Forums > Photography Talk > 16-year-old girls posing nude

Photographer

S W I N S K E Y

Posts: 24315

Saint Petersburg, Florida, US

Mac Swift wrote:
It IS illegal to photograph a minor nude in a sexually suggestive way.

doesnt even have to be nude ....

Jul 17 07 05:57 pm Link

Photographer

ImageFusionStudio

Posts: 189

Fort Worth, Texas, US

Doug Swinskey wrote:

everywhere outside texas it is...

ROFL - I might agree with you there !

Jul 17 07 05:58 pm Link

Photographer

ImageFusionStudio

Posts: 189

Fort Worth, Texas, US

Doug Swinskey wrote:

doesnt even have to be nude ....

You are correct

Jul 17 07 05:59 pm Link

Photographer

ImageFusionStudio

Posts: 189

Fort Worth, Texas, US

Mac Swift wrote:
I talked to my lawyer here and he read the law to me and it clearly states that it is NOT illegal to photograph a minor nude.  It IS illegal to photograph a minor nude in a sexually suggestive way.  That portion of the law is up for interpretation.  I think the main thing is that any accusation of involvement in what most people would consider child pornography or an immature model going sideways and accusing you of something and you are going to be in for a rough ride as they investigate the claims.  Shooting a minor nude is probaly not worth that.

I asked my lawyer because I was paranoid about having nude images on my Photo.net portfolio mixed in with my potrait images of underage girls.  He said there is no problem at all.

You are in Canada (wish I were actually) but the laws are vastly different there

Jul 17 07 06:00 pm Link

Photographer

Mclain D Swift

Posts: 1279

Black Diamond, Alberta, Canada

ImageFusionStudio wrote:

You are in Canada (wish I were actually) but the laws are vastly different there

Ya...probably.

Jul 17 07 06:00 pm Link

Photographer

Z_Photo

Posts: 6957

Huntsville, Alabama, US

Mac Swift wrote:
Why are there so many guys that just can't get a grip?  Good grief.

unfortunately too many do just that!

Jul 17 07 06:05 pm Link

Photographer

Carl Roberts

Posts: 32975

Saint Petersburg, Florida, US

The Florida Statutes are really vague on this subject

6)  "Harmful to minors" means any reproduction, imitation, characterization, description, exhibition, presentation, or representation, of whatever kind or form, depicting nudity, sexual conduct, or sexual excitement when it:

(a)  Predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors;

(b)  Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and

(c)  Taken as a whole, is without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

(20)  "Specific sexual activities" includes the following sexual activities and the exhibition of the following anatomical areas:

(a)  Human genitals in the state of sexual stimulation or arousal.

(c)  The fondling or erotic touching of human genitals, the pubic region, the buttocks, or the female breasts.

Here is the link to Florida Statute 847.001

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind … Sec001.HTM

So it may well come down to much more of a question of where are the models hands than almost anything else. Also, clearly, don't shoot her if it is cold and her nipples are stiff, and never, never get wood while shooting.

Jul 17 07 06:05 pm Link

Photographer

David Oscar Flores

Posts: 497

Los Angeles, California, US

Frog516 wrote:
You know what I find interesting is that you can find the human body cute/intersting from the ages of 0-4 years old, then you you have to have no opinion of it from 5-17, then from 18 years old on you can find it beautiful again.

It just seems odd to me.

I couldn't agree more and it's refreshing to hear someone brave enough to state this.  This is a topic that need to be address.

Well, I suppose we as a society have to regulate the bounderies...

Jul 17 07 06:05 pm Link

Photographer

Mclain D Swift

Posts: 1279

Black Diamond, Alberta, Canada

Z_Photo wrote:

unfortunately too many do just that!

Ha!  No shit.

Jul 17 07 06:07 pm Link

Photographer

J Christopher Little

Posts: 3016

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, US

Sleepy Weasel wrote:

As has been repeated by many, that's incorrect.

Whether or not cops try to arrest you for taking nude photos of a minor is one thing, but as long as it is not sexual in nature, it is not illegal and you would/should not be convicted.

Not sure why people insist it is illegal when it isn't. Immoral, unethical, in bad taste - you could make an argument I suppose, but not illegal.  Minors are nude at nude beaches - it is not illegal to see them in the nude. Why would taking a photo of them with their and their parents' permission be? Simple - it's not. Please stop the rumors.

What is "should" sometimes is not in front of a jury.  Depending on the context of the images, you may be free on appeal.

Finding a jury that is sympathetic to the "artistic nature" of the images would be difficult.

