Forums > General Industry > Censors clear topless teen model

Photographer

Digital Vinyl

Posts: 1174

Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

AUSTRALIA'S literature classification has given the green light for photographers to take pictures of naked under-age models after backing down on an investigation into a fashion magazine.

More here

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/s … 32,00.html

Fuck I love this country!

May 17 08 09:58 pm Link

Photographer

v2lab

Posts: 1557

Orlando, Florida, US

Digital Vinyl wrote:
Fuck I love this country!

http://www.sifomg.net/rand/577px-Pedobear_17.jpg

May 17 08 10:01 pm Link

Model

Muarw

Posts: 3368

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

arent we great

May 17 08 10:04 pm Link

Photographer

Atris Everson

Posts: 966

Mansfield, Ohio, US

Digital Vinyl wrote:
Fuck I love this country!

Why, because you can take pictures of topless underage girls? Thats pretty pathetic! Way to go Chester!

May 17 08 10:05 pm Link

Photographer

K E E L I N G

Posts: 39863

Peoria, Illinois, US

Digital Vinyl wrote:
AUSTRALIA'S literature classification has given the green light for photographers to take pictures of naked under-age models after backing down on an investigation into a fashion magazine.

More here

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/s … 32,00.html

Fuck I love this country!

Do you mean to tell me you are an activist for the right to shoot underage girls nude?

Mr. Hansen will be paying you a visit soon.

May 17 08 10:07 pm Link

Photographer

Click Hamilton

Posts: 35436

San Diego, California, US

Atris Everson wrote:
Why, because you can take pictures of topless underage girls? Thats pretty pathetic! Way to go Chester!

I think there was some dripping sarcasm here.

May 17 08 10:08 pm Link

Photographer

c_d_s

Posts: 7771

Lubbock, Texas, US

I read the article and didn't see where the board "has given the green light for photographers to take pictures of naked under-age models."

All I saw was that they closed that one investigation and took no further action.

May 17 08 10:08 pm Link

Photographer

PYPI FASHION

Posts: 36332

San Francisco, California, US

Can someone from Australia translate this:

After deliberating, Classification Board director Donald McDonald said: "The board has now considered the matter andis of the view that this publication is not a submittable publication and therefore does not need to be classified.''

May 17 08 10:11 pm Link

Photographer

KGToops Photography

Posts: 2439

Treasure Island, Florida, US

hi im chris hanson with Dateline NBC and we are doing a story on...........

May 17 08 10:13 pm Link

Photographer

Digital Vinyl

Posts: 1174

Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

From our classification board

What is a "submittable" publication?

The only publications that need to be classified in Australia are "submittable" publications.

A submittable publication is one that is likely to be restricted to adults because it:

    * contains depictions or descriptions likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, or
    * is unsuitable for a minor to see or read, or
    * is likely to be refused classification.

Just to clarify I don't in anyway advocate photographing minors in the nude ok. It was sarcasm at work/Australian humor.

May 17 08 10:14 pm Link

Model

Mistriss de morte

Posts: 620

Wilmington, Delaware, US

good.
it should be allowed. nuditys not wrong, so long as the images aren't pornongraphic.

May 17 08 10:14 pm Link

Photographer

Digital Vinyl

Posts: 1174

Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

May 17 08 10:15 pm Link

Photographer

c_d_s

Posts: 7771

Lubbock, Texas, US

PYPI wrote:
Can someone from Australia translate this:

After deliberating, Classification Board director Donald McDonald said: "The board has now considered the matter andis of the view that this publication is not a submittable publication and therefore does not need to be classified.''

I'm not from Australia. Actually I've been there, so I guess when I came back I came from there.

But I'm guessing that a "submittable publication" is one that must be submitted to the Classification Board to be classified, in other words, something like Playboy or Hustler. Since the publication is not something like that, it's not submittable.

May 17 08 10:16 pm Link

Model

Muarw

Posts: 3368

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

PYPI wrote:
Can someone from Australia translate this:

After deliberating, Classification Board director Donald McDonald said: "The board has now considered the matter andis of the view that this publication is not a submittable publication and therefore does not need to be classified.''

yeah i didn't understand that part too

May 17 08 10:16 pm Link

Photographer

The Silencing Machine

Posts: 15759

South Amboy, New Jersey, US

Oh well, at least the OP is honest.

May 17 08 10:19 pm Link

Photographer

PYPI FASHION

Posts: 36332

San Francisco, California, US

That's a cop out. Just as I suspected. It's a huge loophole. Kind of like saying underage nudity with a sexual context is OK because it is outside our jurisdiction.

