Porno Pets

Kodak refuses to return the naughty nudes

Penthouse magazine has earned the deserved reputation of always being one raunchy step ahead of the kiosk pack of popular skin mags. But the last step was one too far for Eastman Kodak, which has been developing the explicit color sex shots taken by Penthouse Publisher Bob Guccione. Kodak last year refused to deliver 239 out of 1,500 slides taken of Model Teresa Mackey that it considered raw and obscene. Now, faced with the threat that his photos will be destroyed, Guccione has filed a suit against Kodak in a New Jersey superior court demanding return of the film and an as yet unspecified amount in damages.

This was not the first time that the sex magazine had a run-in with Kodak. Last July the film processor withheld 285 out of 2,000 slides showing Pet of the Year Cheryl Rixon. Eventually Penthouse's lawyer, Joseph Kraft, picked up the pictures at Kodak's plant at Fair Lawn, N.J., along with a warning not to ask for similar shots to be developed in the future. The magazine had been sending its Pet of the Month Kodachrome film to the company for developing for more than seven years. Only in those two cases was it seized.

Kodak's legal justification for seizing "obscene" film is far from clear, but the company cites court rulings in Georgia and Texas to support its case. These, it argues, show that the firm may be held criminally liable for distributing pornography if it develops and returns sexually explicit photographs. Kodak has been quietly censoring commercial and family photos for decades. In the 1930s, snaps of nudes and even women in skimpy bathing suits were not returned; and in the '60s, neither were shots showing pubic hair. Both of those are now allowed, with the changing of public morals and the company's standards. But Kodak still draws the line at photos that show "ultimate sexual acts" and the "lewd exhibition of genitals." Penthouse's slides apparently fell into the last category.

Kraft suggests that Kodak has recently tightened its standards. Penthouse first learned of the suspected tougher stance when a freelance photographer employed in Los Angeles had some slides withheld. Says Kraft: "We took a wait-and-see attitude. But when they kept a set of shots done by Guccione and followed that by withholding more film taken by our art director, we felt we could not sit back." Kraft adds that Penthouse has had calls from individuals who say that their slides were confiscated. He suggests that since the volume of amateur photography is far larger than that of professionals, it is likely that much more private pornography than commercial work gets confiscated.

The photo company insists that it does not employ censors to view all the rolls sent in by the public. But it refuses to explain just how it determines what is acceptable or how it picks out the material that is not returned. It claims that it will provide an explanation of these points later this month when it replies to the Penthouse legal action. Sources suggest that Kodak may concentrate its picture review on the big batches of film sent in by commercial photographers. Or it may use the practice adopted by Competitor Berkey Photo, which leaves the difficult task of judging obscenity to the individual plant managers. Potentially offending shots are often spotted only when crowds of employees begin gathering to take a sly peek.

Penthouse claims that the suit raises basic First Amendment rights. The magazine will argue that obscenity is judged on the basis of the whole work--the entire photo essay and not just unedited shots. It will suggest that a company that contracts to develop film does not have the expertise or the right to rule on the sexual mores of the day and the current definition of obscenity. Penthouse will ask for damages to pay for lost printing time due to delays in receiving the Cheryl Rixon pictures. Kodak stresses that it has previously faced similar suits involving obscene pictures and won. Obscenity, like beauty, is obviously in the eye of the developer as well as in that of the beholder.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.