|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
underage nudes and the law
I'm wondering who made this collage. It certainly paints a different picture of adolescent nudity in photos and the law than you hear around here most of the time. http://www.charlesbeckwith.com/gagimage … enudes.jpg* *I copied it to my own server because the link I was sent went to a page on an adult site, and we're not allowed to link to porn sites from MM. Feb 07 09 10:27 am Link I don't know about anyone else here, but I have no desire to have my name immortalized in legal precedence.  Feb 07 09 10:33 am Link Unfortunately the collage only points out the age of the models....nothing specific on each shot....like where published, and if there were specific court cases involving those photos. There are cases listed in the bottom corner....but who knows what they involve.....I'm not going to try to seach for them and read any citiations, etc.....probably wouldn't understand them completely since I am not a lawyer. To be worthwhile, this thread would need specific cases listed with a synopsis.....IMHO. This thread will probably go to hell real quick, once someone comments on the "morals" aspect..... Feb 07 09 10:37 am Link are you sure you want to host something that is no doubt considered illegal on your own server? Feb 07 09 10:38 am Link PashaPhoto wrote: Did you seriously just ask that? or was that sarcasm? Feb 07 09 10:42 am Link I remember that series of shots of Drew Barrymore in Interview magazine which is or was a news stand magazine. I never knew she was only 17 when those were shot. Feb 07 09 10:44 am Link I saw some pics in there that were pics taken from films. Are you sure they werent pics of young looking women portraying younger ones. IE the american beauty pic wasnt just a baby faced 19 yr old girl portraying a 16 yr old? This doesnt make a lot of sense to me, as I dont know of any film company that would hire an underage girl to do a topless shot...plus her bewbs are too big to be 16, lol. :-p Feb 07 09 10:45 am Link Jack Silver wrote: no... i asked that question with all seriousness... Feb 07 09 10:50 am Link Victoria Julison wrote: Plenty of 16 yrs. old walking around with big boobies believe me. Feb 07 09 10:52 am Link Those are beautiful shots. Being nude and underage is not a crime. Sexually explicit acts caught on film with minors is. People take things too far sometimes. They just look at the hype and mob mentality and everything that is done of anyone underage all the sudden becomes porn. Feb 07 09 10:54 am Link Victoria Julison wrote: Yes, Thora Birch was under 18. Also, Brooke Shield's was in a number of films. I can't remember if Milla Jovovich was nude or not in RETURN TO THE BLUE LAGOON. Feb 07 09 10:54 am Link Victoria Julison wrote: Per IMDB, Thora Birch was born in March 1982 and 'American Beauty' was released in 1999. So yes, chances are she was really 16 when it was filmed. Feb 07 09 10:56 am Link For those interested in the case law. The last case listed: United States v. Various Articles of Merchandise Schedule No. 287 (2000) Was a customs case heard on appeal in the 3rd US Ct. Court of Appeals that may be searchable by the name "Alessandra Smiles" or possibly "Alessandra's Smile" I have a copy of it around somewhere. Alternatively you might find a list of 3rd Ct. cases for that year [e.g. on FindLaw] and it should be coupled with the name. The subject of the case was the importation of a quantity of out-of-print European nudist magazines containing predominantly images of children in a nudist context. The court found in favor of the importer. Studio36 Feb 07 09 11:01 am Link PashaPhoto wrote: I hope you mean because of possible copyright issues. Feb 07 09 11:05 am Link Jason Todd Ipson wrote: Yes, she was. Feb 07 09 11:07 am Link The rest of the world treats what Americans call underage nudity quite differently. While most of the world celebrates the human form the US would much rather legislate against it. Is it right or wrong? Well, in the USA itâs illegal. Feb 07 09 11:09 am Link As a storyteller and a believer in defending the 1st Amendment before your own life, the idea that something which happens in life cannot be portrayed even staged in an image because of some prior legal restraint is appalling to me. Feb 07 09 11:11 am Link JoJo Suicide wrote: For the umpteen millionth time: NO. IT. IS. NOT. Feb 07 09 11:12 am Link JoJo Suicide wrote: Not according to the claims of the image I posted, which appear to be legitimate. Feb 07 09 11:14 am Link PashaPhoto wrote: You made the claim. Back it up. How is the OP's pic "no doubt" illegal? Feb 07 09 11:16 am Link JoJo Suicide wrote: While I'll agree that as a nation, we can't seem to come to an agreement as to what constitutes obscenity or pornography, can you cite specifics on your comment that portrayal of underage nudes is illegal (at least that's what I interpreted from your comment)? I've read several of the threads on here relative to 2257 documentation requirements, but don't recall any cites that talk to the illegality of shooting underage nudes..... Feb 07 09 11:17 am Link There is nothing wrong with taking nudes of people under the age of 18 as long as there is nothing erotic or suggestive in the photograph or their posing. I learned these rules when i went to take pictures of a nudist family with a 14 y.o daughter Feb 07 09 11:19 am Link Is that the same Andrew Slater that has an account here? Maybe you can ask him about it. Feb 07 09 11:20 am Link My 2c is there are far too many people over the age of 18 willing to pose in the buff to ever shoot a minor nude! Danger! Danger Will Robinson!!  