Jul 17 07 06:11 pm Link

Photographer

Studio 530

Posts: 682

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, US

Doug Swinskey wrote:

once again, why would the police set up a sting for something that is not illegal?

What? Are you serious? That's what a sting operation is!

Jul 17 07 06:23 pm Link

Photographer

Doug Lester

Posts: 10591

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Gene Geter wrote:
What's up with 16-year-old girls wanting to pose nude? What's the origin to this? I met a few asking me if I could photograph them and also heard stories from other artists and friends about this.

Remember that some percentage of those 16 year old girls are actually 40 year old law enforcement officers.

Jul 17 07 06:23 pm Link

Photographer

Jack Elliott

Posts: 231

Lazyi Photography wrote:

No we(as I am one) won't here in the sates DUDE.

I'm no lawyer, and I ain't no cop.
But I do know that in Tennessee "entrapment" is not considered a defendable position in court.
So if this is something you think you need to worry about, I'd contact an actual attorney in your state, instead of relying on the services of the lawfirm of "Theysaid & Iheard."

Jul 17 07 06:24 pm Link

Photographer

Studio 530

Posts: 682

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, US

JAY carreon wrote:
"Good luck living in fear and ignorance, only alluding to what it is you really want." - a very wise MM member


JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

What I really want is no trouble... and so better safe than sorry I say. Fear? No. Ignorance. No way. I KNOW from experience. Good luck to you is more like it!

Jul 17 07 06:26 pm Link

Photographer

ImageFusionStudio

Posts: 189

Fort Worth, Texas, US

Jack Elliott wrote:

I'm no lawyer, and I ain't no cop.
But I do know that in Tennessee "entrapment" is not considered a defendable position in court.
So if this is something you think you need to worry about, I'd contact an actual attorney in your state, instead of relying on the services of the lawfirm of "Theysaid & Iheard."

More exactly call someone in your county... As I have learned there is a good deal of difference in the way the county DAs look at this issue as well at the state level.

The situation does exist that you could get busted and convicted and then have it overturned on appeal ... but is all of that crap really worth it ???

Jul 17 07 06:30 pm Link

Photographer

The Masters Touch

Posts: 3

Loveland, Colorado, US

I've had lots of girls ask me to take pictures of them nude. Mostly from 12-16. I think a lot of it has to do with acceptance. They think that if they can show someone their body, they would be happy. It's really sad because most of them don't have parents at home who love them and show them unconditional love. This is the only way they feel they can gain that acceptance.

And of course as always, you can never photograph these girls without parental consent- even non-nude. Minors are no-nos.

Jul 17 07 06:42 pm Link

Photographer

S W I N S K E Y

Posts: 24315

Saint Petersburg, Florida, US

The Masters Touch wrote:
And of course as always, you can never photograph these girls without parental consent- even non-nude. Minors are no-nos.

wrong on your first posting...try again...

Jul 17 07 07:06 pm Link

Photographer

So Shoot Me!

Posts: 513

Fresno, California, US

DICLAIMER:  Although I am a California attorney and although this post contains some statements about case law I read, this post is meant as a comment upon something someone else has said and is not intended as legal advice.  If you need legal advice and/or someone to help you with a case, you should consult an attorney (maybe even me) who can fully research and tailor the answer to the facts of your specific situation. 

RebeccaArielPhotography wrote:
Actually, it is illegal.  It is illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to pose or take nude photos.

Could you give a citation for that?  I'm an attorney from the same state as you.  I just spent around 30 minutes trying to find something to support (or refute) your statement.   

For the record, I'd never shoot nude or implied nude of anyone under 18.  In fact, I would not even shoot anyone under 18 fully-clothed if there were a risk the photos could be interpreted by someone as being "sexual" (whatever that might mean) or "sexually-suggestive."  To me, it would just not be worth the risk of raising eyebrows and/or getting myself in trouble with the law. 

However, I cannot find anything in the law which states that "It is illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to pose or take nude photos" as you said.  So if you could provide the citation, I'd like to see it.  (Since I do criminal defense and since it might be necessary for me to defend someone under the age of 18 who poses or takes a nude photo, I'd like to add the citation you give to my database of things that are true -- supposing you show that it is -- but hard to locate in the law.) 

