A slice of oblivion wrote:
Welcome to the wonderful world of Free Will.  Don't like it?  You don't have to look at it.  If you think the photographer is breaking the law, then CAM it.  Otherwise, MYOB.

That's the problem!  Too many people minding their own business and not doing anything.

Marc Grant wrote:

That's the problem!  Too many people minding their own business and not doing anything.

Now, cmon.  There's no reason to believe, from what was said, that any laws were broken.  I'm a firm believer of everyone doing their part, and it's not my part to police every child in the world.  That's what parents and local law enforcement are for.  If the kids are being exploited, then by all means contact someone.  But if no laws are being broken, write your congressman/woman to request they sponsor a bill to change the child pornography or child labor laws.

J Cloud wrote:

Now, cmon.  There's no reason to believe, from what was said, that any laws were broken.  I'm a firm believer of everyone doing their part, and it's not my part to police every child in the world.  That's what parents and local law enforcement are for.  If the kids are being exploited, then by all means contact someone.  But if no laws are being broken, write your congressman/woman to request they sponsor a bill to change the child pornography or child labor laws.

Do you really need a law to tell you not to shoot 12 year old girls in suggestive clothing and poses?

Marc Grant wrote:
Do you really need a law to tell you not to shoot 12 year old girls in suggestive clothing and poses?

I don't. And clearly, neither do you.

Now, explain to me how what someone else does is, in any way, shape, or form, your business.

Don't concern yourself with "right" or "wrong," stick to the facts and the law.

(Hint: If you think the law is wrong in that it allows this, have you written your representatives? Have you run for office or advocated for a change in legislation?)

Sophistocles wrote:

I don't. And clearly, neither do you.

Now, explain to me how what someone else does is, in any way, shape, or form, your business.

Don't concern yourself with "right" or "wrong," stick to the facts and the law.

(Hint: If you think the law is wrong in that it allows this, have you written your representatives? Have you run for office or advocated for a change in legislation?)

Why do you think someone would photograph a 12 year old girl as described above?  In the name of art?  lol.......   I think you're wanted over on the forum at www.brandnewlawyers.com. 

Eye of Ra wrote:
Miley Cyrus - Annie Leibovitz

Don't really need to say much more than that.  Regardless of your personal views, this issue has been in the news recently, and it seems the public, and the courts (through lack of any litigation) have spoken...

Rahul

ugh. There was nothing sexual, provocative, lewd, etc etc about the Miley Cyrus/Annie Leibovitz shot. It probably covered more of her than some of the outfits she wears on her shows/in her concerts (and far more than the pictures from her cell phone).

I think comparing THAT shot to shots of 12 year olds in stripper heels, erotic/fetish outfits, and other such overtly sexual attire and posing is ridiculous.



That said, everyone has a right to be offended (or not) by whatever they want. It's not everyone's right to decide what others can and can't do based on whether they are offended or not. Laws are there for a reason. If something is legal, there isn't much you can do about it other than let it go or lobby to get the law changed.

Not saying photos like that are "right" or that people should be encouraged to do them. Personally, I find them quite disturbing and do wonder about the motives and thought-processes of the photographers who take them. But unless it's illegal (which, in many places, it is) there isn't much you can do about it short of changing the laws.

Marc Grant wrote:
Why do you think someone would photograph a 12 year old girl as described above?  In the name of art?  lol.......   I think you're wanted over on the forum at www.brandnewlawyers.com. 

You deliberately ignored the question and, instead, levied a personal attack.

Bravo.

I'll ask it again: right or wrong, how do you justify making it your business? Be specific.

Eye of Ra wrote:
Miley Cyrus - Annie Leibovitz

Don't really need to say much more than that.  Regardless of your personal views, this issue has been in the news recently, and it seems the public, and the courts (through lack of any litigation) have spoken...

