooglin !
So I'm now googlin "Craddock" "Penkivel Church" "photos" :cool:

Ghost Train

Morrisseeee wrote: »

Some will say: "meh!, so what",
some: "the dirty scoundrels, castrate them",
some: "I wanna see those pics!",
etc etc.......:pac:

/Me, I'm googling "sue" "cornwall" "naked" :P

yep "I wanna see those pics!"

heres his website

http://www.neolestat.com/ Some pictures are NSFW

Fajitas!

Pffft, whatever happened to that whole forgiveness thing they're always on about? Or are they just peeved because they didn't get any money out of it?

Thirdfox

Well (speaking as an agnostic) there is the fact that he didn't ask permission to go on private grounds and did something offensive to the owners there...suing might be taking things to the extreme though.

But would you want photographers to set up photos of naked people cavorting in your driveway? Or, imagine he had naked people dancing outside a mosque...goodness me!

Fajitas!

Thirdfox wrote: »

Well (speaking as an agnostic) there is the fact that he didn't ask permission to go on private grounds and did something offensive to the owners there...suing might be taking things to the extreme though.

But would you want photographers to set up photos of naked people cavorting in your driveway? Or, imagine he had naked people dancing outside a mosque...goodness me!

Yes, he did indeed trespass, but I'm just finding it quite amusing that a church, center of all forgiveness, etc, etc, etc is unwilling to forgive him for his sins, and go for the money instead.

And it depends. Are these cavorting naked people on my driveway attractive women? If they are, yes, if not, no.

/prejudiced.

Dragan

Instant fame.

Trojan911

Well, I was going to post a link to Craddocks website but it is easy enough to find & I can't be bothered with the NSFW tag dispute.

I didn't find them distasteful, more controversial/publicity gaining if you ask me, which he has achieved.

I wonder does a statue in human form nailed to a wooden cross and displayed in churches, come under BDSM? That's erotic to some, isn't it?

MagicMarker

Trojan911 wrote: »

I wonder does a statue in human form nailed to a wooden cross and displayed in churches, come under BDSM? That's erotic to some, isn't it?

Well, I can't speak for anyone else but I personally find it highly arousing.

Dragan

Trojan911 wrote: »

I wonder does a statue in human form nailed to a wooden cross and displayed in churches, come under BDSM?

I think it all depends on which part you polish.

Nforce

Direct link to pics NSFW

Now go in peace....

Fajitas!

Trojan911 wrote: »

I didn't find them distasteful, more controversial/publicity gaining if you ask me, which he has achieved.

I think they're a bit sh*te and very boring fwiw.

Dragan

Fajitas! wrote: »

I think they're a bit sh*te and very boring fwiw.

I would tend to agree....they are good for what they are...but they are nothing special.

Fajitas!

I'm wouldn't even say they're good for what they are - He's got much better work on his site.

Dragan

Fajitas! wrote: »

I'm wouldn't even say they're good for what they are - He's got much work on his site.

I should have summed up "what they are i guess"...."a random composite with a half naked chick in it".

In all honesty, it's hard to **** that up at a base level.

Edit : After looking through more of them, i take it back. They suck.

ttcomet

I think most of them are quite poor but there are a couple on the site that really stand out, I really like the one of the girl sitting on the bench that he has on his front page.

Suing on the grounds of blasphemy is odd, what ever about trespass or something similar.

Arguably this is the best thing that ever happened to him, the bulk of his work is mediocre at best and I don't think most (any) of us would have heard of him if this had not occurred.

sheesh

some lovely looking girls and the photography was not bad.

I can see how the people might be upset who is going to want to have their kid baptised in the font where yer one planked her naked arse.

Using religion to stir up controversy is a bit lame these days Its probably C of E so he has probably upset a few old people and a vicar Its hardly sticking it to the man.

Fajitas!

sheesh wrote: »

some lovely looking girls and the photography was not bad.

Era yes it is

ttcomet wrote: »

Suing on the grounds of blasphemy is odd, what ever about trespass or something similar.

Indeed. People've been forgiven for much more. Judas anyone?

I should represent him in court...

TriceMarie

Anyone see the one with the octopus?:eek:
She looks very cold in it lol

Cabaal

Ghost Train wrote: »

yep "I wanna see those pics!"

heres his website

http://www.neolestat.com/

This seems to be it specifically
http://www.neolestat.com/neolestat_church.htm

mod edit: note nsfw - not safe for work

MagicMarker

I like a lot of his pictures, but I also thing a lot of them are just stupid. But hey, subjectivity n all.

mehfesto2

Pictures aside, surely he would've needed permission to shoot in the church though - it being a private property and all?
How on earth he got away with that is my main wonder.

You can understand the churches point of view - a naked man behind the pulpit looking at a naked, legs spread woman is hardly something the church would want to be allowing on thier grounds!

dakar

TriceMarie wrote: »

Anyone see the one with the octopus?:eek:
She looks very cold in it lol

Wish I hadn't looked now! :eek: