Forums > Model Colloquy > Why do Teen models say "Non-Nude" in Profile?

Photographer

Glamour Boulevard

Posts: 8628

Sacramento, California, US

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

I will say this, there are a lot of 16 and 17 year olds doing implied these days.  I don't shoot it, but I certainly see it.

Perhaps some shooter are seeing the implied shots and presume that the girls might do more.

Same here but the photographs I am speaking of were full on topless, some full nude, some only with various parts showing. However, none of them were anywhere near pornographic. I have noticed that when a young aspiring model has shot some self nudes or partial nudes of herself and put them on her portfolio, she tries her best to make the shot more along the lines of artistic than naughty.

Jan 01 06 10:20 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36240

San Francisco, California, US

Haha my friend, you win the prize.  You were post number forty and you weren't going to show up on a new page.   But, I know about the post number forty bug and I wanted to know what you had to say, so I posted nothing but jibberish just so you would magically appear!

Jan 01 06 10:22 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36240

San Francisco, California, US

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
Same here but the photographs I am speaking of were full on topless, some full nude, some only with various parts showing. However, none of them were anywhere near pornographic. I have noticed that when a young aspiring model has shot some self nudes or partial nudes of herself and put them on her portfolio, she tries her best to make the shot more along the lines of artistic than naughty.

There was a well known model named Sandra who had topless shots done when she was 16 because they were common for fashion models in NYC.  It was in her book when she came out with her dad to shoot with me some years back.  Obviously her family didn't object.

I saw her again a couple months later and the topless shots were out of her book.

Jan 01 06 10:25 pm Link

Photographer

John Jebbia

Posts: 27614

Phoenix, Arizona, US

I have a couple of questions.

1. Would it be illegal for a teenager to take sexually explicit photos of herself and post them on the web?

2. Would it be illegal for a teenager to take sexually explicit photos of herself and post them on the web after she turns 18?

a) There would be no victim. I believe there has to be a victim in a crime.
b) Who would they charge?
c) What would the charge be? Sexual exploitation of a minor?

This should be interesting.

Jan 01 06 10:30 pm Link

Photographer

nathan combs

Posts: 3687

Waynesboro, Virginia, US

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

Really?How so?

well i mean that i keep in mined that that i have a sister and how would i feel if some one was photoing her and was rude or tried to grope her or some thing she is 13years old and concerting putting up a profile that i will be doing and mentoring the emails and offers so i act as if every one i shoot was my sister (sounds weird in a WVA sort of way i know) but if you show respect then your rep goes up and the more models you get not to mechen friends it is a shame that underage models have to put up "no nudes" at all people should know better i do not relie on personal models i get people by walking up to them and asking if i can photo them as you can see i have a lot of people that do let me photo them if i started photoing people nude under age (the thought makes me sick to the smock) i would get anyone to photo

Jan 01 06 10:32 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36240

San Francisco, California, US

John Jebbia wrote:
I have a couple of questions.

1. Would it be illegal for a teenager to take sexually explicit photos of herself and post them on the web?

2. Would it be illegal for a teenager to take sexually explicit photos of herself and post them on the web after she turns 18?

a) There would be no victim. I believe there has to be a victim in a crime.
b) Who would they charge?
c) What would the charge be? Sexual exploitation of a minor?

This should be interesting.

That is an interesting question.  It probably not be illegal to photograph yourself, although it is illegal to possess the images (although it creates an interesting caveat if the images are of yourself).

The problem with posting the images though is that they way the feds get pervs who view child porn is that your browser downloads to cache a copy of the image when it displays it. Possession of child porn is illegal.  So if someone goes to the site and views the images, they are committing a crime.  It gets complicated.

It would be interesting to see if they could charge the model for being in possession of images of herself which would otherwise be illegal to possess.

Jan 01 06 10:36 pm Link

Photographer

Glamour Boulevard

Posts: 8628

Sacramento, California, US

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

There was a well known model named Sandra who had topless shots done when she was 16 because they were common for fashion models in NYC.  It was in her book when she came out with her dad to shoot with me some years back.  Obviously her family didn't object.

I saw her again a couple months later and the topless shots were out of her book.

Sound oddy familiar to me,lol.

Jan 01 06 10:40 pm Link

Photographer

John Jebbia

Posts: 27614

Phoenix, Arizona, US

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
That is an interesting question.  It probably not be illegal to photograph yourself, although it is illegal to possess the images (although it creates an interesting caveat if the images are of yourself).

