The defendant had been prosecuted with respect to negatives of films, and argued that a negative was not an article within section 1(2); it was not a film, and that even if it were an article thus defined, it could not be obscene unless published, and negatives were not published – they were used only to produce prints produced from the negatives.
Held: It was possible, without deciding, for a negative to come within the words ‘any film or other record of a picture,’ but it was impossible to say that a negative was capable of publication – as publication was defined in the 1959 Act – since the negative was not itself shown, played or projected to some member of the public.
Citations:
[1963] 1 QB 926
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Fellows, Arnold CACD 27-Sep-1996
Computer based digital images are ‘copies of a photograph’ sufficient for the Act, and so possession of digital entities capable of being transformed into images were such photographs. Making a file available for download, was sufficient to amount . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229854