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

Photographer

ImageFusionStudio

Posts: 189

Fort Worth, Texas, US

Doug Swinskey wrote:

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

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

Doug ... sounds like you have a problem with Texans !!!

My suggestion to you is ...
Go find a 16 year old. Do the shoot and send the images to YOUR all too urban DA in the booming Metropolis of TAMPA (please include your address and phone) and await his response ...

Just FYI ... I hear the Greybar Hilton has great activities for your all expense paid stay  and you even wont have to deal with any backwater Texans wink

Jul 21 07 12:49 pm Link

Photographer

matt caplin

Posts: 257

Perth, Western Australia, Australia

hey hey hey wait a sec
because i'm seventeen
does that mean i can take nekkid photos of 17 year old girls? [with their permission, of course. lol.]

Jul 21 07 12:54 pm Link

Photographer

Dan Hudson

Posts: 489

Binghamton, New York, US

Mark wrote:
Maybe they feel in thier prime and want to record it. It would be nice to have a good portrait or photo series to lok back on.  But I imagine the just want it for some web site.  If they get their parents permission and bring one, why not?

Qite simply... It is illegal...even with Parents approval!!!

Jul 21 07 12:58 pm Link

Photographer

ImageFusionStudio

Posts: 189

Fort Worth, Texas, US

Matt Caplin wrote:
hey hey hey wait a sec
because i'm seventeen
does that mean i can take nekkid photos of 17 year old girls? [with their permission, of course. lol.]

You can do all type of things in OZ ... ROFL

Jul 21 07 01:00 pm Link

Photographer

Wananga

Posts: 260

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Obsidian Blade wrote:
I hear you. That they wait until they're that old is an outrage!

Bravo!  You almost made me shoot coffee out of my nose!

Jul 21 07 01:01 pm Link

Photographer

Dark Before The Dawn

Posts: 91

ImageFusionStudio wrote:

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.

The Department of Justice may have a different viewpoint. Personally, I will never photograph any model under the age of 18 nude. Not because it's illegal, but because it's unethnical and illmoral.

Jul 21 07 01:03 pm Link

Photographer

ChristopherRoss

Posts: 1530

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Dan Hudson wrote:

Qite simply... It is illegal...even with Parents approval!!!

But that's the point, it's not illegal. There are no laws in Canada or the US that say it's illegal to photograph minors nude, only that those photos can not be of a sexual nature.

Jul 21 07 01:03 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36253

San Francisco, 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.

UCPhotog wrote:
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.

They changed the law in England a few years ago.  It used to be completely legal and common to shoot a sixteen year old topless.  It is still legal to do nudes of underage models in England but they have added language about decency which makes it nearly as complicated as this country.

But merely taking a non-sexual, nude photo of a minor is still not illegal.  However, the Sun no longer uses 16 year old models.  In fact, they took the ages off the site of girls under 18.

Jul 21 07 01:04 pm Link

Photographer

sdsteve

Posts: 1609

Spokane, Washington, US

Qite simply... It is illegal...even with Parents approval!!!

oh so wrong.......


damn i messed up the quote

Jul 21 07 01:09 pm Link

Photographer

sdsteve

Posts: 1609

Spokane, Washington, US

Dan Hudson wrote:

Qite simply... It is illegal...even with Parents approval!!!

so wrong....

Jul 21 07 01:11 pm Link

Photographer

James Bluck

Posts: 833

Westfield, New Jersey, US

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

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.

Same answer if it's a cop who walks up to the drug dealer and asks to buy the drugs.  No difference at all.

Jul 21 07 01:11 pm Link

Model

Miss Nicole

Posts: 1517

New Orleans, Louisiana, US

Obsidian Blade wrote:

I hear you. That they wait until they're that old is an outrage!

I love you!

Jul 21 07 01:11 pm Link

Photographer

matt caplin

Posts: 257

Perth, Western Australia, Australia

ImageFusionStudio wrote:

You can do all type of things in OZ ... ROFL

ROFL no.

like you can talk, texas man. what's that president's name again?

