Blasphemy, or a Storm in a Chalice?

[d000hg]

It is blasphemous but I'm not sure that means it's illegal. Can an organisation take legal action for 'defamation of character'?
I'm unclear from the story if he got permission to use the church at all? I don't think a church is counted as public property (may be wrong) in which case didn't he need permission to photograph inside the building? I don't think I could legally publish photos of me banging someone on the Tesco cheese counter without getting permission first?

The artist is a jerk regardless:

"I never wanted to offend. This is done as art and shows the beauty of women."

It was absolutely intended to offend.

[Zippy]

.......

I don't think I could legally publish photos of me banging someone on the Tesco cheese counter without getting permission first?

Sorry but this really made me laugh. I need to get hold of my imagination.

"just a small piece of brieeeeeeee oooohhhh yeah"

[NickFitz]

As a practicing christian I think this sort of publicity is what those involved are looking for. They should be deprived of it.

I don't know anything about blasphemy - but the photographer knew exactly what he was doing in drumming up lots of publicty.

FWIW, the publicity has been generated by the diocese instigating legal action, not by the photographer.

That particular gallery on his web site was last modified in April 2009, and the images themselves have modification dates ranging from 2007 to 2008. If he's hungry for publicity, he's certainly not in any great hurry to get it.

Googling doesn't reveal anything to suggest he has sought publicity beyond having a web site, which is not exactly unusual for a professional photographer. The only news stories out there are ones about the legal action, and are clearly derived from statements issued to the press by the church authorities.

So although he was an idiot to take photos in the church without permission, to accuse him of deliberate publicity-seeking is wide of the mark IMHO.

[BrilloPad]

FWIW, the publicity has been generated by the diocese instigating legal action, not by the photographer.

That particular gallery on his web site was last modified in April 2009, and the images themselves have modification dates ranging from 2007 to 2008. If he's hungry for publicity, he's certainly not in any great hurry to get it.

Googling doesn't reveal anything to suggest he has sought publicity beyond having a web site, which is not exactly unusual for a professional photographer. The only news stories out there are ones about the legal action, and are clearly derived from statements issued to the press by the church authorities.

So although he was an idiot to take photos in the church without permission, to accuse him of deliberate publicity-seeking is wide of the mark IMHO.

You might be right. But church combined with sex are a great way of genberating publicity. take the head of f4j. now running ice cream business. Antonio Federici. http://www.antoniofederici.com/ look at the gallery. personally I think its a bit obvious and like hagen daas. but then I am not a proven marketing guru so almost certainly wrong.

BTW Antonio Federici available in all good Sainsburys. Mrs BP says its the best ice cream she has ever tasted (and she is a total foodie).

[Bagpuss]

If it was two guys there would be riots!

It's usually the Vicar and one of the Choirboys

[NotAllThere]

Wakamezake - food play. Never knew that.

I don't have a problem with people having sex in a church building, though it would seem to me to not be the most comfortable place. But as Pogle pointed out, it shows a lack of respect for the other users of the building to publicise it.

[BrilloPad]

Wakamezake - food play. Never knew that.

It also seems to be a drink http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...erm=wakamezake

[xoggoth]

Don't see any need to offend people's idiotic stupid religious beliefs myself.

[wobbegong]

If it was two guys there would be riots!

in a mosque

Fixed that for you.