The law in California appears to be different from what you said.  Specifically, People v. Spurlock (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1128-1129, hits on this question and seems to state that nude photos of a minor (someone under 18) might not be illegal, but under certain situations photos of clothed minors might be illegal.  "Nudity is not sufficient, but it is also not strictly necessary."  (Id. at 1128.)  That same court (again at page 1128) quoted People v. Kongs (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1741 saying,

Nude is not synonymous with lewd. No one would seriously argue that Michelangelo's statue of David is lewd, even sans an artificial fig leaf. By the same token, a photograph of tots posing suggestively while dressed in corsets, garters, and hosiery could well be considered lewd because such attire is so inappropriate to their age and is obviously designed to elicit a sexual response in a viewer.

So I'm not sure that I'm willing to say that I have a definitive answer right now on this, but what I've found certainly appears to (at least impliedly (no pun intended)) contradict what you said. 

That said, again, I draw my own lines -- designed to (I hope!) keep me even safer than I need to be.

Jul 17 07 07:39 pm Link

Photographer

So Shoot Me!

Posts: 513

Fresno, California, US

ImageFusionStudio wrote:
It doesn't matter if artistic (the quote "you can argue that in apeal"  is direct)

Well, I was going to ask about this the first time you posted it.  Since you re-posted it, I'll ask now. 

Why would you have to wait to argue it in the appeal?

Jul 17 07 07:51 pm Link

Photographer

ImageFusionStudio

Posts: 189

Fort Worth, Texas, US

Doug Swinskey wrote:

wrong on your first posting...try again...

Ah I am with Doug on this ...
BUT they can not legally sign a release ... so you are only half wrong wink

Jul 17 07 09:05 pm Link

Photographer

ImageFusionStudio

Posts: 189

Fort Worth, Texas, US

So Shoot Me! wrote:

Well, I was going to ask about this the first time you posted it.  Since you re-posted it, I'll ask now. 

Why would you have to wait to argue it in the appeal?

That is a good question... but he repeated it twice ...

I guess that at the trial level that "artistic value" may not be a mitigating factor ...

I donno

Jul 17 07 09:07 pm Link

Photographer

Mclain D Swift

Posts: 1279

Black Diamond, Alberta, Canada

Found this in the Canadian Criminal Code pertaining to child pornography:

Definition of “child pornography”

163.1 (1) In this section, "child pornography" means

(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or

(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;


(b) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act;

(c) any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act; or

(d) any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act

Defence

(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence
(a) has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art; and

(b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.


As far as I can gather from this information a well presented image of a nude 16-17 year old would break no laws here in Canada.

Jul 19 07 03:10 pm Link

Photographer

ChristopherRoss

Posts: 1530

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Mac Swift wrote:
As far as I can gather from this information a well presented image of a nude 16-17 year old would break no laws here in Canada.

"Do no harm", that's the basic test courts here use.

Technically (according my NB lawyers here), a nude twelve year old stretching in the moon light would be legal but a petite 22 year old dressed like school girl with a zucchini down her throat could cause legal issues unless you could show the creation of that image was for artistic or educational purpose.

Jul 19 07 04:43 pm Link

Photographer

fStopstudios

Posts: 3321

Lowell, Massachusetts, US

Gene Geter wrote:
What's up with 16-year-old girls wanting to pose nude? What's the origin to this? I met a few asking me if I could photograph them and also heard stories from other artists and friends about this.

what's up with the retarded question of the day?

Jul 19 07 04:48 pm Link

Photographer

Mclain D Swift

Posts: 1279

Black Diamond, Alberta, Canada

Christoper Ross wrote:

"Do no harm", that's the basic test courts here use.

Technically (according my NB lawyers here), a nude twelve year old stretching in the moon light would be legal but a petite 22 year old dressed like school girl with a zucchini down her throat could cause legal issues unless you could show the creation of that image was for artistic or educational purpose.

LOL...that is way too funny.

Jul 19 07 06:02 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36396

San Francisco, California, US

ImageFusionStudio wrote:
Ok can I put this to bed once and for all
At least in TX and this county

I spoke to a prosecutor in the county DA office.
The question asked was "is it legal to photograph a artistic nude of a 16 year old with parents permission?

answer

"You would be arrested for FELONY Child Pornography"

Even if totally artistic in nature?

Answer
"You would have to argue that in appeal"

Question What about the involvement of the parents
ANSWER
Contributing to the "delinquency of a minor"

Do you want his phone number ???

YMMV in your state

Then somebody needs to hand your DA a copy of the Texas law.  It is quite clear, it is only illegal if the photo is a "lewd" depiction, not merely a nude depiction.  The words are very clearly stated in the Texas statute.  An attorney here on MM has reviewed it before.