Jul 21 07 01:15 pm Link

Photographer

Keith Hamlin

Posts: 7

Fort Myers, Florida, US

Want to shut up any real scam or sting, and sort out all the problems in an instant...  All you need to guarantee your legal safety is a proper model release for the shoot, and to tell the model before hand that they must have a parent attending the shoot or there will be no shoot... Check ID's, and Birth Certs, and photograph them as part of the shoot.

With those, you are all set...

One can take all the photos they want...

Once they are taken, the laws change and are debatable as to publishing, but definitely a no-no for the internet, but to book form, there is not much problem if done correctly, and tastefully. Look at little Brooke Shields pics done long ago and far away...  Anyways, they can, and will try to harrass you, but without much of a leg to stand on.

Keith

Jul 21 07 01:16 pm Link

Photographer

James Bluck

Posts: 833

Westfield, New Jersey, US

James Bluck wrote:

Same answer if it's a cop who walks up to the drug dealer and asks to buy the drugs.  No difference at all.

It would be entrapment if a cop went to someone and said that he wanted to buy some drugs.  The other guy says that he doesn't have any.  The cop says, "but you must know where to get some."  The other guy says that he does know people who have some drugs but that he doesn't sell it.  After a little wheedling from the cop, the guy goes to someone he knows, buys some drugs, comes back and sells it to the cop.  Now THAT is likely to be entrapment.  The guy wasn't disposed to commit the crime.  The crime was entirely the cop's idea and he had to inveigle the other guy to commit it.  That's the essence of entrapment.  When the cop merely walks up to the drug dealer, asks the dealer to sell him some weed, the drug dealer does so and gets busted, there's very clearly no entrapment even though the cop initiated the transaction.  (Well, maybe there would be in California, if your description of the law there is accurate, but probably not anywhere else.)

Jul 21 07 01:19 pm Link

Photographer

So Shoot Me!

Posts: 513

Fresno, California, US

ImageFusionStudio wrote:
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

I don't think I'd put much stock in what he said, then.  As an attorney, I can tell you that this is something I'd most definitely be bringing into the trial.  It is, after all, part of the crux of the matter; it's not immaterial to the question of guilt. 

And if the judge attempted to stop me from bringing it up, saying I had to wait for the appeal, well...I'm pretty sure that would mean I'd win on appeal.  wink 

What he might have been saying is that in his courtroom, he wouldn't care what the law was: the activities (which, as described, don't appear to be illegal) would have him working towards a conviction (which judges aren't supposed to do; they're supposed to be unbiased, but show me an unbiased judge in a criminal case and I'll show you the Third Coming of Christ).  Or he might have been saying that he knows the community and, again in his courtroom, the jury would convict despite the law (and he would not set aside the verdict even if it was contrary to the law). 

In any case, you don't have to wait for the appeal to argue your defense.  In fact, if you wait to argue it on appeal, you won't be able to do so (because the appellate court will deem the issue waived). 

As I've said before, anyone needing legal advice should hire an attorney in their area.  Having taken your "case," he will be obligated under the law to work it properly.  People here (including me) don't get enough facts, or don't necessarily know the law for your area of the country, etc.  The only way to be sure is to hire someone from your area.  Even then, you could pick "the wrong lawyer."  Ask around.  Check his record at the Bar website in your state -- to the extent you can -- etc.

And, of course, you could take the approach I've chosen, too:  Don't photograph naked minors.  wink

Jul 21 07 01:22 pm Link

Photographer

OperationScarf

Posts: 57

Oceanside, California, US

No one seems to get the 'big' picture here! (no pun intended)  It does not matter what the law says or how you read it, it does not matter if you are right or wrong. It does not matter if you are found innocent or guilty.  The local TV and print media loves these stories and you will be ruined long before the case is heard.  The cops will search your house for evidence and it will cost you thousands of dollars to defend yourself even if you end up 'not guilty' in the end.  The DA has already won because you have been exposed. (again, no pun intended)

Look at the Falcon's, Michael Vick, not even in court yet and Nike has dropped him!

Most of the posts in this thread are very foolish.  If you are dumb enough to take a chance of giving your local DA a shot at you, go ahead.  All he needs to do is get your name in the local media and he has accomplished his purpose.