May 17 08 10:19 pm Link

Model

Muarw

Posts: 3368

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

PYPI wrote:
That's a cop out. Just as I suspected. It's a huge loophole. Kind of like saying underage nudity with a sexual context is OK because it is outside our jurisdiction.

unfortunately australia's legal system is whacked that way. explains why I'm barely failing my law course =.=

May 17 08 10:21 pm Link

Photographer

Atris Everson

Posts: 966

Mansfield, Ohio, US

Miz Sid wrote:
good.
it should be allowed. nuditys not wrong, so long as the images aren't pornongraphic.

Why should it be allowed. Just the other day I saw a story on the news where this lady took some racy photos hanging off a fire truck. the lady happened to be the mayor of this small town. Low and behold shes unemployed..

Sooo you want to take pictures of a 16 year old so that the pictures can someday ruin her hopes and dreams as well. Its the same reason we dont let 16 year olds drink, they are not of age to make their own decisions. What might seem like a great idea today can come back to bite them later in life. I agree nudity is not wrong but there are alot of people who will definitely judge you for taking nude shots. Look how they were ready to throw Hanna Montanna under the bus for showing her back.

May 17 08 10:26 pm Link

Photographer

Click Hamilton

Posts: 35436

San Diego, California, US

messy subject in that part of the world


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_co … nd_Oceania

May 17 08 10:26 pm Link

Photographer

JA Sanchez

Posts: 6830

Miami, Florida, US

Miz Sid wrote:
good.
it should be allowed. nuditys not wrong, so long as the images aren't pornongraphic.

Agreed.

May 17 08 10:27 pm Link

Photographer

Patrick Walberg

Posts: 43493

Salinas, California, US

It's not illegal to photographer minors in the nude in the United States either.  All the great photographers who shoot nudes of entire families of all ages have been chased out of this country by harassment.  Just ask Jock Sturges! 

You can buy art books full of nude pictures of minor aged people at your local Barnes and Noble. The images are not pornographic just because they are nude!

May 17 08 10:28 pm Link

Photographer

denisemc

Posts: 555

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Some of the comments at the bottom of the article are pretty funny.

May 17 08 10:29 pm Link

Photographer

Andrew C Photo

Posts: 509

Twentynine Palms, California, US

Cant you in FL as long as their isnt any sexual act taking place.  I think GGW gets away with it there.  Correct me if Im wrong tho.

May 17 08 10:31 pm Link

Photographer

Atris Everson

Posts: 966

Mansfield, Ohio, US

Next we'll asking grandma to pose au natural to show off her "I like IKE" tattoo!

Although the image may not be pornographic in your eyes, theres probably someone out there getting their rocks off to those photos. How would you feel if your neighbor had a large collection of these underage nude art photos in his possession. Is one book okay but once you have 20 there might that be a problem?

Once again I state Nudity is okay its when you start publishing & photographing the underage nudity is where the problem lies.

May 17 08 10:37 pm Link

Photographer

SLE Photography

Posts: 68937

Orlando, Florida, US

v2lab wrote:
http://www.sifomg.net/rand/577px-Pedobear_17.jpg

OH NO!  It's PEDOBEAR!
http://photo.gangus.com/d/26788-2/ackbar.jpg

May 17 08 10:39 pm Link

Photographer

JA Sanchez

Posts: 6830

Miami, Florida, US

Andrew C Photo wrote:
Cant you in FL as long as their isnt any sexual act taking place.  I think GGW gets away with it there.  Correct me if Im wrong tho.

You can legally photograph a person nude at any age, in every single state.

May 17 08 10:40 pm Link

Photographer

Sliver Photography

Posts: 423

Decatur, Georgia, US

Atris Everson wrote:

Why should it be allowed. Just the other day I saw a story on the news where this lady took some racy photos hanging off a fire truck. the lady happened to be the mayor of this small town. Low and behold shes unemployed..

Sooo you want to take pictures of a 16 year old so that the pictures can someday ruin her hopes and dreams as well. Its the same reason we dont let 16 year olds drink, they are not of age to make their own decisions. What might seem like a great idea today can come back to bite them later in life. I agree nudity is not wrong but there are alot of people who will definitely judge you for taking nude shots. Look how they were ready to throw Hanna Montanna under the bus for showing her back.

I'm not Chester, but I see that you can't draw an absolute line without some fucked up logic.  How about these pictures of Jessica Biel when she was 17 in Gear magazine.  Don't think they destroyed her hopes and dreams.

http://celebshoots.blogspot.com/2007/06 … -biel.html

May 17 08 10:41 pm Link

Photographer

LeWhite

Posts: 2033

Los Angeles, California, US

As long as he's not a priest

May 17 08 10:46 pm Link

Photographer

LeWhite

Posts: 2033

Los Angeles, California, US

Error300DP

May 17 08 10:46 pm Link

Photographer

M Pandolfo Photography

Posts: 12117

Tampa, Florida, US

Even more surprising is that she's 5' 3". Oh no the world is upside down!

