Artist claims indecent pictures of children were art

An artist, whose work has been displayed at The Tate, has claimed that
indecent pictures of children found on his computer were "work in
progress", and not child pornography.

Telegraph.co.uk, UK: 21 October 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6399501/Artist-claims-indecent-pictures-of-children-were-art.html
[ http://tinyurl.com/yk8k2lg ]

Graham Ovenden, 67, was found with indecent pictures in the file on
his PC and despite trying to delete it and said they were to be used
for an art work, a court heard.

Mr Ovenden is a painter, fine art photographer and writer, who has
displayed in the Victoria and Albert Museum, The Tate and the
Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

But officers found 16 separate images Mr Ovenden had created and 121
other indecent images stored in files in his computer's memory, the
court heard.

Officers found the files when they raided his Gothic mansion in
Cornwall and Ovenden admits he made the images on his computer.

But Mr Ovenden - whose major works feature young girls - says the
pictures were all being used to create an "end product" for artistic
display.

Mr Ovenden does not deny making the images but has pleaded not guilty
to 34 different child porn offences.

Ramsay Quaife, prosecuting, at Truro Crown Court, said: "What the
police found was a graphic application called Adobe Photoshop, and its
the use of the file browser in this programme to view the images which
led to the cache files being created.

"You can be sure that the copy of the images in the cache is the same
as the image made by Mr Ovenden - he was making these images, and a
virtual trace or footprint was left on the computer.

"Through what the experts found on the computer and through admissions
of the defendant, you can be quite sure the defendant was making
indecent images on this computer."

Officers raided Mr Ovenden's home in November 2006 and Mr Quaife says
he immediately admitted they were his pictures.

He said: "When first asked about the images, Mr Ovenden said they were
deliberately intended so we should find them, and that he had been
working on his creations for about a year.

"He added 'I am totally responsible in every way'. Mr Ovenden said to
police, 'the process of the image making is actually to create
corruption, then overlay corruption'."

The court heard in police interview Ovenden then quoted Shakespeare's
Hamlet to explain why he made the images.

Mr Quaife said: "He told officers, 'it is but skin and film, an
ulcerus place, while rank corruption lies within'.

"But what the crown say is that there can be no doubt that these
images are indecent - indecent pseudo images are indecent.

"By the means of modern technology, pretty much anyone can have a
virtual studio on their computer - and he was busy making thoroughly
indecent images on that computer."

Robert Linford, defending, argued his client had the images as a means
to create his famous artwork.

He says his client had shown completed work to officers which appeared
to show the image of a young girl, with words of poetry superimposed
over the image.

Mr Linford said: "My client repeatedly wrote to the police and showed
them these images of his final pieces of work.

"It would have been in rather flowery artistic language, but 'look,
here are the final prints, this is the final product'.

"He has repeatedly argued that the images seized from him were very
much a work in progress, and that these were the final outcomes, the
prints were the finished products."

Mr Ovenden has pleaded not guilty to 16 counts of making indecent
images of children, and 16 counts of making indecent sudo photographs
of children.

He is also charged with two counts of possessing 121 indecent
photographs and "pseudo photographs" of children.

In 1975 Ovenden founded the artistic movement the 'Brotherhood of
Ruralists' with then-wife Jann Haworth and fellow artists Graham
Arnold and David Inshaw.

Mr Ovenden was born in Hampshire and attended Itchen Grammar School
and the Royal College of Music before taking up painting around 1962.

He was tutored by Lord David Cecil and Sir John Betjeman and attended
the Southampton School of Art, and graduated from the Royal College of
Art in 1968.