The problem with posting the images though is that they way the feds get pervs who view child porn is that your browser downloads to cache a copy of the image when it displays it. Possession of child porn is illegal.  So if someone goes to the site and views the images, they are committing a crime.  It gets complicated.

It would be interesting to see if they could charge the model for being in possession of images of herself which would otherwise be illegal to possess.

Interesting. So, lets say she willingly e-mails it to you. Or posts it on a website for all to see, of her own free will with no coaxing whatsoever. You download it and you are the one to get charged with the crime. Yet there's still no victim.

So, it's actually illegal to see. Sounds like thought police to me

Jan 01 06 10:42 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36240

San Francisco, California, US

John Jebbia wrote:
Interesting. So, lets say she willingly e-mails it to you. Or posts it on a website for all to see, of her own free will with no coaxing whatsoever. You download it and you are the one to get charged with the crime. Yet there's still no victim.

Isn't it amazing how the thought police work!

It is wierd, but possession of child pornography is a crime.

Jan 01 06 10:43 pm Link

Photographer

John Jebbia

Posts: 27614

Phoenix, Arizona, US

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
It is wierd, but possession of child pornography is a crime.

I suppose they could claim the State is the victim.

Jan 01 06 10:44 pm Link

Photographer

nathan combs

Posts: 3687

Waynesboro, Virginia, US

John Jebbia wrote:
I have a couple of questions.

1. Would it be illegal for a teenager to take sexually explicit photos of herself and post them on the web?

2. Would it be illegal for a teenager to take sexually explicit photos of herself and post them on the web after she turns 18?

a) There would be no victim. I believe there has to be a victim in a crime.
b) Who would they charge?
c) What would the charge be? Sexual exploitation of a minor?

This should be interesting.

we as adults should do some thing like steer them to some one reputable that would help them build a good portfolio if they put them up hear the photos should be taken down and explained to them that such things are unethical and legal i guess you can not have them arrested they are kids and maby do not know Any better or have the the inperstion that getting naked is what you have to do to go any where so some one could dret them to a model that could dreted them in to the right direction and explain to them it is not about getting naked it about talent

Jan 01 06 10:47 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36240

San Francisco, California, US

John, please tell me the question was hypothetical and that you were not working in cahoots with some poor, unsuspecting, underage model.

Jan 01 06 10:48 pm Link

Photographer

John Jebbia

Posts: 27614

Phoenix, Arizona, US

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
John, please tell me the question was hypothetical and that you were not working in cahoots with some poor, unsuspecting, underage model.

Of course. If I was, then there would be a victim, and therefore a crime committed.
Just a question that entered my mind as I was reading this thread.

I would like to hear some of the legalites chime in on this though.

Jan 01 06 10:50 pm Link

Photographer

Glamour Boulevard

Posts: 8628

Sacramento, California, US

nathan combs wrote:

well i mean that i keep in mined that that i have a sister and how would i feel if some one was photoing her and was rude or tried to grope her or some thing she is 13years old and concerting putting up a profile that i will be doing and mentoring the emails and offers so i act as if every one i shoot was my sister (sounds weird in a WVA sort of way i know) but if you show respect then your rep goes up and the more models you get not to mechen friends it is a shame that underage models have to put up "no nudes" at all people should know better i do not relie on personal models i get people by walking up to them and asking if i can photo them as you can see i have a lot of people that do let me photo them if i started photoing people nude under age (the thought makes me sick to the smock) i would get anyone to photo

I was just wondering how every girl is someones sister. I mean, some girls are an only child.

Jan 01 06 10:57 pm Link

Photographer

A. H A M I L T O N

Posts: 325

Dallas, Georgia, US

In your hypothetical argument it's still illegal, child porn laws aren't about exploitation, in general.  The minor would be charged, as a minor assuming they decided to press the charges.  Many crimes are victimless, the very nature of how obscure child porn laws are dictates that many of those cases would be victimless as well. (What about the situation wher ethe girl turns 18 in 3 weeks...is her mindset really going to be any different?)

Anyway, to further complicate the matter, it's illegal as well to photograph an 18 year old who happens to look 14 in a sexually explicit manner and in any way, shape, or form try and convince the viewer that she's 14.  Even less victimless, it's about socioligical control of what a majority of people think is wrong, in many cases, not protecting a specific victim.

Andy

Jan 01 06 10:57 pm Link

Photographer

Richard Beebe

Posts: 217

Tracy, California, US

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I am just curious about something.  I am seeing more and more models, under 18, adding the words "No Nudes" or other similar phrases to their profiles. 