May 17 08 10:49 pm Link

Photographer

PenelopieJones Prod

Posts: 306

Payson, Arizona, US

Atris Everson wrote:

Why, because you can take pictures of topless underage girls? Thats pretty pathetic! Way to go Chester!

LOL!!!
You called it sister!

May 17 08 10:49 pm Link

Photographer

Miami Glamour

Posts: 1378

Miami Beach, Florida, US

Patrick Walberg wrote:
It's not illegal to photographer minors in the nude in the United States either.  All the great photographers who shoot nudes of entire families of all ages have been chased out of this country by harassment.  Just ask Jock Sturges! 

You can buy art books full of nude pictures of minor aged people at your local Barnes and Noble. The images are not pornographic just because they are nude!

^^^^^
||||||||
What he said!

May 17 08 10:50 pm Link

Photographer

Atris Everson

Posts: 966

Mansfield, Ohio, US

J Allen Gomez wrote:
[I'm not Chester, but I see that you can't draw an absolute line without some fucked up logic.  How about these pictures of Jessica Biel when she was 17 in Gear magazine.  Don't think they destroyed her hopes and dreams.

http://celebshoots.blogspot.com/2007/06 … -biel.html

Why cant you just wait until the model in question turns eighteen? Why do you have to get the early start? Today its 17 next year its 16... Jessica has had a great career but what if she would have wanted to be a lawyer or a judge someday? Its probably not going to happen. It just so happens that Jessica's pictures work for what she does today but lets think further to tomorrow!

May 17 08 10:50 pm Link

Photographer

Atris Everson

Posts: 966

Mansfield, Ohio, US

catherine Lynn Everhart wrote:

LOL!!!
You called it sister!

LOL Im a guy!

May 17 08 10:53 pm Link

Photographer

Paul Brecht

Posts: 12232

Colton, California, US

The Irony:

the headline:
Censors clear topless teen model


the picture:
http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6044266,00.jpg

eh! whatever...

(edit) I guess the censor missed that copy...

Paul

May 17 08 10:53 pm Link

Model

JM LA NYC

Posts: 481

Los Angeles, California, US

it's sick how some girls whom are 15 and 16 can pose topless but Miley gets her ass jumped all over because she did a "provocative" shot.. Makes me sick..


Where the hell are the mothers of these girls.. they remind me of Brooke Shields' momager.. Or how about Dina Lohan "It doesn't matter if you believe in it, It's money" just sing the song..


wth are with people these days ? no values sheesh..

May 17 08 10:59 pm Link

Photographer

M Pandolfo Photography

Posts: 12117

Tampa, Florida, US

Chris Keeling wrote:

Do you mean to tell me you are an activist for the right to shoot underage girls nude?

Mr. Hansen will be paying you a visit soon.

I don't think applauding the decision necessarily would make him an activist. Perhaps not being outraged by a place that doesn't see nudity as evil is considered "activism" in Illinois?

Is there the remote possibility that his applauding the decision doesn't mean he is brushing the puppet to photos of underage girls?

May 17 08 11:00 pm Link

Photographer

M Pandolfo Photography

Posts: 12117

Tampa, Florida, US

Atris Everson wrote:

Why cant you just wait until the model in question turns eighteen? Why do you have to get the early start? Today its 17 next year its 16... Jessica has had a great career but what if she would have wanted to be a lawyer or a judge someday? Its probably not going to happen. It just so happens that Jessica's pictures work for what she does today but lets think further to tomorrow!

Yes we should all be as fearful of our decisions as you suggest. Certainly that will eliminate any possibility for regret in our lives. Well, except the regret for having never done anything.

May 17 08 11:01 pm Link

Photographer

Tom Linkens

Posts: 6426

Lititz, Pennsylvania, US

KGToops Photography wrote:
hi im chris hanson with Dateline NBC and we are doing a story on...........

Kryckey! (sp) Chris Hanson?! *Pedo-Aussie shoots himself*

May 17 08 11:02 pm Link

Photographer

Sliver Photography

Posts: 423

Decatur, Georgia, US

Atris Everson wrote:
Why cant you just wait until the model in question turns eighteen? Why do you have to get the early start? Today its 17 next year its 16... Jessica has had a great career but what if she would have wanted to be a lawyer or a judge someday? Its probably not going to happen. It just so happens that Jessica's pictures work for what she does today but lets think further to tomorrow!

Before we go further, I'll have to ask you why 18 is your absolute.  In other words, let's say she turnes 18 on January 11th, but I shoot her on January 10th.  Here comes the aforementioned fucked -up logic.

May 17 08 11:03 pm Link