Jul 21 07 01:23 pm Link

Photographer

Studio 530

Posts: 682

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, US

AndrewThomasDesigns wrote:
Now to the person I'm quoting, you're dumb about this. Don't do anything wrong and you won't have anything to worry about. I don't buy drugs, hook up with prodsitutes, and look at child porn, as well as shoot anything that could be considered child porn. I have nothing to hide, and I don't live in fear.

it's pretty easy.

That's not the point... the point is how the police operate-- and they operate exactly as I stated-- they set people up and then bust them.


Thanks for calling me "dumb" too.

Jul 21 07 01:58 pm Link

Photographer

S W I N S K E Y

Posts: 24315

Saint Petersburg, Florida, US

ImageFusionStudio wrote:
Just FYI ... I hear the Greybar Hilton has great activities for your all expense paid stay  and you even wont have to deal with any backwater Texans wink

other then proving the point that texans believe anything they are told and are not concered with the rights garenteed to them by the constitution, i am not sure what your post has to do with anything...

Jul 21 07 02:04 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36253

San Francisco, California, US

Thirsty The Bear wrote:
No one seems to get the 'big' picture here! (no pun intended)

I don't disagree with you.  People seem to miss the distinction between that which might be legal and that which is prudent.

Jul 21 07 02:09 pm Link

Photographer

OperationScarf

Posts: 57

Oceanside, California, US

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

I don't disagree with you.  People seem to miss the distinction between that which might be legal and that which is prudent.

Alan I agree with you.  However, with the media today it does not seem to matter what is legal or even constitutional.  NBC Nightline is being sued over the 'Predator' series but win or lose will not bring back the reputation of those arrested and shown on nationwide TV.  Don't get me wrong, I want to get rid of those guys as much as anyone, but standing up and saying "Yeah, but I was legal" will make no difference.

Everyone is VERY suspicious of men and young girls no matter how honorable your intention.  'Nightline' has helped cast suspicion on all men, from church ministers to school teachers.

I just saying 'legal' does not make any difference unless you can afford to take the chance of paying a lawyer thousands and putting your reputation in doubt just to say: It is legal!

Jul 21 07 02:26 pm Link

Photographer

Eric Faulknor

Posts: 64

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

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.

yeah i was going to say isn't that entrapment?

Jul 21 07 02:28 pm Link

Photographer

ImageFusionStudio

Posts: 189

Fort Worth, Texas, US

Doug Swinskey wrote:

other then proving the point that texans believe anything they are told and are not concered with the rights garenteed to them by the constitution, i am not sure what your post has to do with anything...

Follow my Suggestion ... DO THE SHOOT and send the pics to your DA...
be the test case ... come on ... go for it

You know as well as I do that "rights" have limits... just go to your local theater and scream fire... or tell the fight atttendent on your next flight that you forgot to take the gun out of your bag.  Both of these are rights under the constitution.  but I'd bet you will quickly find the limits of those rights.


I do agree with you on a point ... I really don't see AT ALL the problem with shooting the 16 year old nude from a moral standport.  It is the ethical and legal ramifications that bother me greatly.

You wanna call it paranoid ... for now I will accept that ... at least until you finish your test case for us.

Jul 21 07 03:02 pm Link

Photographer

ImageFusionStudio

Posts: 189

Fort Worth, Texas, US

Eric Faulknor wrote:
yeah i was going to say isn't that entrapment?

Wrong Frigging answer

TX Code---

§ 8.06. ENTRAPMENT. 

(a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the conduct charged because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement agent using persuasion or other means likely to cause persons to commit the offense.  Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment.

(b)  In this section "law enforcement agent" includes personnel of the state and local law enforcement agencies as well as of the United States and any person acting in accordance with instructions from such agents.

Someone brought up hookers ...
Here is a real situation

Prostitution stings (aka john stings) involve female officers dressing up as call girls/hookers, hanging out in high crime areas, and approaching men (usually in cars), and asking them if they “want a date”. The conversations proceed from there, often with the undercover officer being the first one to actually raise the prospect of exchanging sex for money (which is the legal definition of prostitution in Texas).