Cub Reporter wrote:
> Artist claims indecent pictures of children were art
> 
> An artist, whose work has been displayed at The Tate, has claimed that
> indecent pictures of children found on his computer were "work in
> progress", and not child pornography.
> 
> Telegraph.co.uk, UK: 21 October 2009
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6399501/Artist-claims-indecent-pictures-of-children-were-art.html
> [ http://tinyurl.com/yk8k2lg ]
> 
> Graham Ovenden, 67, was found with indecent pictures in the file on
> his PC and despite trying to delete it and said they were to be used
> for an art work, a court heard.
> 
> Mr Ovenden is a painter, fine art photographer and writer, who has
> displayed in the Victoria and Albert Museum, The Tate and the
> Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.
> 
> But officers found 16 separate images Mr Ovenden had created and 121
> other indecent images stored in files in his computer's memory, the
> court heard.
> 
> Officers found the files when they raided his Gothic mansion in
> Cornwall and Ovenden admits he made the images on his computer.
> 
> But Mr Ovenden - whose major works feature young girls - says the
> pictures were all being used to create an "end product" for artistic
> display.
> 
> Mr Ovenden does not deny making the images but has pleaded not guilty
> to 34 different child porn offences.
> 
> Ramsay Quaife, prosecuting, at Truro Crown Court, said: "What the
> police found was a graphic application called Adobe Photoshop, and its
> the use of the file browser in this programme to view the images which
> led to the cache files being created.
> 
> "You can be sure that the copy of the images in the cache is the same
> as the image made by Mr Ovenden - he was making these images, and a
> virtual trace or footprint was left on the computer.
> 
> "Through what the experts found on the computer and through admissions
> of the defendant, you can be quite sure the defendant was making
> indecent images on this computer."
> 
> Officers raided Mr Ovenden's home in November 2006 and Mr Quaife says
> he immediately admitted they were his pictures.
> 
> He said: "When first asked about the images, Mr Ovenden said they were
> deliberately intended so we should find them, and that he had been
> working on his creations for about a year.
> 
> "He added 'I am totally responsible in every way'. Mr Ovenden said to
> police, 'the process of the image making is actually to create
> corruption, then overlay corruption'."
> 
> The court heard in police interview Ovenden then quoted Shakespeare's
> Hamlet to explain why he made the images.
> 
> Mr Quaife said: "He told officers, 'it is but skin and film, an
> ulcerus place, while rank corruption lies within'.
> 
> "But what the crown say is that there can be no doubt that these
> images are indecent - indecent pseudo images are indecent.
> 
> "By the means of modern technology, pretty much anyone can have a
> virtual studio on their computer - and he was busy making thoroughly
> indecent images on that computer."
> 
> Robert Linford, defending, argued his client had the images as a means
> to create his famous artwork.
> 
> He says his client had shown completed work to officers which appeared
> to show the image of a young girl, with words of poetry superimposed
> over the image.
> 
> Mr Linford said: "My client repeatedly wrote to the police and showed
> them these images of his final pieces of work.
> 
> "It would have been in rather flowery artistic language, but 'look,
> here are the final prints, this is the final product'.
> 
> "He has repeatedly argued that the images seized from him were very
> much a work in progress, and that these were the final outcomes, the
> prints were the finished products."
> 
> Mr Ovenden has pleaded not guilty to 16 counts of making indecent
> images of children, and 16 counts of making indecent sudo photographs
> of children.
> 
> He is also charged with two counts of possessing 121 indecent
> photographs and "pseudo photographs" of children.
> 
> In 1975 Ovenden founded the artistic movement the 'Brotherhood of
> Ruralists' with then-wife Jann Haworth and fellow artists Graham
> Arnold and David Inshaw.
> 
> Mr Ovenden was born in Hampshire and attended Itchen Grammar School
> and the Royal College of Music before taking up painting around 1962.
> 
> He was tutored by Lord David Cecil and Sir John Betjeman and attended
> the Southampton School of Art, and graduated from the Royal College of
> Art in 1968.

I wonder how he came to the attention of the police?

Cub Reporter  wrote:

>An artist, whose work has been displayed at The Tate, has claimed that
>indecent pictures of children found on his computer were "work in
>progress", and not child pornography.

    o
   /|\   <--- nude 12 year old
   /'\

Oh, I think that is the front door I hear being smashed already.....

And now it is on your computer so you have made it too....

On 21 Oct, 19:59, nospam <nos...@please.invalid> wrote:
> Cub Reporter  wrote:
> >An artist, whose work has been displayed at The Tate, has claimed that
> >indecent pictures of children found on his computer were "work in
> >progress", and not child pornography.
>
>     o
>    /|\   <--- nude 12 year old
>    /'\
>
> Oh, I think that is the front door I hear being smashed already.....
>
> And now it is on your computer so you have made it too....

Exactly. I use photoshop here and I don't believe that any judge/
sheriff would understand any concepts of its use or methods. What we
have is an overly forceful plod force who deem anything piece or art
as porn and carry that theme throughout. Theres no doubt that a state
of fear exists in the UK today about all this. It's akin to the
McCarthyite witch hunts of the 60 - the reds under the bed. A lot of
societites aspects will grind to a halt under this paranoia.
I remember going to the primary school to collect my friends 9 yr old
daughter. A single guy standing outside the school gates and Im
subject to all the gossiping mothers with their whispers and
questioning faces.
Beware - every man is a peadophile, every stranger is a
peadophile......where the fuck will it end?

Rant, rave...

McKevvy

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:14:50 -0700 (PDT), peterwn
 wrote:

>On Oct 22, 7:08 am, Cub Reporter  wrote:
>> Artist claims indecent pictures of children were art
>>
>> An artist, whose work has been displayed at The Tate, has claimed that
>> indecent pictures of children found on his computer were "work in
>> progress", and not child pornography.
>>
>
>Be that as it may, but UK, NZ and other countries have stringent child
>porn laws.  Although 'works of art' moves boundaries of acceptability
>of what could be adult porn, it does not wash with child porn.
>
>The usual ways authorities detect this sort of thing are:
>1. computer repairers and technicians - probably not applicable here.
>2. when a pay child porn site is busted and the FBI, cops, etc seize
>credit card details.
>3. emails and their receipients found on computers also containing
>child porn.
>
>The artist must have got wind that something was up, or kept his main
>copies on a hidden memory stick, but did not realise they were sitting
>around his computer as 'deleted' files or in a download area that
>users do not normally look at.
>
>He has now learnt a few lessons in the law and in computer technology.

I think the police must have been itching to get at Ovenden's hard
drive for decades as he is a well known painter and photographer of
nude little girls with several monographs to his name. I'm only
surprised that they took so long to stitch him up - the same with Tom
O'Carroll.

