Lynn Helms Photography wrote:

I don't know that this is true. There are lots of Asian markets specifically for 'older men to take advantage' of children. I doubt that all the customers are American. I imagine this is true in other parts of the world as well. We just talk about our shit more than other countries.

I always want to raise the question, when such assertions are made, if this is really factual. While there have been a handful of truly perverted people victimizing children in the news, they were only a handful, and they were hyped repeatedly for many days at a time, across all outlets.

The sexual offenders registration lists are overflowing -- with high school sweethearts who later marry, with rapists who target adults as well as youth, and with those caught just reading stuff on the internet. There was one case in Ohio where a man was imprisoned and forced to register for writing his fantasies so he wourldn't act them out.

So, I'm not sure I really buy this explosion of exploitation. I think it happens much more often in Asia and the less developed countries than in the US.

bencook2 wrote:
But, any "expert" witness that suggested marketability is an indicator for artistic merit would be on my shit list.  I do see how a prosecuting attorney would confuse marketability with merit... but not an artist.

You missed my point. Artistic merit is not related to the 1st Amendment, but attempting to publish your work is. The rejection letters would represent an attempt to be published. Any record of an attempt to be published is better than nothing if you're trying to claim freedom of the press.

RJ Ohrstedt wrote:
The sexual offenders registration lists are overflowing -- with high school sweethearts who later marry, with rapists who target adults as well as youth, and with those caught just reading stuff on the internet. There was one case in Ohio where a man was imprisoned and forced to register for writing his fantasies so he wourldn't act them out.

This bothers me too, because a decent list of actual dangerous predators would be such a usefull thing.  However, these "sexual predator" lists have become so diluted with all the silly frivilous things they are calling or twisting into "sex crimes" just to further political careers, just makes the lists worthless.

I know people on them for peeing in alleys after the bars close, or flashing for beads in bars for that matter.  Cases of 18yr old boys having consensual sex with their 16 or 17yr old girlfriends in the wrong state.  People spying on their spouses.  15yr old girls sending sexual pics to their boyfriends on their cell phones etc.  All of which more than likely pose no more threat to my 5yr old than the next door neighbor NOT on the list does.

Have Pentax Will Travel wrote:

You missed my point. Artistic merit is not related to the 1st Amendment, but attempting to publish your work is. The rejection letters would represent an attempt to be published. Any record of an attempt to be published is better than nothing if you're trying to claim freedom of the press.

No, I got ya...

...I was just sayin'

Have Pentax Will Travel wrote:

The question is, can you prove that in court. It's much easier when you have the art world or a third party behind you.

If you have a spare bedroom full or nude pictures of young teenagers, and it is a horde, versus waiting for publication, that would make a huge difference in a legal defense if your house got raided and you were brought up on charges for child pornography. If the cops confiscated 10,000 nudes and 50 rejection letters from publishers, that's still probably better than just the 1,000 nudes alone. Wouldn't you agree?

I don't know the exact laws, but you seem to focus on 1st amendment rights and whether or not the perpetrator can claim artistic merit or publication rights.

But the law is designed to protect minors from being exploited sexually, so the key consideration is most likely whether the minor was or was not exploited, with little regard for whether it was for art or different purposes.

Seriously Superficial wrote:
I don't know the exact laws, but you seem to focus on 1st amendment rights and whether or not the perpetrator can claim artistic merit or publication rights.

But the law is designed to protect minors from being exploited sexually, so the key consideration is most likely whether the minor was or was not exploited, with little regard for whether it was for art or different purposes.

Well, if it was for artistic expression, and there was no sexual exploitation, then there is no case, right?

Victoria Julison wrote:
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

My sister is 16 and already has D cups. Trust me, with all the growth hormones in milk lol

Age doesn't give bigger boobs, just longer ones

And also, its rather hard to determine age just by the face. Some people thought I was 35 years old when I was 19. Might have been the bad hair day but it was interesting to see how people think they know what shows age in a face and they really don't.

Have Pentax Will Travel wrote:
Well, if it was for artistic expression, and there was no sexual exploitation, then there is no case, right?

Actually there has been a LOT of discussion in this thread on federal law and constitutional rights. What a lot of you are missing are the often much more restrictive state laws governing minors and nudity.

Many of those state laws provide some significant penalties circulating around wording such as "engaging a minor in a performance involving nudity"... or something similar; and set the charges at anywhere between a gross misdemeanor and a felony criminal offence.

