PYPI wrote:
The police have better things to do than to go around baiting random people. Even if some over zealous cop did that, it would never stand up in court. The majority of all those "To catch a predator" cases were dismissed or were never prosecuted. I meet minors in public and private places without their parents and I'm not in jail. It's called living your life.

You aren't in jail yet.  I'd suggest you not be too cavalier about this subject ...  be just a tad more careful ... there's a form of hysteria going on out there, and police, prosecutors and, yup, juries, are apt to do anything.  Jails are full of innocent people.

Tracy Scott Photography wrote:
I don't know. I mean a lot of photographers do nudes on here. There are a lot of minors on here.

Not that anyone would be shopping to bust people for being sexual predators, but for child pornography, maybe?

It just seemed off, and I am really big into following my gut.

Just be careful, all.

Wait a minute... child pornographers are sexual predators!
and "just be careful" ??? I'm not sure I understand your warning.
Are you warning minors to be careful of sexual predators or warning
sexual predators to be careful of cops pretending to be minors?

Images FX wrote:
If anyone on MM doesn't think that the government is actively snooping and ready to violate your civil rights, you are terribly naive.  Baiting is a featured tatic of law inforcement.............and it won't matter if you are male or female.  On the other hand, this 'kid' may just be attempting to get around doing something that she knows her parents dissaprove of.  Either way, avoid the situation.

In order to be successfully baited, one has to have a desire for the bait.
If law enforcement is actually trying to bait a person, it is only that person that can take the bait.

Tracy Scott Photography wrote:
... I, of course, said no and that the parents needed to be notified. I haven't gotten a response....

I've had many a converstation with a potential "client" end at that point as well.

Joe Branske wrote:

Wait a minute... child pornographers are sexual predators!
and "just be careful" ??? I'm not sure I understand your warning.
Are you warning minors to be careful of sexual predators or warning
sexual predators to be careful of cops pretending to be minors?

I was warning newbie, naive photographers who have no ill intent not to do something stupid by thinking that because they have innocent intentions, that they can go ahead and not be as vigilant as mandating parental involvement.

Some people just don't know.

BTW - I don't really like what you are insinuating here. I wasn't warning sickos to be careful not to get caught. Give me a fucking break.

Tracy Scott Photography wrote:
I think I was baited by a minor (undercover cop).

I had a few email exchanges with a minor that makes me think I was possibly being baited on here.

There were a few dutiful responses when we talked about shooting. The model mentioned some sexy stuff and then I said that their parents had to attend any shoots, which I would have done anyway.

I was told that they weren't comfortable with that, and could we meet alone first.

I, of course, said no and that the parents needed to be notified. I haven't gotten a response.

In any event, if you are new or something or just don't know this - be careful to whom you speak and say UP FRONT that you mandate that parents be in the loop. Don't meet any minor alone even in a public place.

Kinda creepy.

I don't know if cops are going that far.  If they are, they shouldn't.  I suspect it's someone wanting to set you up so they can steal your wallet.

Tracy Scott Photography wrote:
There were a few dutiful responses when we talked about shooting. The model mentioned some sexy stuff and then I said that their parents had to attend any shoots, which I would have done anyway.

Don't meet any minor alone even in a public place.

Good thinking and good advice.  This is not rocket science. Minors should not be doing "sexy" photoshoots and photographers should not condone it.

Lua Cheia Fotos wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what do you all think about the idea that taking sexy/nude pictures of a minor is a crime?

In many areas a minor can consent to sex so why not consent to photography?

Is it a crime? Should it be? Why? what crime?
I'm not talking about any contact. Nothing forceful or coerced.
I'm talking about pictures that would be considered by most as art and not porn.

Separate issue. If this is a concern, please start a new thread.

PYPI wrote:
The police have better things to do than to go around baiting random people. Even if some over zealous cop did that, it would never stand up in court. The majority of all those "To catch a predator" cases were dismissed or were never prosecuted. I meet minors in public and private places without their parents and I'm not in jail. It's called living your life.

Plus they are a lot more pushy when doing a sting... or at least with my experience and what I've seen.

SPierce Photography wrote:
I've been wondering if i was being baited.. a 17 year old asked to shoot with me- I said that parents were required at all shoots. She said she felt her parents being there would make her uncomfortable- so i said i needed a full release from the parents, their signatures, etc and an acknowlegment that they are OK with her shooting without them there. I emailed the minor release to her out of curiosity, added in what I needed too, and I haven't heard anything back. Makes you wonder. I did send her another message the next day saying that a parent was required, though. Still nothing.

There was nothing mentioned about sexy pictures, though.

IMO you overreacted.

Plus, it's weird that they would mention "sexy" pictures (just talking about the thread here) since it wouldn't be really easy to pin something on a photographer, where as it's really easy to find a john online to meetup with for sex...

FKVPhotoGraphics wrote:
You were being baited!!!....I received an instant message one afternoon asking is shoot portfolios and got much of the same as you did....questions about "sexy" pics.....when I asked the persons age she told me 16.....it ended right there.

There are cops out there who do nothing but this type of work. Pitty the poor fool who falls for it.