-- 
Cub Reporter

On Oct 21, 10:14 pm, Cub Reporter  wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:14:50 -0700 (PDT), peterwn
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >On Oct 22, 7:08 am, Cub Reporter  wrote:
> >> Artist claims indecent pictures of children were art
>
> >> An artist, whose work has been displayed at The Tate, has claimed that
> >> indecent pictures of children found on his computer were "work in
> >> progress", and not child pornography.
>
> >Be that as it may, but UK, NZ and other countries have stringent child
> >porn laws.  Although 'works of art' moves boundaries of acceptability
> >of what could be adult porn, it does not wash with child porn.
>
> >The usual ways authorities detect this sort of thing are:
> >1. computer repairers and technicians - probably not applicable here.
> >2. when a pay child porn site is busted and the FBI, cops, etc seize
> >credit card details.
> >3. emails and their receipients found on computers also containing
> >child porn.
>
> >The artist must have got wind that something was up, or kept his main
> >copies on a hidden memory stick, but did not realise they were sitting
> >around his computer as 'deleted' files or in a download area that
> >users do not normally look at.
>
> >He has now learnt a few lessons in the law and in computer technology.
>
> I think the police must have been itching to get at Ovenden's hard
> drive for decades as he is a well known painter and photographer of
> nude little girls with several monographs to his name. I'm only
> surprised that they took so long to stitch him up - the same with Tom
> O'Carroll.
>
> --
> Cub Reporter

Indeed ..

""As in [Nabakov's] novel, structure and event in Graham Ovenden's
drawings are associated with, arise from and are based on sexual love
for a minor. But events in the drawings are exclusively devoted to
Lolita's moods. He treats her as a young girl who comes to his studio
to sit for im, and it is as if she is telling him her story as she
poses..."--from Robert Melville's introduction"

Graham Ovenden: Aspects of Lolita
http://www.photoeye.com/auctions/Auction.cfm?id=3238

I look forward to this case, not sure Graham will.

WM

Svenne wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:59:22 +0100, nospam <nospam@please.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>> Cub Reporter  wrote:
>>
>>> An artist, whose work has been displayed at The Tate, has claimed that
>>> indecent pictures of children found on his computer were "work in
>>> progress", and not child pornography.
>>    o
>>   /|\   <--- nude 12 year old
>>   /'\
>>
>> Oh, I think that is the front door I hear being smashed already.....
> 
>> And now it is on your computer so you have made it too....
> 
> I'm innocent, M'lud, just look, he's far too well hung to be a kiddie.
> 

I can't see any pubes

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:14:50 -0700 (PDT), peterwn
 wrote:

snipped 
>
>The artist must have got wind that something was up, or kept his main
>copies on a hidden memory stick, but did not realise they were sitting
>around his computer as 'deleted' files or in a download area that
>users do not normally look at.
>
>He has now learnt a few lessons in the law and in computer technology.

Do you never delete things you don't need from your computer ....why
should that be suspicious .

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:59:22 +0100, nospam <nospam@please.invalid>
wrote:

>Cub Reporter  wrote:
>
>>An artist, whose work has been displayed at The Tate, has claimed that
>>indecent pictures of children found on his computer were "work in
>>progress", and not child pornography.
>
>    o
>   /|\   <--- nude 12 year old
>   /'\
>
>Oh, I think that is the front door I hear being smashed already.....

>And now it is on your computer so you have made it too....

I'm innocent, M'lud, just look, he's far too well hung to be a kiddie.

Svenne

On 21 Oct, 19:31, Robbie  wrote:
> Cub Reporter wrote:
> > Artist claims indecent pictures of children were art
>
> > An artist, whose work has been displayed at The Tate, has claimed that
> > indecent pictures of children found on his computer were "work in
> > progress", and not child pornography.
>
> > Telegraph.co.uk, UK: 21 October 2009
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/63995...
> > [http://tinyurl.com/yk8k2lg]
>
> > Graham Ovenden, 67, was found with indecent pictures in the file on
> > his PC and despite trying to delete it and said they were to be used
> > for an art work, a court heard.
>
> > Mr Ovenden is a painter, fine art photographer and writer, who has
> > displayed in the Victoria and Albert Museum, The Tate and the
> > Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.
>
> > But officers found 16 separate images Mr Ovenden had created and 121
> > other indecent images stored in files in his computer's memory, the
> > court heard.
>
> > Officers found the files when they raided his Gothic mansion in
> > Cornwall and Ovenden admits he made the images on his computer.
>
> > But Mr Ovenden - whose major works feature young girls - says the
> > pictures were all being used to create an "end product" for artistic
> > display.
>
> > Mr Ovenden does not deny making the images but has pleaded not guilty
> > to 34 different child porn offences.
>
> > Ramsay Quaife, prosecuting, at Truro Crown Court, said: "What the
> > police found was a graphic application called Adobe Photoshop, and its
> > the use of the file browser in this programme to view the images which
> > led to the cache files being created.
>
> > "You can be sure that the copy of the images in the cache is the same
> > as the image made by Mr Ovenden - he was making these images, and a
> > virtual trace or footprint was left on the computer.
>
> > "Through what the experts found on the computer and through admissions
> > of the defendant, you can be quite sure the defendant was making
> > indecent images on this computer."
>
> > Officers raided Mr Ovenden's home in November 2006 and Mr Quaife says
> > he immediately admitted they were his pictures.
>
> > He said: "When first asked about the images, Mr Ovenden said they were
> > deliberately intended so we should find them, and that he had been
> > working on his creations for about a year.
>
> > "He added 'I am totally responsible in every way'. Mr Ovenden said to
> > police, 'the process of the image making is actually to create
> > corruption, then overlay corruption'."
>
> > The court heard in police interview Ovenden then quoted Shakespeare's
> > Hamlet to explain why he made the images.
>
> > Mr Quaife said: "He told officers, 'it is but skin and film, an
> > ulcerus place, while rank corruption lies within'.
>
> > "But what the crown say is that there can be no doubt that these
> > images are indecent - indecent pseudo images are indecent.
>
> > "By the means of modern technology, pretty much anyone can have a
> > virtual studio on their computer - and he was busy making thoroughly
> > indecent images on that computer."
>
> > Robert Linford, defending, argued his client had the images as a means
> > to create his famous artwork.
>
> > He says his client had shown completed work to officers which appeared
> > to show the image of a young girl, with words of poetry superimposed
> > over the image.
>
> > Mr Linford said: "My client repeatedly wrote to the police and showed
> > them these images of his final pieces of work.
>
> > "It would have been in rather flowery artistic language, but 'look,
> > here are the final prints, this is the final product'.
>
> > "He has repeatedly argued that the images seized from him were very
> > much a work in progress, and that these were the final outcomes, the
> > prints were the finished products."
>
> > Mr Ovenden has pleaded not guilty to 16 counts of making indecent
> > images of children, and 16 counts of making indecent sudo photographs
> > of children.
>
> > He is also charged with two counts of possessing 121 indecent
> > photographs and "pseudo photographs" of children.
>
> > In 1975 Ovenden founded the artistic movement the 'Brotherhood of
> > Ruralists' with then-wife Jann Haworth and fellow artists Graham
> > Arnold and David Inshaw.
>
> > Mr Ovenden was born in Hampshire and attended Itchen Grammar School
> > and the Royal College of Music before taking up painting around 1962.
>
> > He was tutored by Lord David Cecil and Sir John Betjeman and attended
> > the Southampton School of Art, and graduated from the Royal College of
> > Art in 1968.
>
> I wonder how he came to the attention of the police?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