Now, what is possible is that your DA considers any nude image of a minor to be lewd, simply because it is a minor, but when we have looked at Texas law before, and this has come up a couple of times, the courts have not agreed that lewd and nude are synonymous.

BTW, this is not a knock, but I have always hated quotes from unnamed "DA's" when you are relaying what they are supposed to have said.  That isn't to suggest that you are not stating it accurately, it isn't clear that you know how to frame the questions correctly or that the DA understands what you mean by what you have said to him.

If you believe that it is illegal to photographer a minor in a non-sexual, artistic way in Texas, show us the statute you feel makes it illegal rather than quoting from an unnamed source.

Jul 19 07 10:21 pm Link

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36396

San Francisco, California, US

So Shoot Me! wrote:
So I'm not sure that I'm willing to say that I have a definitive answer right now on this, but what I've found certainly appears to (at least impliedly (no pun intended)) contradict what you said.

I don't think anyone really knows what the words mean.  Obviously Hollywood has set boundaries that have kept them out of trouble.  I am just not convinced their boundaries would keep others out of trouble.

To some degree, it depends on what church the DA goes to and what the sermon was last Sunday.

Jul 19 07 10:23 pm Link

Photographer

James Bluck

Posts: 833

Westfield, New Jersey, US

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

DMP Studios wrote:
yes, i have turned them down as well, as most are undercover police officers,with just a small percentage  actual young ladies that should indeed know better.Either way mention 16yrs all communication stops from there on in.

Sam Javor wrote:
my guess is that the origin has something to do with a undercover police officer... but I'd be guessing.

I chuckle whenever I read that.  Undercover officers will not contact you, pretend to be a teen and ask you to shoot them nude.  Stop being so paranoid.

If they contact you, encourage you to shoot them and then pose in a fashion that is illegal, that is called entrapment.  They cannot initiate the contact.  To do so raises the issue of them encouraging you to do something you wouldn't have done on your own.

Instead, when they set up stings, they will go online, for example and wait for you to contact them.  The will suggest nothing nor make any sexual remarks nor discuss doing nude shoots.  When you suggest the shoot they will be evasive and let you affirm what you are wanting to do.  They will get you to commit to doing something that would cross the line from legal to illegal and then get you to set up the characteristics of it so that you have definitely proposed something illegal.  They will discuss props or something shoot specific so they can demonstrate that you are intending to go through with it, such as bringing bondage gear or condoms.

They will then arrange a time/place to shoot.  When you arrive, they will search you to see if you brought the promised item.  In the meantime, they have a written transcript of the entire proposition.

A case would never stand up if they went around contacting photographers and then asking them to shoot nude.  You guys need to get a life.  You spend so much time worrying about this kind of nonsense.  You see police officers behind every door.

Turning down the shoot is the right thing because you don't need to be shooting any 16 year olds nude.  But it isn't an undercover cop contacting you.  Drink another beer and relax.  It is all good.

They must have a very broad definition of entrapment out there in California.  Around here, the LE sends an underage kid into stores and the kid asks to buy cigarettes or alcohol.  (See how the kid is making the first contact and asks the counter clerk to violate the law?)  When the clerk sells the cigarettes or alcohol to the underage kid, he gets busted.  No one gets off because of entrapment.  Entrapment is a very hard defense to establish and generally requires proving that you were induced by LE to commit a crime that you would not otherwise have been disposed to commit.  It's got nothing to do with who approached whom, though as a matter of proof, it's easier for LE if the perpetrator approached the sting operation rather than the other way round.  The issue just can't come up in a case like that, but that doesn't mean that everything else is entrapment.

The rule differs a bit from place to place, but that's a description that probably works in most places.

If the LE sent a 16 year old to ask you to shoot her nude and you readily consented (and assuming that photographing a nude 16 year old is a violation of the law where you are), I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.

Jul 20 07 08:09 pm Link

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36396

San Francisco, California, US

James Bluck wrote:
If the LE sent a 16 year old to ask you to shoot her nude and you readily consented (and assuming that photographing a nude 16 year old is a violation of the law where you are), I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.

It is a little bit more complicated than that.  Simply selling cigarettes to a minor is illegal.  But the stings they use are not criminal stings, they are typically civil enforcement.  Normally they pull your license.  The rules are different since you have consented to a certain set of rules when the license was issued.

There is no state where merely consenting to photograph a nude would be illegal.   It takes something more.  But we don't have to get into a fight over this.  I will tell you that we had someone from law enforcement already post that they wouldn't do what so many of you are suggesting.  So let's just leave it as we agree to disagree.