Rahul

that's a HUGELY bad example. There was NOTHING suggestive about the photos she took. I'm tired of those so called "PROTECTORS of CHILDREN" coming into the world of REAL photography and trying to imply that we're ALL sex offenders with cameras. While I don't take photos of underage girls in Maxim style lingerie, the fashion world does this shit all the time and it's completely ok. I don't necessarily condone it, but it's NOT against the law in the US.

I remember growing up where a neighbor could make an innocent comment about your 4 year old being cute and the mother took it as a compliment. In today's day and age, she'd report him to the police and tell them he was making sexual advances towards her daughter.

I'm all for stopping sexual exploitation of children and I abhore child predators, but this BS extremism has to stop some where.

Marc Grant wrote:
Do you really need a law to tell you not to shoot 12 year old girls in suggestive clothing and poses?

I have a casting call up for nude silhouettes and fashion style lingerie on a casting service.   The casting notice is for models 18-28.

I got a variety of submissions and one particularly cute model.  I sent her an e-mail and asked her to call to set up an audition.  I got a response from the girl's mother.

I asked the mother how old her daughter was and she said seventeen.  She said not to worry though, she has already graduated high school and doesn't need a work permit.

I asked her when she will be turning eighteen.  She said on September 3rd.  I made an appointment to shoot her on September 4th.  End of discussion with her.

I have shot plenty of twelve and thirteen year old models.  I make them look twelve or thirteen, not twenty.  I agree with the OP's POV.

Sarah Threlkeld wrote:
I just got really offended by a photographer's work. I am all for crazy art. But this wasn't exactly "professional" style work... this photographer has shots of a little girl (Maybe 10-12?) in a short skirt, revealing top and heels in provocative poses.. To me, it was horrifying! I was like, where is this girl's mother?!

But there were a lot of comments on there from female models who were all for it. The majority of his other pictures included girls who obviously looked way underage in stripper heels, thongs, school girl outfits... (I didn't check ID's so they might have been of age) but it was like, whoa, pervert. I felt it was glorified kiddie porn, am I just overreacting?!
I was offended. Perhaps its just a taboo? I understand the demand for girls who can fit into a "teen porn" category, yes. But I don't understand the need to photograph a prepubescent child in 4 inch heels and booty skirt and revealing tops in provocative poses even slightly ethical in our society! And to boot, the poses of the faux kiddie porn around it...

Would the learned discussion be more fruitful IF YOU SHOWED THE IMAGE AT QUESTION OR AT LEAST A LINK?

Perhaps you are hypoxic or have repture of the deep, and your perceptions are inaccurate?

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
I remember a highly paid supermodel that made a particular movie. I believe she was 12-13 at the time:

Brooke Shields, she of the 6' stature and Groucho Marx eyebrows and stagemom who frightened the Bismarck, was well over 13 at the time she starred in Blue Lagoon. Brooke was already so tell, though, that when the walked with or interacted with her co-star, the moviemakers would make a trench or hole in the sand, or put him up an apple box so she wouldn't tower over him.

glamour pics wrote:

Brooke Shields, she of the 6' stature and Groucho Marx eyebrows and stagemom who frightened the Bismarck, was well over 13 at the time she starred in Blue Lagoon. Brooke was already so tell, though, that when the walked with or interacted with her co-star, the moviemakers would make a trench or hole in the sand, or put him up an apple box so she wouldn't tower over him.

yes, but like it or not, it still makes the point clear. It's NOT against the law. Do I think that photographers ought to dress up 12 year olds in Fredericks of Hollywood lingerie and do photos of them? NO. Is it against the law if it's shot in the US with the parents written permission? NO.

ei Total Productions wrote:
I have a casting call up for nude silhouettes and fashion style lingerie on a casting service.   The casting notice is for models 18-28.

I got a variety of submissions and one particularly cute model.  I sent her an e-mail and asked her to call to set up an audition.  I got a response from the girl's mother.