O'Brien.

On 21 Oct, 20:23, Vicko Zoomba  wrote:
> On 21 Oct, 19:59, nospam <nos...@please.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Cub Reporter  wrote:
> > >An artist, whose work has been displayed at The Tate, has claimed that
> > >indecent pictures of children found on his computer were "work in
> > >progress", and not child pornography.
>
> >     o
> >    /|\   <--- nude 12 year old
> >    /'\
>
> > Oh, I think that is the front door I hear being smashed already.....
>
> > And now it is on your computer so you have made it too....
>
> Exactly. I use photoshop here and I don't believe that any judge/
> sheriff would understand any concepts of its use or methods. What we
> have is an overly forceful plod force who deem anything piece or art
> as porn and carry that theme throughout. Theres no doubt that a state
> of fear exists in the UK today about all this. It's akin to the
> McCarthyite witch hunts of the 60 - the reds under the bed. A lot of
> societites aspects will grind to a halt under this paranoia.
> I remember going to the primary school to collect my friends 9 yr old
> daughter. A single guy standing outside the school gates and Im
> subject to all the gossiping mothers with their whispers and
> questioning faces.
> Beware - every man is a peadophile, every stranger is a
> peadophile......where the fuck will it end?
>
> Rant, rave...
>
> McKevvy

The McCarthyite thing peaked in the 1950s, didn't it?
By 1960 we had grinning Dick Nixon facing John Kennedy on tv....

Who won?

Kennedy won the election, but he got bumped off by the ruling group
because he wouldn't stay on side, wouldn't sell his soul completely to
the ruling group.

Nixon stayed on side, and went on to become a great statesman.

On Oct 22, 7:08 am, Cub Reporter  wrote:
> Artist claims indecent pictures of children were art
>
> An artist, whose work has been displayed at The Tate, has claimed that
> indecent pictures of children found on his computer were "work in
> progress", and not child pornography.
>

Be that as it may, but UK, NZ and other countries have stringent child
porn laws.  Although 'works of art' moves boundaries of acceptability
of what could be adult porn, it does not wash with child porn.

The usual ways authorities detect this sort of thing are:
1. computer repairers and technicians - probably not applicable here.
2. when a pay child porn site is busted and the FBI, cops, etc seize
credit card details.
3. emails and their receipients found on computers also containing
child porn.

The artist must have got wind that something was up, or kept his main
copies on a hidden memory stick, but did not realise they were sitting
around his computer as 'deleted' files or in a download area that
users do not normally look at.

He has now learnt a few lessons in the law and in computer technology.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:18:20 +1100, Usenet Nutter  
 wrote:

>
> Do you never delete things you don't need from your computer ....why
> should that be suspicious .

It's not the deleting things that is/was suspicious, but rather the fact
that it left traces which were images of naked children - cache files etc.

Most people don't know that delete doesn't necessarily remove the data from
the hard drive, and that it's pretty easily recovered. In this case delete
didn't remove the image cache of a photoshop dialogue box, other times  
it'll be
web cache files, backups, etc.

-- 
Lee

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:25:48 +0100, J2O  wrote:

>Svenne wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:59:22 +0100, nospam <nospam@please.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Cub Reporter  wrote:
>>>
>>>> An artist, whose work has been displayed at The Tate, has claimed that
>>>> indecent pictures of children found on his computer were "work in
>>>> progress", and not child pornography.
>>>    o
>>>   /|\   <--- nude 12 year old
>>>   /'\
>>>
>>> Oh, I think that is the front door I hear being smashed already.....
>> 
>>> And now it is on your computer so you have made it too....