My question is why would they need that?  I understand why older models do, but are teen models getting that many offers for nude work that they need to make it clear they won't accept nude offers?  Does that also mean that some teen models on this site are doing nude work?

Alan

On OMP, I have brought to the moderator's attention "more than one" minor female 'model' with questionable imagery among the four on their profile. I actually like that the contact email text box on there will have the open line "to the parents of ..." and have a bold note about minor legal issues.

Here? I will hope it's just a reminder to those who don't read profiles. I've seen tags by some photographers to 17 year old female models about wanting to work with them after they turn 18. It bothers me.

Jan 01 06 11:01 pm Link

Photographer

nathan combs

Posts: 3687

Waynesboro, Virginia, US

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

I was just wondering how every girl is someones sister. I mean, some girls are an only child.

i mean it as a saying as in have as much respect with some one else as you would you own sister (if you don't have one Imogen that you do)

Jan 01 06 11:01 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36240

San Francisco, California, US

A. H A M I L T O N wrote:
Anyway, to further complicate the matter, it's illegal as well to photograph an 18 year old who happens to look 14 in a sexually explicit manner and in any way, shape, or form try and convince the viewer that she's 14.  Even less victimless, it's about socioligical control of what a majority of people think is wrong, in many cases, not protecting a specific victim.

Andy

I am not sure about this one.  I know congress made it illegal, but I think the Supreme Court struck it down.  I believe in the ruling they said that there was no clear connection between an 18 year old looking young and the protection of children / child pornography.  I believe they ruled that you could not criminalize something that would otherwise be legal simply because someone looked young.

One of the lawyers on the site needs to chime in on that one though, but I do recall the ruling.

Jan 01 06 11:02 pm Link

Photographer

John Jebbia

Posts: 27614

Phoenix, Arizona, US

A. H A M I L T O N wrote:
In your hypothetical argument it's still illegal, child porn laws aren't about exploitation, in general.  The minor would be charged, as a minor assuming they decided to press the charges.  Many crimes are victimless, the very nature of how obscure child porn laws are dictates that many of those cases would be victimless as well. (What about the situation wher ethe girl turns 18 in 3 weeks...is her mindset really going to be any different?)

Anyway, to further complicate the matter, it's illegal as well to photograph an 18 year old who happens to look 14 in a sexually explicit manner and in any way, shape, or form try and convince the viewer that she's 14.  Even less victimless, it's about socioligical control of what a majority of people think is wrong, in many cases, not protecting a specific victim.

Andy

So, the State would play the role of the victim. In other words, Society is the victim.

I guess you would be right.. Another thing occured to me. Virtual child porn was recently declared illegal. Same with fictional stories.

Now I'm not a proponent of child porn. Please don't get that impression. But what bothers me about these laws is that they are about controling your thoughts more than anything.

Another example of how weird some of our laws are. Prostitution is illegal in most places. But, if you hired a prostitute to take pictures of her, paid her for the photos then had sex you would be totally legal.

It would be hillarious to find out which prostitute on the corner was the vice. Pick her up and take her to the motel and tell her you were going to pay her for photos, or to make you dinner or anything else. What would she do.. She either has to blow her cover, or she has to take nekkid pictures with you.. what a predicament that would be.

Alan, sorry to hi-jack your thread...

Jan 01 06 11:10 pm Link

Photographer

Richard Beebe

Posts: 217

Tracy, California, US

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

Actually that is a lot of the problem. Even I get emails from guys sayin I am hot and such. They do not seem to read my profile to understand I am the photographer and those women are models I have worked with. I have dealt with that for years. A lot of us do read profiles, but many also do not. It is a case of "read? why? pretty face, pretty body.........must shoot girl, ugh ugh...will girl pose naked ugh ugh grunt"
However, there is a thing on the other site which I do like. When you are about to contact a model through the websites email system,,,if the model is under 18 you will know so by the under 18 warning in bold red letters right on top of the email box you are about to type in. And the default opening sentence they automatically place into the email for you is" Hello parents of(models name here)". That would be something I would love to see here.That leaves no excuse for" I didnt know she was under 18"

Yup. it makes it rather clear.

Jan 01 06 11:12 pm Link

Photographer

Glamour Boulevard

Posts: 8628

Sacramento, California, US

Richard Beebe wrote:

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
On OMP, I have brought to the moderator's attention "more than one" minor female 'model' with questionable imagery among the four on their profile.
I've seen tags by some photographers to 17 year old female models about wanting to work with them after they turn 18. It bothers me.

