ZingArts wrote:
I'm shocked about the blood and gore I see on MM. And some really trashy looking crap as well. Let's get a law against that too. Don't you go peeking now.

I'm shocked as well. I'd take a implied nude with a minor (I think of innocent angels?) over some of that stuff any day.

But that's just me. As long as the parents agree and it's not exploiting the child/the kid is okay with it. Why not?

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.

Where did someone say it was against the law?  I sure didn't.  I believe it's wrong but I didn't say it's against the law.  We're not talking about a young movie star or some well known Hollywood producer and we're not talking Annie Leibowitz, Herb Ritz, Ansel Adams or Greg Norman.  We're talking about an amateur photographer on Model Mayhem posing young girls suggestively and most everyone is fine with it.  I'm not and that's all I said.  That's my opinion!

glamour pics wrote:

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.

show me the exact federal law.

Marc Grant wrote:

Where did someone say it was against the law?  I sure didn't.  I believe it's wrong but I didn't say it's against the law.  We're not talking about a young movie star or some well known Hollywood producer and we're not talking Annie Leibowitz, Herb Ritz, Ansel Adams or Greg Norman.  We're talking about an amateur photographer on Model Mayhem posing young girls suggestively and most everyone is fine with it.  I'm not and that's all I said.  That's my opinion!

I'm not either Mark...but once again...since it's not against the law, what business is it of yours or mine, what someone else does?

glamour pics wrote:

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.

I agree with you, it is hypocritical, Hollywood and the Entertainment business does have lots of power and influence and it is for that reason that they can get away with many things that those that are not in that circle can not.

As to Bruce Weber and the homo-erotic Abercrombie and Fitch catalogs, the models were under age, he and Abercrombie had been doing tis for many years, until one day, the wrong person walked in one of their stores and started a protest. Abercrombie and Fitch removed them but Brice contnues to do as he has done before, he even owns a modeling agency in NYC

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
I'm not either Mark...but once again...since it's not against the law, what business is it of yours or mine, what someone else does?

I'm not so sure why everyone keeps asking what business is it of mine?  It's none of my business unless I choose to fight it but that doesn't stop me from speaking my mind.  Obviously we wouldn't be a free nation if EVERYTHING we did was governed by some sort of law.  There are common sense things that you just know.  I know it's wrong to do what the guy is doing.  Would the law see it as such?  Maybe..  what if he has a PC full illegal photos of young kids?  We don't know that he does and we don't know that he doesn't but the odds that he does are probably greater that does not.

If it walks like a duck.............

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:

show me the exact federal law.

Wrong, most recent example of this is Dakota Fanning who was 12 years old when she had the lead in the movie HOUNDOG. Filming began when she was 12 she played a 1950s girl who gyrates in her underwear,
wakes up as her naked father climbs into her bed, demands that
a prepubescent boy expose himself to her in exchange for a kiss
and, finally, is raped by a teenager who lures her with tickets to
an Elvis concert.

Marc Grant wrote:

I'm not so sure why everyone keeps asking what business is it of mine?  It's none of my business unless I choose to fight it but that doesn't stop me from speaking my mind.  Obviously we wouldn't be a free nation if EVERYTHING we did was governed by some sort of law.  There are common sense things that you just know.  I know it's wrong to do what the guy is doing.  Would the law see it as such?  Maybe..  what if he has a PC full illegal photos of young kids?  We don't know that he does and we don't know that he doesn't but the odds that he does are probably greater that does not.

If it walks like a duck.............

Mark...we're in agreement...but OP never posted an example of what she meant. It could just as easily have been that the OP is a religious prude and that the "images in question" were those of a 12 year old wearing a bikini.
It just seems everyone always has to take things to extremes. There's either a pervert with a camera taking naked sex photos of a 12 year old or a REAL photographer taking artistic images that will sell in most art galleries in the US. The problem lies with the extremists who cry for a photographer's head when he's doing legal work.

Marc Grant wrote:
If it walks like a duck.............

... then it's likely a duck. The problem is that ducks aren't illegal, some people like them, and you're on some kind of crusade to make ducks illegal because they might lead to, oh, I don't know, dancing!

Stop being so moralistic and live your own life, lest we start examining what legal yet questionable things you like or do.

Hypocrisy is never pretty.

glamour pics wrote:
Brooke Shields,

studio36uk wrote:
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

And as a result we ended up with 18 USC 2256.  What do you think was the impetus for it?

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
Mark...we're in agreement...but OP never posted an example of what she meant. It could just as easily have been that the OP is a religious prude and that the "images in question" were those of a 12 year old wearing a bikini.
It just seems everyone always has to take things to extremes. There's either a pervert with a camera taking naked sex photos of a 12 year old or a REAL photographer taking artistic images that will sell in most art galleries in the US. The problem lies with the extremists who cry for a photographer's head when he's doing legal work.

