Photographer
Teddy Tran
Posts: 68
Houston, Texas, US
A friend of mine brought up a interesting question. The question is it is against the law to shoot a minor in a implied manner. Hypothetically, if the model below was underage, would it be illegal to photograph her in this way. I would like some info to shed light on this subject.
Photographer
Son Appareil
Posts: 307
San Diego, California, US
Very, very unwise to be displaying an underage Model that in any way inplies she was or may have been nude at the time of the shoot. Possibly illegal, but with no doubt poor judgment.
Photographer
TheScarletLetterSeries
Posts: 3533
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, US
Doesn't look improper to me. Shows nothing. But doesn't mean others might not be comfortable---being so based in puritan ethics. Nudity in and of itself is not illegal. (Think naked babies in children's portraiture...)
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Teddy Tran wrote: A friend of mine brought up a interesting question about my avatar. The question is it is against the law to shoot a minor in a implied manner. My avatar has a model that is underage. In the original photo, the model is covered wearing boy shorts and a bra. I then made a water dress and covered her in it, at no point was the model ever nude. I would like some info to shed light on this subject. Miley did it with whatsherface. And she apparently was nude.
Photographer
Teddy Tran
Posts: 68
Houston, Texas, US
Christopher Hartman wrote:
Miley did it with whatsherface. And she apparently was nude. Exactly what I was thinking when he brought it up
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Son Appareil wrote: Very, very unwise to be displaying an underage Model that in any way inplies she was or may have been nude at the time of the shoot. Possibly illegal, but with no doubt poor judgment. I disagree. And based on the style of the shoot, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that she COULD have been nude and our justice system wouldn't care.
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Teddy Tran wrote: Exactly what I was thinking when he brought it up I wanna see a bigger version though. The small version looks very well done though.
Photographer
JSVPhotography
Posts: 4897
Madison, Wisconsin, US
If you shot her in boy shorts and a bra, you did not shoot her in an implied manner, did you? You later manipulated an existing image. The work is great but I am going to go with the poor judgment opinion. If you can make that water dress look good, you can take someone WAY over age and produce an equally wonderful image. Why encourage problems?
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
Teddy Tran wrote: A friend of mine brought up a interesting question. The question is it is against the law to shoot a minor in a implied manner. I work with a model that is underage. In the original photo, the model is covered wearing boy shorts and a bra. I then made a water dress and covered her in it, at no point was the model ever nude. I would like some info to shed light on this subject. It Depends. Threads about Minor Models General Industry > Question on shooting minors... General Industry > 17 = trouble?? WTF!! General Industry > Photographing minors without a consent release (4+ pages) General Industry > shooting underage models (NON-nude, not implied) General Industry > shooting a minor???? General Industry > So this underage girl wants a shoot.. (3+ pages) General Industry > Photographing minors General Industry > OH no. Minor's parents left! General Industry > Under Age Models (Why are they even on MM?) General Industry > Shooting Models Under 18.... Model Matters > Underage Models (3+ pages) Model Matters > working with minors Model Matters > Underage models for implied shoots?! Model Colloquy > Legalities, Being a Minor, and General Ignorance Photography Talk > Shooting an Underage model - Rules and Regulation (Casual/Old Navy) Photography Talk > Ever feel baited by a minor? Photography Talk > Minor situation... Photography Talk > Legal issues while working with minors? Photography Talk > Shooting with minors (Laws) Photography Talk > Minors and other legal issues. Criminal vs. Civil Photography Talk > underage models Photography Talk > Underage models? Never again.. (6+ pages) Photography Talk > One Minor Model Thread To Rule Them All... Photography Talk > Models underage... (who works with them?) Photography Talk > 17 Year old Models (Headshots, portraits, etc.) Nude, Suggestive, Risque, Sexy, or Similar Photography Talk > Need advice for underage shoot (Miley Cyrus/Vanity Fair-style) General