At least 5 states and territories set an age HIGHER than 18, as well, for such participation. Though federal law sets the age at 18 - - - in Alabama; Wyoming; and Nebraska the age is 19; and in Mississippi and Puerto Rico it is 21. These are legally referred to as the "age of license" and both can be, and are in some cases, higher than the "age of majority" [when someone is considered a full adult] and the "age of consent" [for sexual activity]. This is precisely the same as happens where someone is a full adult in some particular state [reached the "age of majority"] but where in that same state the drinking age is set at 21 [the "age of license" to consume alcohol]

So instead of being charged in federal court and going to a federal prison; you get charged in a state court and go to a state prison. But a prison it is either way.

Studio36

Roy Levi wrote:
What I want to know is. If I have a Danish magazine publish nudes of a 16 year old Swedish model, photgraphed in Norway. Is it still safe to visit the US?

In a short answer yes.  There is nothing illegal about nude at any age, the law comes in on sexually explicit images.  You can go to Barnes and Noble, Borders, Books a million or any other major bookstore and buy publications with nude 12, 13, 14, 15 etc, etc yr olds in them any day of the week.

studio36uk wrote:
Many of those state laws provide some significant penalties circulating around wording such as "engaging a minor in a performance involving nudity"... or something similar; and set the charges at anywhere between a gross misdemeanor and a felony criminal offence.

At least 5 states and territories set an age HIGHER than 18, as well, for such participation. Though federal law sets the age at 18 - - - in Alabama; Wyoming; and Nebraska the age is 19; and in Mississippi and Puerto Rico it is 21. These are legally referred to as the "age of license" and both can be, and are in some cases, higher than the "age of majority" [when someone is considered a full adult] and the "age of consent" [for sexual activity]. This is precisely the same as happens where someone is a full adult in some particular state [reached the "age of majority"] but where in that same state the drinking age is set at 21 [the "age of license" to consume alcohol]

So instead of being charged in federal court and going to a federal prison; you get charged in a state court and go to a state prison. But a prison it is either way.

You cant keep coming around here with facts and accurate information...jeez whats MM come too?

But in regards to the above question and my above posts.  I'm not aware of any state that has laws or restrictions on posessing these NON-sexual nude images of minors.

Roy Levi wrote:
What I want to know is. If I have a Danish magazine publish nudes of a 17 year old Swedish model, photgraphed in Norway. All perfectly legal in all three countries. Is it still safe to visit the US, or could I get arrested?

Depends on the magazine; depends on the image(s); depends on the context; and depends on if you are trying to import it into, or possess it, in the US.

Mere possession of it would be illegal in the UK, BTW, but not in France. So not even all of Europe is consistant on the subject.

Studio36

CGI Images wrote:
You cant keep coming around here with facts and accurate information...jeez whats MM come too?

But in regards to the above question and my above posts.  I'm not aware of any state that has laws or restrictions on posessing these NON-sexual nude images of minors.

I think that if you dig deep enough, in enough of the different state's laws, you will find that it probably is at least in some states.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

I think that if you dig deep enough, in enough of the different state's laws, you will find that it probably is at least in some states.

Studio36

Maybe true, but with most laws being so vague, really most anything can be twisted into breaking some law if they want to push it.    Just look at the varying differences and vagueness of most local "public indecency" laws.

Have Pentax Will Travel wrote:

Well, if it was for artistic expression, and there was no sexual exploitation, then there is no case, right?

As I said, I don't know the exact laws, so I wouldn't even dare to venture a direct answer. I doubt it's as simple as you would like it to be.

Seriously Superficial wrote:
But the law is designed to protect minors from being exploited sexually, so the key consideration is most likely whether the minor was or was not exploited, with little regard for whether it was for art or different purposes.

No.... in many cases it would seen that "the exploitation" of a minor exists only in the minds of those who are reporting or who are attempting to prosecute "the crime".

There does not necessarily need to be any actual "exploitation" to  cause moral outrage when righteous busy bodies (or over protective parent) are involved.

Chris Macan wrote:

No.... in many cases it would seen that "the exploitation" of a minor exists only in the minds of those who are reporting or who are attempting to prosecute "the crime".

There does not necessarily need to be any actual "exploitation" to  cause moral outrage when righteous busy bodies (or over protective parent) are involved.

I think the answer is 'yes, but' and then the rest of your answer applies. What the law was designed to protect and what white knights try to use it for can be two different things.

In any case, you will have a problem defending a photographer against a parent, though, and rightly so.