Jul 20 07 08:32 pm Link

Photographer

James Bluck

Posts: 833

Westfield, New Jersey, US

OK.  Change the facts so that it's a drug bust.  The answer's the same.  If you walk up to your local drug dealer and say "Can I buy some weed?" and he sells it to you, there's no entrapment there.

LE officers do get guidelines on such things from the home office or the prosecuting attorney's office, but they tend to get very simple rules that are easy to apply on the theory that if you give them something complicated and fuzzy that requires judgment (and entrapment is certainly that situation), at least half of them will screw it up. So . . . a guidline for the officers on the street that's designed to make a prosecution easy isn't a guide as to the law.  Furthermore, I think there are lots of jurisdictions where LE wouldn't hesitate to impersonate a 16 year old or to send in a 16 year old to see if the photographer is photographing naked children.

Of course, merely consenting to take the photographs wouldn't be illegal if the crime is actually taking the photographs.  The "readily consents" fact in the hypothetical goes to the willingness to commit the crime vs being induced to commit a crime that the perpetrator would not otherwise have committed, which is what entrapment turns on.  An actual crime has to be committed for the concept of entrapment, which is what we were discussing, even to be relevant.

In any event, we agree on one thing -- it's a really really bad idea for a photographer to take pictures of naked underage kids.

Jul 21 07 06:00 am Link

Model

NotInUse123456789

Posts: 762

Boston, Georgia, US

I'm sixteen... And would never pose nude.  16 yr old should NOT be posing NUDE.

Jul 21 07 06:15 am Link

Photographer

James Bluck

Posts: 833

Westfield, New Jersey, US

Doug Swinskey wrote:

why would i give a shit about what some dumpwater state DA thinks...

Because he's the guy who's going to drag you through the fun of a criminal trial if you do it in his jurisdiction.

Jul 21 07 06:16 am Link

guide forum

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36396

San Francisco, California, US

James Bluck wrote:
OK.  Change the facts so that it's a drug bust.  The answer's the same.  If you walk up to your local drug dealer and say "Can I buy some weed?" and he sells it to you, there's no entrapment there.

But now you have it exactly.  If you walk up to the undercover cop and say "can I buy some drugs," you have initiated the transaction.  There is no rule against them stinging you.  Only that they can't do anything to encourage you to commit a crime that you otherwise might not have done yourself.

As another example, took hookers on the street.  They stand around on the corners waiting for someone to pull over.  They are always careful not to offer anything when they are stinging you.  The moment you ask for sex and offer money (remember you are not soliciting until money is involved), they don't bust you.  They will talk with you, but they won't offer you sex for money, they will wait for you to ask.

That is the essence of the difference.  It is about who steers the conversation towards the alleged crime.

Jul 21 07 09:19 am Link

Photographer

JarekN

Posts: 187

Hồ Chí Minh City, Pomorskie, Vietnam

Not sure where you are from but as far as I know this could be considered entrapment... not that the cops play by the book...

DMP Studios wrote:
yes, i have turned them down as well, as most are undercover police officers,with just a small percentage  actual young ladies that should indeed know better.Either way mention 16yrs all communication stops from there on in.

Jul 21 07 11:12 am Link

Photographer

JarekN

Posts: 187

Hồ Chí Minh City, Pomorskie, Vietnam

I couldn't agree anymore... take this further... You can have sex in Canada at the age of 16 but you can't take pictures of each other?!  (You can also drive car at that age!)    This is just insane... I bet you majority of teens have broken that law in one way or another which just goes to prove how stupid it can be...

Frog516 wrote:
You know what I find interesting is that you can find the human body cute/intersting from the ages of 0-4 years old, then you you have to have no opinion of it from 5-17, then from 18 years old on you can find it beautiful again.

It just seems odd to me.

Jul 21 07 11:17 am Link

Photographer

UCPhotog

Posts: 984

Union City, California, US

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Stop being so paranoid.

If they contact you, encourage you to shoot them and then pose in a fashion that is illegal, that is called entrapment.  They cannot initiate the contact.  To do so raises the issue of them encouraging you to do something you wouldn't have done on your own.

Instead, when they set up stings, they will go online, for example and wait for you to contact them.  The will suggest nothing nor make any sexual remarks nor discuss doing nude shoots.  When you suggest the shoot they will be evasive and let you affirm what you are wanting to do.  They will get you to commit to doing something that would cross the line from legal to illegal and then get you to set up the characteristics of it so that you have definitely proposed something illegal.  They will discuss props or something shoot specific so they can demonstrate that you are intending to go through with it, such as bringing bondage gear or condoms.