>> I'm innocent, M'lud, just look, he's far too well hung to be a kiddie.

>I can't see any pubes

Damned prosecution, that 10 years for me.

Svenne

"Lee" <tardis42@gmail.com.remove> wrote in message 
news:op.u16cyx12ggz25j@leethal.local...
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:18:20 +1100, Usenet Nutter 
>  wrote:
>
>>
>> Do you never delete things you don't need from your computer ....why
>> should that be suspicious .
>
> It's not the deleting things that is/was suspicious, but rather the fact
> that it left traces which were images of naked children - cache files etc.
>
> Most people don't know that delete doesn't necessarily remove the data 
> from
> the hard drive, and that it's pretty easily recovered. In this case delete
> didn't remove the image cache of a photoshop dialogue box, other times 
> it'll be
> web cache files, backups, etc.
>
> -- 
> Lee

He's been raided before:


ART / Portrait of the artist as an accused man: Graham Ovenden paints young 
female nudes, like the one on this page. Photographic studies for this 
portrait were removed from his house by the police. So were two photographs 
by Lewis Carroll, also reproduced here. They are now being exhibited under 
the title The Obscene Publications Squad Versus Art

IAIN GALE Tuesday, 15 February 1994

Early in the morning of Wednesday 10 March 1993, officers from the Obscene 
Publications Squad of the Metropolitan Police burst into a house in 
Liskeard, Cornwall, which they believed to be at the centre of a child 
pornography ring. They came away with one suspect, 28 boxes of negatives, 67 
videos and a large quantity of photographs. Losing little time, they 
announced that they had 'smashed' an extensive paedophile ring which 
involved hundreds of children and had been carefully built up over 20 years.

As it turned out, what they had 'smashed' was the life of an artist - their 
suspect Graham Ovenden - who had built his international reputation on 
sensitive paintings and photographs of children, some of them nude. The 
so-called paedophile ring was in fact a loose association of artists, 
including Peter Blake, Graham Arnold and David Inshaw and the photographer 
Ron Oliver, who had himself been the subject of a similar raid two months 
earlier.

Typical of the videos removed by the police were Little Dorrit and Miss 
Marple; the most outlandish was Star Trek II. Apart from a small group of 
Ovenden's nude studies, the photographs that were removed to Scotland Yard 
were mainly early photographs of children (mostly clothed) by such as George 
Bernard Shaw and Lewis Carroll.

The works were recently returned to their owner. As in the case of Ron 
Oliver, no charges have been made against Ovenden, and no apologies offered. 
The confiscated photographic exhibits are now about to go on show at a 
London gallery, enabling the public to judge for itself whether or not they 
are obscene.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/art--portrait-of-the-artist-as-an-accused-man-graham-ovenden-paints-young-female-nudes-like-the-one-on-this-page-photographic-studies-for-this-portrait-were-removed-from-his-house-by-the-police-so-were-two-photographs-by-lewis-carroll-also-reproduced-here-they-are-now-being-exhibited-under-the-title-the-obscene-publications-squad-versus-art-1394286.html

The jury in Ovenden's trial was discharged on the second day of trial,
apparently for reasons of prosecutorial misconduct. Meanwhile, it has
been discovered that the Tate website has removed 34 images by
Ovenden, citing "copyright" restrictions. This is untrue.