Feb 07 09 11:22 am Link SunArcher - Shreveport wrote: there is nothing to back up... i said it's considered illegal... Feb 07 09 11:24 am Link PashaPhoto wrote: Well, as I said, I'm one of those people who believes in defending the 1st Amendment before your own life, and I'm not going to hide from non-existent laws or the misconceived perceptions of the ignorant masses. Anyone I actually want to work with will most likely understand that image. Feb 07 09 11:28 am Link PashaPhoto wrote: Photobucket doesn't allow nudity, underage or no. Feb 07 09 11:30 am Link We have "perceptions" of the law, "opinions" of the law, etc., etc., etc....versus "the law"....and I think that was the point of the OP. Feb 07 09 11:32 am Link We need an organization like the NRA, but for photography and filmmaking. "From my cold dead hands!" I wish the PPA would stand up a bit more, but I think they have a wedding to go to.  Feb 07 09 11:35 am Link PashaPhoto wrote: Riiiiiiiight..."no doubt illegal" is referring to perception? Sorry, I'm calling BS. PashaPhoto wrote: That may be the whole point of the OP: lack of fear. What does it matter? If it's not illegal, so what? Feb 07 09 11:37 am Link I'm going to have to agree that photographing nude minors is not inherently illegal, although it may be in certain specific situations. That being said (and no fear mongering intended), we still have to deal with the attitudes of our communities which means that the technical legal aspects are not the end-all, be-all for a business. If your viewers, or community, is more restrictive than the law . . . that's the audience I think you should cater to. Just my $0.02 Mike Feb 07 09 11:44 am Link steelprism wrote: I cater to those who keep my lights on and my refrigerator full. Replace "viewers or community" with that and I'd half agree with you. Feb 07 09 11:47 am Link Underage nudity is clearly not inherently illegal, and that's actually a good, informative poster. That said, something can be legal and still be socially unacceptable enough that it can destroy your business or reputation and create a hell of a lot of misery for you. The sad fact is that in most of the US, a photographer could produce a nude photo of a 16 year old that was perfectly legal and had enormous artistic merit, be arrested and prosecuted and win in court, but still be tagged as a sex offender, fired from his day job, blacklisted by the business community, harassed by the police, and essentially run out of business. I certainly wouldn't want to go to jail, but that is not the fear that underlies my policy of no underage nudes. Feb 07 09 11:47 am Link SunArcher - Shreveport wrote: Good point - how about I meet you halfway and just add clients/customers to the list. Some communities have very noisy inhabitants when they discover something they don't agree with. Feb 07 09 11:50 am Link Tim Hammond wrote: I'm sorry, but you lost me. Either you're really an artist or you're not. If that image is the story you need to tell, you tell it, and damn the consequences. If you're just taking pictures of 16 year-olds in the nude because it turns you on, you probably should be in jail. Feb 07 09 11:53 am Link steelprism wrote: Deal. And some communities just have noisy inhabitants. Feb 07 09 11:54 am Link SunArcher - Shreveport wrote: PashaPhoto wrote: Riiiiiiiight..."no doubt illegal" is referring to perception? Sorry, I'm calling BS. PashaPhoto wrote: it's strange how not reading a word changes the whole perception of what was said... Feb 07 09 12:00 pm Link Have Pentax Will Travel wrote: WTF! So if you're "really an artist" you can't have a day job? If you're "really an artist" your reputation in the community and ability to earn a living means nothing? And if it does, your only motivation for photographing nudes must be for a turn on? What a load of crap. Feb 07 09 12:00 pm Link Tim Hammond wrote: No. I'm saying if you're dedicated to your art, it comes before anything else. Feb 07 09 12:01 pm Link Have Pentax Will Travel wrote: And I'm saying that's a load of crap. It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where artists could put art above all else, but that's not the case. We have to earn a living. We have to function in our communities. We have to watch out for the welfare of our families. There are other things just as important as art and, although it's an ugly shame, there are people - probably a majority of people in the US - who will destroy those things for artists who put art above them. Feb 07 09 12:05 pm Link |