They will then arrange a time/place to shoot.  When you arrive, they will search you to see if you brought the promised item.  In the meantime, they have a written transcript of the entire proposition.

A case would never stand up if they went around contacting photographers and then asking them to shoot nude.  You guys need to get a life.  You spend so much time worrying about this kind of nonsense.  You see police officers behind every door.

Turning down the shoot is the right thing because you don't need to be shooting any 16 year olds nude.  But it isn't an undercover cop contacting you.  Drink another beer and relax.  It is all good.

I've replied to a few Craigslist postings looking for photographers. Nothing specific on age, but a few stated 'teen' and a few stated 'wanted to shoot something for my boyfriend.' So, I've replied, and because like you, Alan, I'm pretty aware of what can and can't be done, I will simply ask them to detail what they are seeking, when they are seeking it, etc. Last line in the note I state "I'll also need your age. After you send me this email, if you are under the age of 18 I would need to speak to a parent prior shooting. Also, all shots are age appropriate. If you are under 18 years old I will not shoot anything with you nude or too sexy." (I put sexy so in case it is a 16 year old, I want them to understand 'sexually suggestive' and if they don't get that term, well, they certainly understand sexy.)

Just like the other 16,294 topics on this forum about underage nudes, I know that it isn't illegal to shoot an underage nude. But know what? I don't want to be the one that catches the eye of the prosecutor that is seeking re-election. I also think that at 16, they might not have thought out how this could affect them later (nude work has come back to haunt many young women) and that their are plenty of 18 year olds just waiting to shed their clothes for the camera.

Jul 21 07 11:47 am Link

Photographer

JarekN

Posts: 187

Hồ Chí Minh City, Pomorskie, Vietnam

Nudity isn't gross, you just think it is because of people around you and stupid media that makes you think so... It just comes down to how it's presented...  It is funny that our media is glorifying death/murders etc and yet looks at nudity as such a negative thing... People need to take a chill pill and stop being so paranoid...

Also just cause something is illegal doesn't mean you can't do it... It was illegal for me to drive the car at the age of 14 and I have done it with my parents next to me...  It was illegal for me to buy beer at younger age and yet I have done it for my father and no I didn't drink all of it on the way home...

I think with time the average IQ of our civilization keeps on falling and for this reason the government is trying to create bunch of laws that wouldn't be needed in the first place if people used their brains...  I am not suggesting that you go out and start breaking laws but what I am saying is that laws should be looked as nothing more then guidelines...

All comes down to education and knowing right from wrong... As you all know things have gotten so nuts that most of the photographers refuse to even point camera in direction of kids which if you come to think about is just nuts!  Is every single person with a camera a pedophile?! 

This is a picture I took a while ago while on vacation in Cuba:
http://www.jarekn.com/cpg/albums/2006portfolio/people/20031209-162004.jpg

Would I take the same shot in Canada?  If I did I know I'd be thinking while taking it about being possibly questioned by one idiot or another...

I wonder how many great captures are being missed because of photographers being afraid of putting up with the BS...

We are giving up our freedoms in exchange for the illusion of being safe...

Jul 21 07 12:04 pm Link

Photographer

Sam Comer Photography

Posts: 2589

Knoxville, Tennessee, US

All this talk of entrapment, etc. Anyone seen this?

http://www.baiting.org

Basically, it's regular people posing as underagers and baiting the into discussions. Not law enforcement, but mostly to get an idea what kind of scum is out there. Pretty scary the kinds of responses they get.

Jul 21 07 12:18 pm Link

Photographer

UCPhotog

Posts: 984

Union City, California, US

FrissonPhotography wrote:

Do that in England and the photographer AND parent would be arrested, charged and put on the sex offenders register. Not sure about the USA but I won't go there all the same.

I thought it was legal in England to pose topless at 16? You see them all the time in the Sun - those Page 3 girls.

Jul 21 07 12:28 pm Link

Photographer

S W I N S K E Y

Posts: 24315

Saint Petersburg, Florida, US

Doug Swinskey wrote:
why would i give a shit about what some dumpwater state DA thinks...

James Bluck wrote:
Because he's the guy who's going to drag you through the fun of a criminal trial if you do it in his jurisdiction.

why isnt that completely unacceptable to everyone here...why would we tolerate some bum fuck hick stomping out our liberties without challenge..

Jul 21 07 12:35 pm Link