I have done the same on OMP but I usually contact the model first, even with a note to the parents or manager if they are managed. As for photographers expressing interest in working with a model once she becomes 18, to me wether it bothers me or not depends on the way they say it. Some simply do not work with minors, even if the photographer only does portraits, some have had bad experiences dealing with mommy and daddy and don`t want to deal with that crap anymore. But yes, I have often seen on ALL of these types of sites the lounge lizard types with this"I have some candy lil girl, wanna come pose for me someday?" types that make my skin crawl. I knew also of one photographer who would work with a 17 year old girl who he would know wants to do nudes or more when she turned 18. He and the model would arrange a late night shoot around 9 pm or so the night before her 18th birthday. Once the clock strikes 12 midnight the shoot turned from girl next door cute stuff ans fashion to full on nudes and sometimes some hardcore shots.

Jan 01 06 11:14 pm Link

Photographer

Glamour Boulevard

Posts: 8628

Sacramento, California, US

nathan combs wrote:

i mean it as a saying as in have as much respect with some one else as you would you own sister (if you don't have one Imogen that you do)

Psssh, if you knew my sisters! lol

Jan 01 06 11:15 pm Link

Photographer

Glamour Boulevard

Posts: 8628

Sacramento, California, US

Richard Beebe wrote:

Yup. it makes it rather clear.

Yes, and I love that. It makes me turning the guys over the the site administrators that much easier knowing for a fact that they HAVE TO know they sent that type of an email to a minor.

Jan 01 06 11:16 pm Link

Photographer

A. H A M I L T O N

Posts: 325

Dallas, Georgia, US

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I am not sure about this one.  I know congress made it illegal, but I think the Supreme Court struck it down.  I believe in the ruling they said that there was no clear connection between an 18 year old looking young and the protection of children / child pornography.  I believe they ruled that you could not criminalize something that would otherwise be legal simply because someone looked young.

One of the lawyers on the site needs to chime in on that one though, but I do recall the ruling.

Might be true, I don't even shoot glamour, much less anything even approaching sexually explicit so I don't care much one way or another.  If someone knows that would be interesting to hear the full story there.

Jan 01 06 11:22 pm Link

Photographer

Richard Beebe

Posts: 217

Tracy, California, US

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
But yes, I have often seen on ALL of these types of sites the lounge lizard types with this"I have some candy lil girl, wanna come pose for me someday?" types that make my skin crawl. I knew also of one photographer who would work with a 17 year old girl who he would know wants to do nudes or more when she turned 18. He and the model would arrange a late night shoot around 9 pm or so the night before her 18th birthday. Once the clock strikes 12 midnight the shoot turned from girl next door cute stuff ans fashion to full on nudes and sometimes some hardcore shots.

May their equipment simply short out.

Jan 01 06 11:23 pm Link

Photographer

Merlyn Magic Photo

Posts: 4360

Long Beach, California, US

Richard Beebe wrote:
On OMP, I have brought to the moderator's attention "more than one" minor female 'model' with questionable imagery among the four on their profile. I actually like that the contact email text box on there will have the open line "ro the parents of ..." and have a bold note about minor legal issues.

Here? I will hope it's just a reminder to those who don't read profiles. I've seen tags by some photographers to 17 year old female models about wanting to work with them after they turn 18. It bothers me.

Why do you attribute negative motives to the photographers? Many photographers will not work with minors for various reasons. It is sometimes difficult to get signed releases from minors as it may not be a parent that shows up at a shoot, or some parents can be as much or more of a pain than boyfriends as "escorts". I personally have shot with minors [fashion and casual] for portfolio work, but have been burned on a couple of occasions by parents or "lack thereof" I'll still shoot with minors, but my comfort level continues to decline with each new burn.

Jan 01 06 11:26 pm Link

Photographer

John Jebbia

Posts: 27614

Phoenix, Arizona, US

Richard Beebe wrote:
May their equipment simply short out.

Won't matter. Kodak Funsavers are cheap to replace.

Jan 01 06 11:26 pm Link

Photographer

Glamour Boulevard

Posts: 8628

Sacramento, California, US

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I am not sure about this one.  I know congress made it illegal, but I think the Supreme Court struck it down.  I believe in the ruling they said that there was no clear connection between an 18 year old looking young and the protection of children / child pornography.  I believe they ruled that you could not criminalize something that would otherwise be legal simply because someone looked young.