I asked the mother how old her daughter was and she said seventeen.  She said not to worry though, she has already graduated high school and doesn't need a work permit.

I asked her when she will be turning eighteen.  She said on September 3rd.  I made an appointment to shoot her on September 4th.  End of discussion with her.

I have shot plenty of twelve and thirteen year old models.  I make them look twelve or thirteen, not twenty.  I agree with the OP's POV.

Thanks Alan!  It's always nice to hear a wise voice of reasoning.  Unless I'm mistaken, most people don't photograph their kids in order to become aroused by it and since most don't, that means that those who do deviate from the norm would be considered an aberration or a perversion. 

Change the laws?  They are already in place to protect those, who they feel need it, and yet many times the kids who've been sexually molested are released back to the abusive parents and there is always a lawyer there arguing the parents case.  So much for the "system" ...  eh?

PS....  please stop comparing the GWC's on here to Annie or other famous photographers.

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
I remember a highly paid supermodel that made a particular movie. I believe she was 12-13 at the time:

Broke was 15/16 years old here, before The Blue Lagoon she did Pretty Baby at age 13; in it she was also totally nude

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:

yes, but like it or not, it still makes the point clear. It's NOT against the law. Do I think that photographers ought to dress up 12 year olds in Fredericks of Hollywood lingerie and do photos of them? NO. Is it against the law if it's shot in the US with the parents written permission? NO.

The law has changed. If you shot the identical film today, with an underaged female star, it would be illegal. And the okay of the battleship-level stagemom does not change things; parental consent does not trump federal law.

Sophistocles wrote:
Blue Lagoon - bad example. Body doubles were used. Oh well.

Haha, I remember an interview with her when she was about sixteen or seventeen, (she was fifteen when the movie was made).  She was complaining that her "buppie pads" itched.  They glued her hair to pads and then used spirit gum to attach the pads to her nipples.  She didn't like it.

On the other hand, he was starkers, but he was over eighteen.

Bean L wrote:
This reminds me of the Miley Cyrus thing in Vanity Fair for some reason. Hm.

Except Miley wasn't even close to nude.

a HUMAN ad wrote:
Bruce Webber has also shot many underage males and females in the nude, implied and topless, a few years back he got some heat for shooting underage models for the Arbercrombie catalogs and instore posters.

Photographers should be aware of the considerable hypocrisy and double standards.

The major movie companies are not bothered, even for clearly illegal shooting. In addition, the lawmakers are trying hard to give them special status under 18 USC 2257 and other statutes. It is also true that there are legislative moves to increase copyright protection for movies and music, while at the same time stripping it from still photographers via the "Orphan Works" bill.

By contrast, Sally Mann has been threatened off and on, and in a highly-publicized case, Jock Sturgis was raided and abused in San Francisco. As to Webber, I question whether the models in the homo-erotic Abercrombie and Fitch catalogs were underage. I do know that a high-up in Abercrombie & Filth bragged about managing to get "the great gay photography Weber" to shoot the catalog.

The movie industry gets away with a lot of stuff. That doesn't mean a "little guy" can safely shoot sexy stuff with underaged girls. Or guys.

ei Total Productions wrote:

Except Miley wasn't even close to nude.

I know. I was so upset that there was even a deal about it. It's like we don't have anything else to talk about anymore.

I actually thought the photo was nice.

Schlake wrote:
Pictures of topless 12 year olds seem to be worth big money.  And I believe they come with a description of the Supreme Court ruling that they are legal too.

http://www.amazon.com/Anjos-Probidos-Fo … 888425172/

Would be great if someone had a link to the Supreme Court ruling or the case number

glamour pics wrote:
Brooke Shields,

She was well and truly underage when she did the nude scenes in Pretty Baby.

Brooke Shields
Date of Birth:
31 May 1965,

Pretty Baby
Release Date:
5 April 1978

12y+10 months+6 days, more or less, on the release date but younger, yet, when it was actually shot

Studio36