http://notthetate.blogspot.com/


On Oct 21, 3:08 pm, Cub Reporter  wrote:
> Artist claims indecent pictures of children were art
>
> An artist, whose work has been displayed at The Tate, has claimed that
> indecent pictures of children found on his computer were "work in
> progress", and not child pornography.
>
> Telegraph.co.uk, UK: 21 October 2009http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/63995...
> [http://tinyurl.com/yk8k2lg]
>
> Graham Ovenden, 67, was found with indecent pictures in the file on
> his PC and despite trying to delete it and said they were to be used
> for an art work, a court heard.
>
> Mr Ovenden is a painter, fine art photographer and writer, who has
> displayed in the Victoria and Albert Museum, The Tate and the
> Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.
>
> But officers found 16 separate images Mr Ovenden had created and 121
> other indecent images stored in files in his computer's memory, the
> court heard.
>
> Officers found the files when they raided his Gothic mansion in
> Cornwall and Ovenden admits he made the images on his computer.
>
> But Mr Ovenden - whose major works feature young girls - says the
> pictures were all being used to create an "end product" for artistic
> display.
>
> Mr Ovenden does not deny making the images but has pleaded not guilty
> to 34 different child porn offences.
>
> Ramsay Quaife, prosecuting, at Truro Crown Court, said: "What the
> police found was a graphic application called Adobe Photoshop, and its
> the use of the file browser in this programme to view the images which
> led to the cache files being created.
>
> "You can be sure that the copy of the images in the cache is the same
> as the image made by Mr Ovenden - he was making these images, and a
> virtual trace or footprint was left on the computer.
>
> "Through what the experts found on the computer and through admissions
> of the defendant, you can be quite sure the defendant was making
> indecent images on this computer."
>
> Officers raided Mr Ovenden's home in November 2006 and Mr Quaife says
> he immediately admitted they were his pictures.
>
> He said: "When first asked about the images, Mr Ovenden said they were
> deliberately intended so we should find them, and that he had been
> working on his creations for about a year.
>
> "He added 'I am totally responsible in every way'. Mr Ovenden said to
> police, 'the process of the image making is actually to create
> corruption, then overlay corruption'."
>
> The court heard in police interview Ovenden then quoted Shakespeare's
> Hamlet to explain why he made the images.
>
> Mr Quaife said: "He told officers, 'it is but skin and film, an
> ulcerus place, while rank corruption lies within'.
>
> "But what the crown say is that there can be no doubt that these
> images are indecent - indecent pseudo images are indecent.
>
> "By the means of modern technology, pretty much anyone can have a
> virtual studio on their computer - and he was busy making thoroughly
> indecent images on that computer."
>
> Robert Linford, defending, argued his client had the images as a means
> to create his famous artwork.
>
> He says his client had shown completed work to officers which appeared
> to show the image of a young girl, with words of poetry superimposed
> over the image.
>
> Mr Linford said: "My client repeatedly wrote to the police and showed
> them these images of his final pieces of work.
>
> "It would have been in rather flowery artistic language, but 'look,
> here are the final prints, this is the final product'.
>
> "He has repeatedly argued that the images seized from him were very
> much a work in progress, and that these were the final outcomes, the
> prints were the finished products."
>
> Mr Ovenden has pleaded not guilty to 16 counts of making indecent
> images of children, and 16 counts of making indecent sudo photographs
> of children.
>
> He is also charged with two counts of possessing 121 indecent
> photographs and "pseudo photographs" of children.
>
> In 1975 Ovenden founded the artistic movement the 'Brotherhood of
> Ruralists' with then-wife Jann Haworth and fellow artists Graham
> Arnold and David Inshaw.
>
> Mr Ovenden was born in Hampshire and attended Itchen Grammar School
> and the Royal College of Music before taking up painting around 1962.
>
> He was tutored by Lord David Cecil and Sir John Betjeman and attended
> the Southampton School of Art, and graduated from the Royal College of
> Art in 1968.

On 22 Oct, 01:00, Lee <tardi...@gmail.com.remove> wrote:cache files
etc.
>
> Most people don't know that delete doesn't necessarily remove the data from
> the hard drive, and that it's pretty easily recovered. In this case delete
> didn't remove the image cache of a photoshop dialogue box, other times  
> it'll be
> web cache files, backups, etc.

All easily taken care of with freeware apps like Windows Washer and CC
Cleaner.

Remember, though, that the Police and Courts treat the presence of any
and all such (completely legitimate and legal) software as an
indication of guilt if your PC is seized for forensic inspection.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:00:23 +1100, Lee <tardis42@gmail.com.remove>
wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:18:20 +1100, Usenet Nutter  
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Do you never delete things you don't need from your computer ....why
>> should that be suspicious .
>
>It's not the deleting things that is/was suspicious, but rather the fact
>that it left traces which were images of naked children - cache files etc.

Well of course it would and probably left traces of other things as
well.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:13:27 +0100, "piehead" 
wrote:

>He's been raided before:

>ART / Portrait of the artist as an accused man: Graham Ovenden paints young 
>female nudes, like the one on this page. Photographic studies for this 
>portrait were removed from his house by the police. So were two photographs 
>by Lewis Carroll, also reproduced here. They are now being exhibited under 
>the title The Obscene Publications Squad Versus Art

Where R the pics? (See below)

>IAIN GALE Tuesday, 15 February 1994
>
>Early in the morning of Wednesday 10 March 1993, officers from the Obscene 
>Publications Squad of the Metropolitan Police burst into a house in 
>Liskeard, Cornwall, which they believed to be at the centre of a child 
>pornography ring. They came away with one suspect, 28 boxes of negatives, 67 
>videos and a large quantity of photographs. Losing little time, they 
>announced that they had 'smashed' an extensive paedophile ring which 
>involved hundreds of children and had been carefully built up over 20 years.
>
>As it turned out, what they had 'smashed' was the life of an artist - their 
>suspect Graham Ovenden - who had built his international reputation on 
>sensitive paintings and photographs of children, some of them nude. The 
>so-called paedophile ring was in fact a loose association of artists, 
>including Peter Blake, Graham Arnold and David Inshaw and the photographer 
>Ron Oliver, who had himself been the subject of a similar raid two months 
>earlier.
>
>Typical of the videos removed by the police were Little Dorrit and Miss 
>Marple; the most outlandish was Star Trek II. Apart from a small group of 
>Ovenden's nude studies, the photographs that were removed to Scotland Yard 
>were mainly early photographs of children (mostly clothed) by such as George 
>Bernard Shaw and Lewis Carroll.
>
>The works were recently returned to their owner. As in the case of Ron 
>Oliver, no charges have been made against Ovenden, and no apologies offered. 
>The confiscated photographic exhibits are now about to go on show at a 
>London gallery, enabling the public to judge for itself whether or not they 
>are obscene.
>
>http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/art--portrait-of-the-artist-as-an-accused-man-graham-ovenden-paints-young-female-nudes-like-the-one-on-this-page-photographic-studies-for-this-portrait-were-removed-from-his-house-by-the-police-so-were-two-photographs-by-lewis-carroll-also-reproduced-here-they-are-now-being-exhibited-under-the-title-the-obscene-publications-squad-versus-art-1394286.html


From the same article:

"I'm going to be showing the stupidity of it all,' says Nicky
Akehurst, owner of the London gallery putting on the exhibition. 'The
art world is tackling this issue head on.' (A petition signed by Sir
Hugh Casson, Laurie Lee, Peter Blake and Lucinda Lambton was important
in persuading the police to return the photographs.) 'But it needs to
be addressed by politicians and the public generally. That's what I'm
trying to do. We'll show a few of Graham's nudes, but apart from those
it will be what the police took."