Dallas Police Department runs these sorts of sting operations several times a year. Well, if you’re arrested in this sort of operation, can your lawyer successfully argue entrapment?

Probably not. Through caselaw, the definition of entrapment in Texas includes not only inducement or persuasion by the officer to commit the crime. It also must be of such a nature that the ordinary law abiding citizen would have been induced or persuaded to commit it.

Thus, at jury trial, if the defense were even successful in having an entrapment charge submitted to the jury, the prosecutor can simply argue this: “Find this defendant not guilty, if you too, the jury members would have agreed to have sex with this undercover officer for money.” That’s a pretty high standard to get a juror to agree with (at least back in the jury room with the other members)

Get it ..

Jul 21 07 03:09 pm Link

Model

Prissy Prissilla K

Posts: 81

thats totally gross... i mean who wants to see lil gurl bodies anyway?? i think all girls underage should be banned

Jul 21 07 03:11 pm Link

Photographer

ImageFusionStudio

Posts: 189

Fort Worth, Texas, US

Eric Faulknor wrote:

yeah i was going to say isn't that entrapment?

You are in CANADA.  A DIFFERENT COUNTRY.  Laws are different

Jul 21 07 03:12 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36253

San Francisco, California, US

Thirsty The Bear wrote:
NBC Nightline is being sued over the 'Predator' series but win or lose will not bring back the reputation of those arrested and shown on nationwide TV.  Don't get me wrong, I want to get rid of those guys as much as anyone, but standing up and saying "Yeah, but I was legal" will make no difference.

Just so we are clear, it isn't "Nightline" that is being sued, it is "Dateline."  Also, as I understand it, they were sued because one of their subjects committed suicide after being caught.  To my knowledge, to date, nobody that has been nabbed on the show has ever been acquitted.  So when we talk about reputation, it is hard to restore the reputation of those who went to jail.  Also, bear in mind, these sting operations are closely supervised and participated in by police.  They are very, very careful to stay away from entrapment.  Indeed, as I understand it, there are people who are never invited to the house because it isn't clear they have a strong case against them.

Now, that having been said, I have very mixed emotions about shows like "To Catch a Predator."  On the one hand, I am glad that law enforcement is working hard to track them down, on the other hand, this is more about entertainment and ratings than law enforcement.

However, putting your point into perspective, there are certainly those who have been arrested or investigated by an overzealous DA.  Jock Sturges is the most visible example.  While he certainly recovered from what happened, the experience and cost alone could be devastating to many.

Jul 21 07 03:13 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36253

San Francisco, California, US

ImageFusionStudio wrote:
Prostitution stings (aka john stings) involve female officers dressing up as call girls/hookers, hanging out in high crime areas, and approaching men (usually in cars), and asking them if they “want a date”. The conversations proceed from there, often with the undercover officer being the first one to actually raise the prospect of exchanging sex for money (which is the legal definition of prostitution in Texas).

Is that a paragraph a quote from a legal treatise or did you write it?

Jul 21 07 03:17 pm Link

Photographer

ImageFusionStudio

Posts: 189

Fort Worth, Texas, US

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

Just so we are clear, it isn't "Nightline" that is being sued, it is "Dateline."  Also, as I understand it, they were sued because one of their subjects committed suicide after being caught.  To my knowledge, to date, nobody that has been nabbed on the show has ever been acquitted.  So when we talk about reputation, it is hard to restore the reputation of those who went to jail.  Also, bear in mind, these sting operations are closely supervised and participated in by police.  They are very, very careful to stay away from entrapment.  Indeed, as I understand it, there are people who are never invited to the house because it isn't clear they have a strong case against them.

Now, that having been said, I have very mixed emotions about shows like "To Catch a Predator."  On the one hand, I am glad that law enforcement is working hard to track them down, on the other hand, this is more about entertainment and ratings than law enforcement.

However, putting your point into perspective, there are certainly those who have been arrested or investigated by an overzealous DA.  Jock Sturges is the most visible example.  While he certainly recovered from what happened, the experience and cost alone could be devastating to many.