One problem is, that there are people out there that are hypocritical, they are the ones that will pay to see those movies (Pretty Baby, Blue Lagoon, Houndog, watch TV shows, etc. that have underage models) and then report someone that has complied with the law. The unfortunate thing is that when a report if filed, often times police do not investigate, the small time photgrapher gets arrested, it is televised. After a through investigation begins, he/she is relased, charges are dropped but he/she is no longer able to get work since he/she has been convicted by the ignorant viewing public and his/her name is forever of the news medias web pages.

Charlie D Mestre wrote:
it all starts in the family, if the parents dont mind.......

it starts when someone complains to the authorities, even if the parent where precent during the shoot and signed a consent release - if you are a small time photographer and complied with the law, you may still be arrested, even if you are innocent. However if will not happen if you are a big time hollywood production company

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...

I've never been an advocate for such a demeaning practice and I do find it offensive.  This has been an interesting post & caught my attention, and yet people will do as they please with or without laws and societal condemptions.

just *throw rocks* at those people and call it a day

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?!

Not to worry. She's a member of the Chinese Olympic gymnastic team and she's 18. Really. Her passport says so.

Kailey Ibsen wrote:
but you can't conclude that a person's reason or motive for watching a movie like Pretty Baby was the naked underage girl. It wasn't porn and was obviously publicly released with a huge production team behind it.

I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment. You govern against hypocrisy, but you can arrest a person with child born on their computer.

The laws we are discussing now, were not in place during the production and release of Pretty Baby, so its irrelevant now in the question of whether or not a photographer could potentially be prosecuted for suggestive yet non-pornographic photos of a young girl.......and the answer is many, many not. You would have to take into a account the attorneys on both sides, the judge, and the jury. 

Again, if you want free cable..

The authorities are hypocritical and bias, it's ok if you are a production company, large firm etc., often times they have NO NEED TO INVESTIGATE, but if you are small time, you get arrested first and questions get asked later.

As to the viewing public, I never mentioned motive (why they decided to watch said movie, show, etc.,) the point I hoped I had made, was that there are individuals that watch them for what ever reason and report it to the authorities if it happens to be a small time photographer shooting something similar. They applaud if it's for Arberbrobie but report if it's not - even if it was in compliance with the law.

a HUMAN ad wrote:

The authorities are hypocritical and bias, it's ok if you are a production company, large firm etc., often times they have NO NEED TO INVESTIGATE, but if you are small time, you get arrested first and questions get asked later.

As to the viewing public, I never mentioned motive (why they decided to watch said movie, show, etc.,) the point I hoped I had made, was that there are individuals that watch them for what ever reason and report it to the authorities if it happens to be a small time photographer shooting something similar. They applaud if it's for Arberbrobie but report if it's not - even if it was in compliance with the law.

Kailey Ibsen wrote:
I didn't quote you, so I didn't mean to respond directly to your comments. There wee different laws in place now and again I haven't seen Pretty Baby, but a film would not be released even through a big production company if it was concluded to contain material of child exploitation.

Everyone needs to be responsible....its easy to monitor major films that are released than the work of every photographer...and parents really....though there may be exceptions and parents that didn't sign and really did not know it was going on, they should know where there children are and use good judgment and raise children that have good judgment themselves.

I take no specific side in this, since there has not been one specific photo we are discussing. I was a 14 old girl once and I wore heals and thongs I just didn't have any picture taken of it and I wore clothing over my thongs. I just hope that the safety and dignity of children is upheld by all people, including their parents and the children themselves.

But I am confident that you have seen many movies, tv shows, fashion magazines, runway shows that have underage models wearing sheer garnments, have been filmed or photographed topless, implied nudes and doing love scenes; some examples Desperate House Wifes, Weeds, Californication and the ever so pupular Fashion TV, not to mentione coutless of Primetime TV shows, which I am certain you have watched and continue to watch.

Kailey Ibsen wrote:
I didn't quote you, so I didn't mean to respond directly to your comments. There wee different laws in place now and again I haven't seen Pretty Baby, but a film would not be released even through a big production company if it was concluded to contain material of child exploitation.

Everyone needs to be responsible....its easy to monitor major films that are released than the work of every photographer...and parents really....though there may be exceptions and parents that didn't sign and really did not know it was going on, they should know where there children are and use good judgment and raise children that have good judgment themselves.

I take no specific side in this, since there has not been one specific photo we are discussing. I was a 14 old girl once and I wore heals and thongs I just didn't have any picture taken of it and I wore clothing over my thongs. I just hope that the safety and dignity of children is upheld by all people, including their parents and the children themselves.

But I am confident that you have seen many movies, tv shows, fashion magazines, runway shows that have underage models wearing sheer garnments, have been filmed or photographed topless, implied nudes and doing love scenes; some examples Desperate House Wifes, Weeds, Californication and the ever so pupular Fashion TV, not to mention coutless of Primetime TV shows, which I am certain you have watched and will continue to watch.