"The raids on Ovenden, and Oliver before him, amount, says Akehurst,
to a 'witch hunt'. 'The police have targeted photographers,' Akehurst
says. 'Artists are so vulnerable. And it's never just one person.
There's got to be a ring.' For Akehurst, those who see a paedophile at
work in the art of Ovenden are simply seeing what they want to see.
Their view may yet prevail: while no charges have been made, Ovenden,
given the outspoken nature of his own defence, believes they cannot be
far off."

The juggernaut rumbled on regardless.

"(Photographs omitted)"

I suppose that is "due to copyright restrictions", like the
(apparently recent) removal of Ovenden's work from the Tate Gallery
website:
http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ArtistWorks?cgroupid=999999961&artistid=1730

-- 
Cub Reporter

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:22:23 +1100, ...  wrote:

> On 22 Oct, 01:00, Lee <tardi...@gmail.com.remove> wrote:cache files
> etc.
>>
>> Most people don't know that delete doesn't necessarily remove the data  
>> from
>> the hard drive, and that it's pretty easily recovered. In this case  
>> delete
>> didn't remove the image cache of a photoshop dialogue box, other times  
>> it'll be
>> web cache files, backups, etc.
>
> All easily taken care of with freeware apps like Windows Washer and CC
> Cleaner.
>
> Remember, though, that the Police and Courts treat the presence of any
> and all such (completely legitimate and legal) software as an
> indication of guilt if your PC is seized for forensic inspection.

Naturally. Much easier to delete caches etc yourself manually, then copy
some large files until the drive is full, then delete those files.

Or use DBAN [1] and a clean image. Got to be somewhat of an IT guy to have  
a
legit (to the cops' eyes) reason to have DBAN though.

Safer to, you know, NOT HAVE IMAGES OF NAKED KIDS. ahem. (liveCD works as  
well)

[1]Darik's Boot and Nuke - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBAN
-- 
Lee

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:14:50 -0700 (PDT), peterwn
 wrote:

>The usual ways authorities detect this sort of thing are:
>1. computer repairers and technicians - probably not applicable here.
>2. when a pay child porn site is busted and the FBI, cops, etc seize
>credit card details.
>3. emails and their receipients found on computers also containing
>child porn.

4. Neighbours etc. complaining about "suspicious activities involving
children"
5. Arrested or search warrent obtained for a completely unrelated
suspected crime (terrorism, growing canabis etc).

The police seize computers pretty routinely for all sorts of suspected
crimes, and if suspicion of the original offence proves to be
unfounded, there's always a chance that something found amongst the
gigabytes of accumulated data on the average computer might be used in
isolation to justify a child porn charge.

-- 
Cynic

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:08:14 +0100, Cub Reporter 
wrote:

>Artist claims indecent pictures of children were art
>
>An artist, whose work has been displayed at The Tate, has claimed that
>indecent pictures of children found on his computer were "work in
>progress", and not child pornography.
>
>Telegraph.co.uk, UK: 21 October 2009
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6399501/Artist-claims-indecent-pictures-of-children-were-art.html
>[ http://tinyurl.com/yk8k2lg ]

Updates:
==========================================
Jury discharged in artist's child porn trial

Western Morning News, UK: 23 October 2009
http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk/news/Jury-discharged-artist-s-child-porn-trial/article-1447240-detail/article.html
[ http://tinyurl.com/yj7kbak ]

THE jury in the trial of artist Graham Ovenden, who is accused of
making and possessing child pornography, was discharged yesterday.
[...]

The jury at Truro Crown Court was discharged and a trial is due to
restart with a new jury on Monday or at a later date in December.
==========================================

At about the same time, 34 images by Graham Ovenden were removed from
the Tate Online website, purportedly "due to copyright restrictions".

These (some of them depicting nude girls), and a comment on their
removal, are now available here: http://notthetate.blogspot.com/

-- 
Cub Reporter

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Otto wrote in alt.censorship on Sat October 24 2009 10:39 in Message-ID:


> The jury in Ovenden's trial was discharged on the second day of trial,
> apparently for reasons of prosecutorial misconduct. 

You'll note that this isn't going to stop them from trying to prosecute him
yet again. 

> Meanwhile, it has been discovered that the Tate website has removed 34 
> images by Ovenden, citing "copyright" restrictions. This is untrue.
> 
> http://notthetate.blogspot.com/

The Tate Gallery has just put its tail between its legs, for fear of the
jackbooted thugs. 