The surpreme court did strike it down. Virtual child porn, such as an adult pretending to be  under age in photos and/or videos, drawings/illustrations of what is supposed to be an underage girl involved in sexual activities,etc is not illegal, or at least at one time it was not when struck down by the supreme court about 3-4 years ago. It may have changed. I do not think it has , though. Considering some of the adult videos that have been made, even within recent months by such companies as hustler, with young looking adult girls in little school girl outfits, doing things on little girl beds with stuffed animals allover, coloring books,dollies, using little girl voices, and most scenerios portraying the male in the scene as daddy, grandpa, uncle,etc.

Jan 01 06 11:29 pm Link

Photographer

Glamour Boulevard

Posts: 8628

Sacramento, California, US

Richard Beebe wrote:

May their equipment simply short out.

It usually doesn`t. Although what they are doing might seem sleazy, it is not illegal.the thing is, he does not bring up the adult work to the girls, it is the girls who have come to him saying" once I turn 18 I want to do this and that"..he simply makes it happen.

Jan 01 06 11:33 pm Link

Photographer

John Jebbia

Posts: 27614

Phoenix, Arizona, US

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
The surpreme court did strike it down. Virtual child porn, such as an adult pretending to be  under age in photos and/or videos, drawings/illustrations of what is supposed to be an underage girl involved in sexual activities,etc is not illegal, or at least at one time it was not when struck down by the supreme court about 3-4 years ago. It may have changed. I do not think it has , though. Considering some of the adult videos that have been made, even within recent months by such companies as hustler, with young looking adult girls in little school girl outfits, doing things on little girl beds with stuffed animals allover, coloring books,dollies, using little girl voices, and most scenerios portraying the male in the scene as daddy, grandpa, uncle,etc.

By 'Virtual' I mean like Simone....

Jan 01 06 11:33 pm Link

Photographer

Paul Brecht

Posts: 12228

Colton, California, US

A. H A M I L T O N wrote:
In your hypothetical argument it's still illegal, child porn laws aren't about exploitation, in general.  The minor would be charged, as a minor assuming they decided to press the charges.  Many crimes are victimless, the very nature of how obscure child porn laws are dictates that many of those cases would be victimless as well. (What about the situation wher ethe girl turns 18 in 3 weeks...is her mindset really going to be any different?)

Anyway, to further complicate the matter, it's illegal as well to photograph an 18 year old who happens to look 14 in a sexually explicit manner and in any way, shape, or form try and convince the viewer that she's 14.  Even less victimless, it's about socioligical control of what a majority of people think is wrong, in many cases, not protecting a specific victim.

Andy

When the Polly Klass case came up, new litigation called the Child Protection Act stated as law that once an offence has been done against a child, then the case goes to the state & the state then prosecutes the perpetrator...

So, no charges have to be filed by a victim. It's become an arrest now & ask questions later type scenario...

Shortly after that came into law, a friend of mine got into a fight w/ his wife & she thought she'd get him by calling the police & claiming that he hit thier 9 yo boy. When they handcuffed him & put him in the car, she explained that it really didn't happen & that she was just trying to get back @ him for their fight. Needless to say, he spent 6 months in jail & he divorced her when he got out...

The thing was, even though she admitted the falsehood of the allegations, it became a state case & it was taken out of the hands of the "victim" or the victim's guardian, so their renigging of the claim didn't matter anymore...

So, once a "crime" has been allegedly committed against a minor, it is a state prosecution case & the victim has no bearing in the matter...

I think that the 18+ model trying to look underage is a Canadian law...

Paul

Jan 01 06 11:36 pm Link

Photographer

Paul Brecht

Posts: 12228

Colton, California, US

Along the same lines as my previous post, after the OJ Simpson case, there is a similar act (law) that was for women protection...

Paul

Jan 01 06 11:37 pm Link

Model

Nico Coer

Posts: 64

Utica, Pennsylvania, US

I think that they are charged with possession if they post them after they are 18, BUT if they are still underaged their parent or legal gaurdian is charged with something- possession, criminal negligence of a minor, possibly intentional or unintentional corruption of a minor charges. And the minor herself might get charged with something, but I'm not sure. Also, the ISP and any webserver that might facilitate inappropreiate nudes of minors online can be investigated and sometimes charged.