Kailey Ibsen wrote:
Everyone needs to be responsible....its easy to monitor major films that are released than the work of every photographer...and parents really....though there may be exceptions and parents that didn't sign and really did not know it was going on, they should know where there children are and use good judgment and raise children that have good judgment themselves.

I'm impressed.  Only 20 years old and you understand the difference in the 2 scenarios that grown men can't see.

bradyhall wrote:
It is entirely possible to be an utter scumbag and not break any laws.

lol, I agree, but my defenition of scumm bag may be different then yours. I concider Donald Trump a scum bag.

a HUMAN ad wrote:

But I am confident that you have seen many movies, tv shows, fashion magazines, runway shows that have underage models wearing sheer garnments, have been filmed or photographed topless, implied nudes and doing love scenes; some examples Desperate House Wifes, Weeds, Californication and the ever so pupular Fashion TV, not to mentione coutless of Primetime TV shows, which I am certain you have watched and continue to watch.

Kailey Ibsen wrote:
You should not assume that and will not make assumptions about you. I live in a cabin in Alaska without cable, so on the specific matter of watching those tv shows, I do not.

But again we are not discussing a specific photo and not every photo of underage persons with little clothing, even by small based photographers, are exploiting.

The point I was making is that legally they don't need to be actually performing sexual acts in order to be exploited, and depending on the case, it is prosecutable. 

I haven't stated my opinion about anyones specific work, I'm just saying its not impossible to be hit be charges....right or wrong.

I was not being specific to those TV shows, and even if you live in Alaska, I am confident you have seen or read or viewed some of the things I have mentioned before, be it a TV show, a Movie, a Magazine, Store Ads, etc, etc., most of which are sexually suggestive - as they say in the Entertainment Biz  "sex sells".

a HUMAN ad wrote:

I was not being specific to those TV shows, and even if you live in Alaska, I am confident you have seen or read or viewed some of the things I have mentioned before, be it a TV show, a Movie, a Magazine, etc, etc, etc.,

Kailey Ibsen wrote:
That is not relevant to the question of whether or not there are laws that will protect children who have in clear definition of the word, been exploited.

The moral issue at hand and my personal opinions are a whole other conversation.

A million fallacies can be found of both sides of the argument of whether or not it is okay to shoot underage models unclothed or mostly unclothed.  That argument would never end.

And that is the precise problem, which I am refering to as HYPOCRITIAL. The law should be equal to all, if Hollywood and Ad Agencies (umong others) can do so, so can everyone else. You either can shoot a minor in the nude or not, can shoot them topless or not, can shoot them implied or not, can shoot them posed in a suggestive way or not (even is they are wearing clothes). If this were so, this post would not be here and we would not be discussing it.

J Cloud wrote:
Nudity is not necessarily porn.  Now, personally, I don't want to see a 12 year old naked or even implied naked.  But there is no law against it as far as I know.  Click away.

Yes there is.
There was a family that took photos at a nude beach with their child and they got arrested for it.

Primal Graphics Imaging wrote:
there are laws against under age nude/implied or anything sexual in an image. Depends on the state and country your in or shooting in.

As for me keep it with the 18 and up.

And in those same states or countries you are talking about, the public sees under age models/actors) nude, topless & implied) movies, TV shows, magazine ads, etc. and the authorities are not going after those who produced said materials (Film, TV show, Magazine ad, etc.)

bradyhall wrote:
It is entirely possible to be an utter scumbag and not break any laws.

no matter what you do, there's someone out there who thinks you're a scumbag.
some people think that michaelangelo's david is pornographic.
some people think two-piece bikinis are too revealing.
etc etc.

J Cloud wrote:
Nudity is not necessarily porn.  Now, personally, I don't want to see a 12 year old naked or even implied naked.  But there is no law against it as far as I know.  Click away.

photos1000 wrote:
Yes there is.
There was a family that took photos at a nude beach with their child and they got arrested for it.

Which law prohibits photos of nude 12 year olds? You say "Yes there is" - so I'd appreciate you pointing us to your source.

Arrest is not equal to conviction.

photos1000 wrote:
Yes there is.
There was a family that took photos at a nude beach with their child and they got arrested for it.

Arrested is one thing, found guilty is another, none the less, hypocritical - The family can go to the beach, be naked, seen naked by everyone there, but the moment you take a picture it's unlawful.

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

why dont you go back in time a little more to brooke shields in pretty baby (im not putting a screen cap up but look it up, shes really young and compleetly naked in it) shes younger in that movie then blue lagoon

Hooah productions wrote:

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

why dont you go back in time a little more to brooke shields in pretty baby (im not putting a screen cap up but look it up, shes really young and compleetly naked in it) shes younger in that movie then blue lagoon

ei Total Productions wrote:

glamour pics wrote:
Brooke Shields,

studio36uk wrote:
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