Xeris - Dwight wrote:

Why? Do you have some proof or reason to believe that the images are porno or sexually suggestive. Nudity, in and of itself, is NOT illegal. There need to be other factors involved.

Local home town newspaper headline reads:

Xeris-Dwight Photos Underage Girl Nude

A week later on page 15 it mentions that what you did might or might not be illegal.

Is that risk enough for you?

glenn my name today wrote:
case for the FBI.

you might even be able to get a reward for turning in this dangerous criminal.

but i bet it will be mighty cool around the thanksgiving table in a few months.

roflmao.

Kimberly Sun wrote:
My little 17 year old sister has started posing nude. She says she's not lying about her age to her affiliates, but she lies on her profile. I'm confused about what to do. I am concerned about her safety, future (as a model) and the careers of the people she works with.

No one including the parents have any control whatsoever over her. She turns 18 in November.

Should I contact authorities? Should I contact the photog(s) and inform them that she is currently 17?

Have you SEEN the photos?  are they inappropriate?

I know that is open to interpretation but it is what it is.

Do you want her to stop? If no, then mind your own business. If yes and she will not stop, then report her to law enforcement/DA.  I'd recommend you have evidence first so tthey can act on that rather than just your word.

Soft Shadows Art Photo wrote:
A minor is defined by any person under the age of 18....In this country it is ILLEGAL to photograph a minor nude without consent from the minors parent or guardian in writing and can still be considered child pornography.

StephenE wrote:
Please supply the actual law which states this.

We will be waiting for your response.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

How about this one as well?

speedsamurai wrote:
I am a prosecutor. It's illegal because it is legally defined as child porn. Contact me.

rustphoto wrote:
As per hundreds (maybe thousands) of posts here on MM, posing nude is not illegal for her, nor the photographer. Granted, she can't enter into a contract (not 18), so I don't think the images are usable in anything but a personal portfolio.

You are definitely wrong on this one... Posing nude is not illegal for her BUT it is for the photographer and is considered Child Pornography. Go read the federal law... This can result in a felony if the police and prosecutor decide to make an issue of it.

Scary-Ellen wrote:

lol! ya I noticed that....I also noticed that she is a managed model......I thought managed models were not allowed? *sorry for the threadjack*

Professionals have artist statements. And yes, I have an assistant who helps manage my modeling career.

Greg Kolack wrote:

Soft Shadows Art Photo wrote:
A minor is defined by any person under the age of 18....In this country it is ILLEGAL to photograph a minor nude without consent from the minors parent or guardian in writing and can still be considered child pornography.

StephenE wrote:
Please supply the actual law which states this.

We will be waiting for your response.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

How about this one as well?

I am just getting up to all the BS posts, one by one 

Its never ending.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Christopher Hartman wrote:

Have you SEEN the photos?  are they inappropriate?

I know that is open to interpretation but it is what it is.

Do you want her to stop? If no, then mind your own business. If yes and she will not stop, then report her to law enforcement/DA.  I'd recommend you have evidence first so tthey can act on that rather than just your word.

But is she doing anything illegal? Being a minor, even if she is doing sexually suggestive work, is she actually breaking the law?

I'm asking because I'm unsure - I'm not making a statement of fact.

Wouldn't only the photographers be breaking a law?

Kimberly Sun wrote:

Professionals have artist statements. And yes, I have an assistant who helps manage my modeling career.

do they have access to your portfolio and profile here?

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

PeterSalama Photography wrote:

You are definitely wrong on this one... Posing nude is not illegal for her BUT it is for the photographer and is considered Child Pornography. Go read the federal law... This can result in a felony if the police and prosecutor decide to make an issue of it.

Please cite the federal law of which you speak.

That makes three so far, by my count.

michaelsdigitalimaging wrote:
Please contact the photographers. They can do up to 15 years for each picture taken even if they had copies of ID's and a signed contract!

*cough* bullshit *cough*

If they're just nudes, they're not illegal. The images would actually have to cross into the realm of being sexual or pornographic.

Stephen Fletcher wrote:
Local home town newspaper headline reads:

Xeris-Dwight Photos Underage Girl Nude

A week later on page 15 it mentions that what you did might or might not be illegal.

Is that risk enough for you?

I did NOT say that there were no risks involved. You clearly made that up out of thin air, thanks for spreading innunedo. All I said, and I will stand by it, is that simple nudity by a minor is not, in and of itself, illegal. If you want to attack THAT, knock yourself out, otherwise please quit making stuff up.