Okay, I googled, and found this:

"Teen who posted own photo charged with child porn

"Monday, March 29, 2004

"Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
"State police have charged a 15-year-old Latrobe girl with child pornography for taking photos of herself and posting them on the Internet.
"Police said the girl, whose identity they withheld, photographed herself in various states of undress and performing a variety of sexual acts. She then sent the photos to people she met in chat rooms.
"A police report did not say how police learned about the girl. They found dozens of pictures of her on her computer.
"She has been charged with ***sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography***.
"Police said they are trying to identify all the people who receive photos from the girl."


http://www.post-gazette.com/breaking/20040329pornp6.asp

~N~

Jan 01 06 11:40 pm Link

Photographer

The Don Mon

Posts: 3311

Ocala, Florida, US

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

Actually, you are right and I should have been more specific.  The Sun Times no longer uses 16 year olds because of the change and you are correct that it deals more with glamour than mere nudity.

Of course you can still shoot a naturist and I do not, disagree that in most other parts of Europe it is fine.  Heck, when Europe was banning Child porn, Sweden didn't want to make it illegal but only did so under pressure from the other countries.

Thanks for the clarification.  You are absolutely correct.

i just dont understand why it should be a question for people with any dignity to not send offers to anyone under 18...you shouldnt be able to use these sites unless the adult is the one
managing the portfolio,and a phone call to the parent to verify.

Jan 01 06 11:44 pm Link

Photographer

Glamour Boulevard

Posts: 8628

Sacramento, California, US

John Jebbia wrote:
By 'Virtual' I mean like Simone....

?

Jan 01 06 11:47 pm Link

Photographer

John Jebbia

Posts: 27614

Phoenix, Arizona, US

Nico Coer wrote:
"Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
"State police have charged a 15-year-old Latrobe girl with child pornography for taking photos of herself and posting them on the Internet.
"Police said the girl, whose identity they withheld, photographed herself in various states of undress and performing a variety of sexual acts. She then sent the photos to people she met in chat rooms.
"A police report did not say how police learned about the girl. They found dozens of pictures of her on her computer.
"She has been charged with ***sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography***.
"Police said they are trying to identify all the people who receive photos from the girl."

Call me crazy, but that's just silly! They might have a hard time getting a conviction.. I mean how the hell can you violate yourself! I know if I was on that jurry, I wouldn't convict her.

Jan 01 06 11:48 pm Link

Photographer

Gibson Photo Art

Posts: 7990

Phoenix, Arizona, US

Nico Coer wrote:
I think that they are charged with possession if they post them after they are 18, BUT if they are still underaged their parent or legal gaurdian is charged with something- possession, criminal negligence of a minor, possibly intentional or unintentional corruption of a minor charges. And the minor herself might get charged with something, but I'm not sure. Also, the ISP and any webserver that might facilitate inappropreiate nudes of minors online can be investigated and sometimes charged.

Okay, I googled, and found this:

"Teen who posted own photo charged with child porn

"Monday, March 29, 2004

"Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
"State police have charged a 15-year-old Latrobe girl with child pornography for taking photos of herself and posting them on the Internet.
"Police said the girl, whose identity they withheld, photographed herself in various states of undress and performing a variety of sexual acts. She then sent the photos to people she met in chat rooms.
"A police report did not say how police learned about the girl. They found dozens of pictures of her on her computer.
"She has been charged with ***sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography***.
"Police said they are trying to identify all the people who receive photos from the girl."


http://www.post-gazette.com/breaking/20040329pornp6.asp

~N~

I wonder if the charges were dropped. It doesn't say she was convicted.

Jan 01 06 11:48 pm Link

Photographer

John Jebbia

Posts: 27614

Phoenix, Arizona, US

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

?

Like the movie Simone... Fake. Computer generated..

Jan 01 06 11:49 pm Link

Photographer

Glamour Boulevard

Posts: 8628

Sacramento, California, US

Paul Brecht wrote:
I think that the 18+ model trying to look underage is a Canadian law...

Paul

I am not so sure about that considering so many of the very provocative underage model pay sites are in Canada. There are even some who even once they became 18 continued to state ages such as 14,15,16 as their age and still do with no problems.For some reason the members can not do math,lol. If she started at 14 and has been doing the site for about 5 years now, she in no way can still be 14 ya dorks,lol

Jan 01 06 11:51 pm Link

Photographer

Glamour Boulevard

Posts: 8628

Sacramento, California, US

Paul Brecht wrote:
Along the same lines as my previous post, after the OJ Simpson case, there is a similar act (law) that was for women protection...

Paul

Yea, in California if the cops are called and the woman wont press charges the cops can press them if they want.

Jan 01 06 11:52 pm Link