Pity the cop who does this kind of work!!  I can think of few more soulless jobs than cruising the internet, tempting people to commit negligible crimes by implying they want that which the victim will be arrested for ("heap big sexy time, Mr. Photo-Man?")  Then, WHAM--dude's in cuffs, on the evening news, name and life's work ruined, whatever happens in court.  News has a field day, cops get good press, and never mind that the photog was duped into providing the same kind of service he would have no issues with for providing a year or two later.

Photogs and teachers are easy targets for this kind of predatory, opportunistic cop.  Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of those who work with "children;" better bust 'em before they actually commit a crime, by any means necessary, even seduction.

JEBKA Photography wrote:
In order to be successfully baited, one has to have a desire for the bait.
If law enforcement is actually trying to bait a person, it is only that person that can take the bait.

But what if the cops are using a master baiter? Wood that not make it harder...to resist?


***sorry in advance

Doug Lester wrote:
My assumption is that I passed their tests and I quit being of interest to them. That's a  good thing! There is no question that many law enforcement agencies are out there trolling, ranging from local police to FBI and customs. It's entirely possible that someone believes MM might be fertile grounds for them.  So be careful out there!

It's important to remember that trolling for pedophiles is becoming like drug enforcement -- there's so much pressure to produce results that attempts at entrapment are common. So like you say, be safe, not sorry.

Tracy Scott Photography wrote:
I think I was baited by a minor (undercover cop).

Are these cops supervised by the master baiter?

rp_photo wrote:

Are these cops supervised by the master baiter?

Ohhhhhh....... But the servant waits....
While the Master baits.

JBSpencer Photography wrote:
So, to make it short, yes, it could very well be a police officer. However, I don't know why they'd bother - it would be far easier to prove intent when the suspect had no reason other than purient desire to meet the person. If it were a photographer, they would have a valid legal defense (at least until they began to take photos of the minor in question without parental/guardian consent). It seems that trying to entrap the photographer would be counterproductive and ultimately doomed to failure, regardless of whether he was just a creepy pedo-GWC or not.

Ummmmm........ there is nothing wrong or illegal with shooting photographs of a minor without without parental/guardian consent.

I'm sure you meant....
Until they began to take advantage of the child in a sexual way.....
That is what you meant.....right?

TheNormGallerys wrote:
Rule of thumb for shooting minors, don't freaking do it, never, no way, just not worth the hassle!!!

Paranoid much?

Fine. Don't shoot minors. Your choice. There is a multi-million dollar industry shooting high school seniors (most of which is done without parents or model releases). You can sit by and watch me make money.

Scott Aitken wrote:
Fine. Don't shoot minors. Your choice. There is a multi-million dollar industry shooting high school seniors (most of which is done without parents or model releases). You can sit by and watch me make money.

and me!

JBSpencer Photography wrote:
It seems that trying to entrap the photographer would be counterproductive and ultimately doomed to failure, regardless of whether he was just a creepy pedo-GWC or not.

Most of us wouldn't touch a minor anyway, so you can't get us on some solid sex or rape charge, and then it's up to the judge on what is too sexy to shoot with a minor or not - it seems that it'd be way too big of a deal than what it's worth for the police.

They want the person who will run out to meet a minor after chatting in a chat room or on myspace or something.

Vorland Photography wrote:

You aren't in jail yet.  I'd suggest you not be too cavalier about this subject ...  be just a tad more careful ... there's a form of hysteria going on out there, and police, prosecutors and, yup, juries, are apt to do anything.  Jails are full of innocent people.

Excuse me for being normal and not thinking the sky will fall just for talking to a minor. I'll be damn if I'm going to run an id check every time I order a burger from a pimple face kid at the local fast food joint. Minors are everywhere. If I do high school portraits, I will shoot them without their parent's permission or presence. I have minors in my top 12. I've talked to them on the phone, I've chatted with them on YM. I've shot minors without parental consent or presence. Big fucking deal. No law against it which means it's legal.

Tracy Scott Photography wrote:
I think I was baited by a minor (undercover cop).

I had a few email exchanges with a minor that makes me think I was possibly being baited on here.

Wow cops can do that in Florida?

Haha that's like them throwing you a paper-bag which happens to be full of cocaine and then arresting you for possession.

Leroy Dickson wrote:
shhhh.. don't let the gwc's know about the baiting ;-)

hahahahaha

Minneapolis Fashion  wrote:

IMO you overreacted.

Plus, it's weird that they would mention "sexy" pictures (just talking about the thread here) since it wouldn't be really easy to pin something on a photographer, where as it's really easy to find a john online to meetup with for sex...

Well, when she originally said that, i was okay, then i started getting images in my head of something happening to her downtown after she left the shoot, and me being liable for it, etc. She actually emailed me back today and we're shooting-- with a parent there. no problems, and less worry for me. I didnt have any problems with the first parent/minor i shot with, hopefully this one will go the same

I may have overreacted, i know, but the images in my head said better safe than sorry.

SPierce Photography wrote:
I may have overreacted, i know, but the images in my head said better safe than sorry.

The voice in my head would have said $150.

PYPI wrote:
Hey look everyone. I shot a picture of a 14 year old boy without his parents present and without their permission. Not only that, I posted his picture on the internet without their release. Tell me what law I've broken.

The parents only need to give permission because a fourteen-year-old cannot sign a release form, the parent needs too.

If it's not professional enough to warrant a release, then as long as he's clothed its fine. It's like taking a pic of your brother and putting it on your myspace

Most of the discussion is about nude/questionable work.