Damn Alan It has taken a while but we have converged to the same point
The attitude of most of these DAs is that they are gonna get you for doing the type of work that Jock does.  Wrong or right as the DA down her put it "You will be arrested"

here are a couple facts about Jock to consider before going down his path.

Jock was an ESTABLISHED Fine Arts photographer with images hung in galleries and museums world wide before they arrested him in 1990

the arrest happened in 1990 (17 years ago) the political times have changed allot since then

he had the financial backing to fight off the charges (and the body of work to support it)

The arrest happened in CALIFORNIA 

Now I am not so sure a little backwater studio in the middle of somewhere nondescript  is going to have the support to fight a set of charges like that off in todays climate

Jul 21 07 03:28 pm Link

Photographer

Jay Bowman

Posts: 6511

Atlanta, Georgia, US

You guys are killing me.

Why do you think that the cops are out to bust all of you?  It's not like you're some high-profile pillars of the community with arch-enemies paying off crooked cops to tarnish your reputations and take you down. 

Law enforcement has more than enough work with people who are actually committing crimes to be worried about trying to trick you guys into doing something wrong...

Jul 21 07 03:35 pm Link

Photographer

ImageFusionStudio

Posts: 189

Fort Worth, Texas, US

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

Is that a paragraph a quote from a legal treatise or did you write it?

It is a rewrite of something that I had found before ...
but if you want a good neutral read on tx entrapment ... go here

http://stclguns.homestead.com/SilverBul … #anchor_74

Jul 21 07 03:35 pm Link

Model

roxanne dale

Posts: 20

Dallas, Texas, US

oh hell no.

i would never promote a minor posing nude.  i even think 18 is too young. 

-rOx

Jul 21 07 03:37 pm Link

Photographer

ImageFusionStudio

Posts: 189

Fort Worth, Texas, US

Jay Bowman wrote:
You guys are killing me.

Why do you think that the cops are out to bust all of you?  It's not like you're some high-profile pillars of the community with arch-enemies paying off crooked cops to tarnish your reputations and take you down. 

Law enforcement has more than enough work with people who are actually committing crimes to be worried about trying to trick you guys into doing something wrong...

Do they Jay ... there are 4 cops outside of my office window ticketing for making illegal left turns from the wrong lane... high crimes happening here

Jul 21 07 03:38 pm Link

Photographer

Jay Bowman

Posts: 6511

Atlanta, Georgia, US

ImageFusionStudio wrote:
Do they Jay ... there are 4 cops outside of my office window ticketing for making illegal left turns from the wrong lane... high crimes happening here

C'mon... While I know you're being (slightly) facetious, for the sake of the paranoid who are reading, I'll answer. 

I seriously doubt that a) the cops writing tickets tricked those motorists into making illegal left turns, b) that the traffic cops who are in squad cars writing tickets for traffic violations have in their list of duties "You must also pretend to be a 16 year old and get some photographer to do something very illegal and bust his ass before you make Captain..." or c) that under cover police investigators go out and write traffic tickets when they have down time so that they look busy or somesuch shit.

Have there been "photographers" busted by undercover cops for engaging in illegal activities?  Of course.  Are photographers, as a profession, high on law enforcement's priority list to keep tabs on?  Sorry, but no.  We just aren't that important.


And they say models are the ones with unrealistic perceptions of self-importance...

Jul 21 07 03:49 pm Link

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36253

San Francisco, California, US

ImageFusionStudio wrote:
The arrest happened in CALIFORNIA

Jock Sturges was never arrested.  They executed  a search warrant but the grand jury refused to indict him.

Jul 21 07 03:54 pm Link

Photographer

ImageFusionStudio

Posts: 189

Fort Worth, Texas, US

Jay Bowman wrote:

C'mon... While I know you're being (slightly) facetious, for the sake of the paranoid who are reading, I'll answer. 

I seriously doubt that a) the cops writing tickets tricked those motorists into making illegal left turns, b) that the traffic cops who are in squad cars writing tickets for traffic violations have in their list of duties "You must also pretend to be a 16 year old and get some photographer to do something very illegal and bust his ass before you make Captain..." or c) that under cover police investigators go out and write traffic tickets when they have down time so that they look busy or somesuch shit.