Baal 
PGP Key: http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1E92C0E8
PGP Key Fingerprint: 40E4 E9BB D084 22D5 3DE9  66B8 08E3 638C 1E92 C0E8
Retired Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
- --

Name calling, screeching usenet posts and the posting of R/L info doesn't 
save children -- quality information [given to law-enforcement] does. 
                                                                -- ThePsyko

If he [Psyko] doesn't hand over the shitbags [to me] than I have no use for 
him. 
                                        -- Bob&Carole quoted in Message-ID:
         

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?"    --    "Who will watch the Watchmen?"
                                 -- Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347. circa 128 AD

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJK6M8dAAoJEAjjY4weksDo7uMH/Rc1UP2InWEJ9ZtSx3nKAzHN
hGY6JLAPVJBHcWLWHzpXpabcfILnZtbTKmsGvEhAAy4GGmGU58/KXUMUArC9iRxX
WLCS5J1QD0oojpDmJI9fsX3PomDN6X8jaPApY7rJnw171RqTnoKZ2s/QgG+ROmf8
Cd/jVFP+5DWMdfz5hXUINbfx0qxGZtiSX7GbAPBi4OeamjG1F+uAIiKVGjCa7iQa
AzWC8Ru5qymz1LA0aGJkAIab+uQmJDaao0SBEJxbHH1dgjr0gcLk/J2kdKv2e/cb
lt7FCVHpfOp18wORnC7qBr/EkdKC55fv139lJ+Pd/o85HuTA3vgZ3RbopE/dEAk=
=l3N7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Yes they were

"Cub Reporter"  wrote in message 
news:bbjud59ov0kkbefbrq7vl9dpf9vnftq9fi@4ax.com...
> Artist claims indecent pictures of children were art
>
> An artist, whose work has been displayed at The Tate, has claimed that
> indecent pictures of children found on his computer were "work in
> progress", and not child pornography.
>
> Telegraph.co.uk, UK: 21 October 2009
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6399501/Artist-claims-indecent-pictures-of-children-were-art.html
> [ http://tinyurl.com/yk8k2lg ]
>
> Graham Ovenden, 67, was found with indecent pictures in the file on
> his PC and despite trying to delete it and said they were to be used
> for an art work, a court heard.
>
> Mr Ovenden is a painter, fine art photographer and writer, who has
> displayed in the Victoria and Albert Museum, The Tate and the
> Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.
>
> But officers found 16 separate images Mr Ovenden had created and 121
> other indecent images stored in files in his computer's memory, the
> court heard.
>
> Officers found the files when they raided his Gothic mansion in
> Cornwall and Ovenden admits he made the images on his computer.
>
> But Mr Ovenden - whose major works feature young girls - says the
> pictures were all being used to create an "end product" for artistic
> display.
>
> Mr Ovenden does not deny making the images but has pleaded not guilty
> to 34 different child porn offences.
>
> Ramsay Quaife, prosecuting, at Truro Crown Court, said: "What the
> police found was a graphic application called Adobe Photoshop, and its
> the use of the file browser in this programme to view the images which
> led to the cache files being created.
>
> "You can be sure that the copy of the images in the cache is the same
> as the image made by Mr Ovenden - he was making these images, and a
> virtual trace or footprint was left on the computer.
>
> "Through what the experts found on the computer and through admissions
> of the defendant, you can be quite sure the defendant was making
> indecent images on this computer."
>
> Officers raided Mr Ovenden's home in November 2006 and Mr Quaife says
> he immediately admitted they were his pictures.
>
> He said: "When first asked about the images, Mr Ovenden said they were
> deliberately intended so we should find them, and that he had been
> working on his creations for about a year.
>
> "He added 'I am totally responsible in every way'. Mr Ovenden said to
> police, 'the process of the image making is actually to create
> corruption, then overlay corruption'."
>
> The court heard in police interview Ovenden then quoted Shakespeare's
> Hamlet to explain why he made the images.
>
> Mr Quaife said: "He told officers, 'it is but skin and film, an
> ulcerus place, while rank corruption lies within'.
>
> "But what the crown say is that there can be no doubt that these
> images are indecent - indecent pseudo images are indecent.
>
> "By the means of modern technology, pretty much anyone can have a
> virtual studio on their computer - and he was busy making thoroughly
> indecent images on that computer."
>
> Robert Linford, defending, argued his client had the images as a means
> to create his famous artwork.
>
> He says his client had shown completed work to officers which appeared
> to show the image of a young girl, with words of poetry superimposed
> over the image.
>
> Mr Linford said: "My client repeatedly wrote to the police and showed
> them these images of his final pieces of work.
>
> "It would have been in rather flowery artistic language, but 'look,
> here are the final prints, this is the final product'.
>
> "He has repeatedly argued that the images seized from him were very
> much a work in progress, and that these were the final outcomes, the
> prints were the finished products."
>
> Mr Ovenden has pleaded not guilty to 16 counts of making indecent
> images of children, and 16 counts of making indecent sudo photographs
> of children.
>
> He is also charged with two counts of possessing 121 indecent
> photographs and "pseudo photographs" of children.
>
> In 1975 Ovenden founded the artistic movement the 'Brotherhood of
> Ruralists' with then-wife Jann Haworth and fellow artists Graham
> Arnold and David Inshaw.
>
> Mr Ovenden was born in Hampshire and attended Itchen Grammar School
> and the Royal College of Music before taking up painting around 1962.
>
> He was tutored by Lord David Cecil and Sir John Betjeman and attended
> the Southampton School of Art, and graduated from the Royal College of
> Art in 1968.