PeterSalama Photography wrote:

You are definitely wrong on this one... Posing nude is not illegal for her BUT it is for the photographer and is considered Child Pornography. Go read the federal law... This can result in a felony if the police and prosecutor decide to make an issue of it.

Please cite the law that states a minor posing nude is child pornography.

Cogito Ergo Zoom wrote:

I call bullshit. Why say "the parents" instead of OUR parents. And what 17 yr old has affiliates?

Affiliates as in people who have worked on a team with her. IE MUA, Hair stylist etc.
FYI we have the same mom and different fathers.

PeterSalama Photography wrote:
Per the moderator here is the law.. You can read it for yourself:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html

You fail.

PeterSalama Photography wrote:
Per the moderator here is the law.. You can read it for yourself:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html

You just made yourself look like you can't read the law.

Everything in that statute uses the words "sexually explicit" - nothing in there says "nude."

Nude DOES NOT equal sexually explicit.

PeterSalama Photography wrote:

You are definitely wrong on this one... Posing nude is not illegal for her BUT it is for the photographer and is considered Child Pornography. Go read the federal law... This can result in a felony if the police and prosecutor decide to make an issue of it.

Please post a link to the relevant federal statute.

PeterSalama Photography wrote:
Per the moderator here is the law.. You can read it for yourself:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html

Sophistocles wrote:
You fail.

Chris -

Where do these people come from???!!!???

PeterSalama Photography wrote:
Per the moderator here is the law.. You can read it for yourself:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html

and you have put that up to prove me right?  that is very kind of you.

Since the shots are nude and not once mentioned to be pornographic you just showed a law which supprts there legality.

Thank you.  Which law school have you attended and where are you registered with the bar?

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

PeterSalama Photography wrote:
Per the moderator here is the law.. You can read it for yourself:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html

That does not say that posing NUDE is pornography or illegal for the model or the photographer. Want to try again?

Xeris - Dwight wrote:

Please post a link to the relevant federal statute.

He did - and doesn't even understand what it is saying.

PeterSalama Photography wrote:
Per the moderator here is the law.. You can read it for yourself:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html

Ok, and did you actually bother to read it yourself, no where in there does it say

Minor posed nude = illegal.

Greg Kolack wrote:
Where do these people come from???!!!???

Not Law School.

Sophistocles wrote:

You fail.

that was a failure of epic proportion!



Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

glenn my name today wrote:
case for the FBI.

you might even be able to get a reward for turning in this dangerous criminal.

but i bet it will be mighty cool around the thanksgiving table in a few months.

Glenn - I'm very surprised at you (even if you are joking): you know as well as any pro photographer that it is NOT illegal for the OP's sister to pose nude, just that it IS illegal for her to pose for porn.

Greg Kolack wrote:
He did - and doesn't even understand what it is saying.

Here's the definition of what they consider sexually explicit.

(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

if the minor being shot nude didn't exhibit any of those conditions, then its not illegal.

Besides that's just the record keeping regulation.

Sophistocles wrote:

Not Law School.

well the standards have been lowered 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Soft Shadows Art Photo wrote:
A minor is defined by any person under the age of 18....In this country it is ILLEGAL to photograph a minor nude without consent from the minors parent or guardian in writing and can still be considered child pornography.

Brian Diaz wrote:
Can you please cite the law that states that?  Thanks.

Thank you Brian.

Greg Kolack wrote:

He did - and doesn't even understand what it is saying.

I think he did not read it or he is abjectly illiterate.

StephenE wrote:

that was a failure of epic proportion!



Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

It amazes me someone who make a claim like that, then post the law to back it up which actually proves them wrong!

WTF.

Seems like a brigging for stating balatantly wrong info in an industry thread is due.

PeterSalama Photography wrote:

You are definitely wrong on this one... Posing nude is not illegal for her BUT it is for the photographer and is considered Child Pornography. Go read the federal law... This can result in a felony if the police and prosecutor decide to make an issue of it.

Sorry, dude.   You've been mislead.

Xeris - Dwight wrote:

I did NOT say that there were no risks involved. You clearly made that up out of thin air, thanks for spreading innunedo. All I said, and I will stand by it, is that simple nudity by a minor is not, in and of itself, illegal. If you want to attack THAT, knock yourself out, otherwise please quit making stuff up.

Read the post you were responding to.  The subject was the Photographer getting in trouble while not doing anything that was illegal.  If you think I was spreading innunendo about you, I was not.  I was just pointing out the danger a photographer might be in if a local newspaper or other media chose to make a big issue about it.