Have there been "photographers" busted by undercover cops for engaging in illegal activities?  Of course.  Are photographers, as a profession, high on law enforcement's priority list to keep tabs on?  Sorry, but no.  We just aren't that important.


And they say models are the ones with unrealistic perceptions of self-importance...

Jay ... I have never met you personally but if I do ... I gotta buy you a beer !

Jul 21 07 03:58 pm Link

Photographer

ImageFusionStudio

Posts: 189

Fort Worth, Texas, US

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

Jock Sturges was never arrested.  They executed  a search warrant but the grand jury refused to indict him.

Jul 21 07 04:04 pm Link

Photographer

Mclain D Swift

Posts: 1279

Black Diamond, Alberta, Canada

Dark Before The Dawn wrote:
Personally, I will never photograph any model under the age of 18 nude. Not because it's illegal, but because it's unethnical and illmoral.

What ever.  Your opinion.  Just because you can't control your carnal desires doesn't make nudes of a 16-17 year old immoral or unethical (I think those were the words you were trying to use).  For the purpose of my discussions I am not talking about 'Hustler' style images here.  I am always referring to figure nudes.

Jul 21 07 04:04 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36253

San Francisco, California, US

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Is that a paragraph a quote from a legal treatise or did you write it?

ImageFusionStudio wrote:
It is a rewrite of something that I had found before ...
but if you want a good neutral read on tx entrapment ... go here

http://stclguns.homestead.com/SilverBul … #anchor_74

Yes, but I read through it and nowhere did I find the paragraph I asked about.  What it looks like is you wrote your interpretation of what was being said.

My problem with your interpretation is that it leaves out a key element of entrapment.  The obligation to prove a pre-disposition to commit the crime.  There is actually a very good case cited where a federal court set aside a conviction because they couldn't prove pre-disposition.

I don't disagree that it might be possible for the police to approach someone and then have the defense of entrapment fail, the problem is that, by doing so, they add a obstacle to proof.  That is that they must prove the pre-disposition issue.

That is why law enforcement will almost never broach the issue but instead create the opportunity for the other party to approach you. If the other party initiates, then the DA is relieved of the obligation to prove pre-disposition.

I understand what you are trying to say, and it might be possible to still convict, but it becomes more complex.  Let's take your example.  An undercover cop stands on the corner and flags down cars.  She then says to the person "I will have sex with you for $100," you have the problem of proving that the john was out there looking for sex before you asked.  On the other hand, if you flag people down and ask "do you want a date?" when the john says, "I will give you $50 for a blowjob," then the issue of pre-disposition has been established. 

I know it is a grey line, but if you speak to law enforcement, they are very careful because they don't want to lose an otherwise good conviction on the pre-disposition.  They are very clever and well trained as to how to deal with it to stay on the right side of the issue.

Jul 21 07 04:07 pm Link

Photographer

ImageFusionStudio

Posts: 189

Fort Worth, Texas, US

So Alan (and with all due respect to Jay)
Without putting words in your mouth... based on what we have talked about in the past where do you stand on the following:

Question: Is it legal to photograph nudes under the age of 18?
legality is open to interpretation of state and local laws ... but GENERALLY the question of legality is a fine line that could be easy to inadvertently cross.  The photographer must ensure that the image is in no way provocative or sexual in nature.  You could also be in violation of local state or federal laws even if the model is clothed if the image is provocative or sexual in nature.
 
Question:  Could I get arrested?
Depending on the standards of your state or locality of what is considered provocative or sexual you could be investigated and/or arrested   

Question:  Could I be convicted?
See above.  The defense that the image was strictly "artistic in nature" may not be a defense that stands in court because "artistic" is a judgment of the viewer.
Intent does not seem to be a defense either.

Question: what about LE sending in a 16 year old to ask for nudes  If I do it ... wouldn't it be entrapment.

Again depends on the laws in your state.  LE is very clever to stay on the right side of the entrapment issue.



---

Does that sound like a complete answer ???

Jul 21 07 04:45 pm Link