Industry > Minors shooting lignerie? General Industry > Underage models. (âsexyâ photos requested by model) General Industry > Suggested nudes (â¦of an underage model) General Industry > Underage Model (Suicide girl-style, 5+ pages) General Industry > Implied nude with minors? (5+ pages) General Industry > Photographing Nude Minors...... (5+ pages) General Industry > Under-age models & "implied" General Industry > Dilema..!! (Art nudes w/16 y/o model in UK) General Industry > What state in the US is underage... (â¦nude images acceptable?) (5+ pages) General Industry > Shooting a 16 y/o nude, but covered sparsely? (6 pages, locked) Model Matters > Underage models. How sexy is too sexy? Model Matters > Underage model nudity? (3+ pages) Model Matters > Underage models & glamour/pin-up/lingerie? Model Matters > Minors working implide Model Matters > Underage Lingerie Shooting Model Matters > how young is to young?? (ââ¦sexy pics done hand brasâ¦â) (3+ pages) Model Matters > Underage sister posing nude for pro photogs! (8+ pages) Photography Talk > Underage lingerie modeling (3+ pages) Photography Talk > Another Question about Minors!!! (Semi-nude) Photography Talk > Legal age to shoot nudes (3+ pages) Photography Talk > When I work with minors... (lingerie requested by parent) Photography Talk > isn't teen glamour illegal? (Trueteenbabes.com) (4+ pages) Photography Talk > Implied and underage model (7+ pages) Photography Talk > Am I being set up? (2+ pages) General Industry > Underage Fashion Models posing Nude for Euro Vogue (5+ pages) Photography Talk > T Magazine & Paolo Roversi & Underage nudes State Laws regarding Child Pornography or Nudity (USA) State Child Pornography Statutes (PDF document) Federal Laws regarding Child Pornography (USA) All are part of Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 110 (Index) Note that nudity is not automatically included, and that clothed images can be included. 2251. Sexual exploitation of children § 2252. Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors § 2252A. Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography § 2256. Definitions for chapter § 2257. Record keeping requirements One excellent rule to follow is to avoid making--or listening to--proclamations about things where you donât understand the facts It helps a lot if you: Understand the society under discussion. Understand the laws in that society. Understand the reasons for both of the above, and the penalties for violating either cultural norms or the law, while recognizing that the laws are not the same as the cultural mores. There are many instances where unlawful activities are widely accepted (e.g. speeding, changing lanes without signaling, tax evasion, copyright violations), and many instances where lawful activities are anathema (or are proclaimed to be anathema...) to many (e.g. adultery, adult pornography). This is an area where many peoples' beliefs are at odds with the law, yet many of them insist that There Is A Law, apparently because they feel there should be one. Some kinds of photography of minors are unlawful--some clothed, and some unclothed. Some kinds of photography of minors are lawful--some clothed, and some unclothed.
Photographer
Photons 2 Pixels Images
Posts: 17011
Berwick, Pennsylvania, US
Talk to a lawyer. Only a lawyer can answer your question with the right legal advice. When you're sick, you see a doctor not a hypochondriac. When you need legal advice, see a lawyer.
Photographer
M2 Photography Studios
Posts: 500
Canton, Georgia, US
If the model has a parent at the shoot, which is law for under 17 in Georgia, then you are fine. If no parent/guardian is present, you are "contributing to the delinquency" no matter if she is nude or not.
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36332
San Francisco, California, US
Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote: Talk to a lawyer. Only a lawyer can answer your question with the right legal advice. When you're sick, you see a doctor not a hypochondriac. When you need legal advice, see a lawyer. No need. There are no laws against implied minor nudity. There no laws against minor nudity. There are laws against depicting minors in a lewd and sexual manner regardless of nudity.
Photographer
KMP
Posts: 4834
Houston, Texas, US
Teddy Tran wrote: A friend of mine brought up a interesting question. The question is it is against the law to shoot a minor in a implied manner. Hypothetically, if the model below was underage, would it be illegal to photograph her in this way. I would like some info to shed light on this subject. If you have to ask.. That's your answer. It doesn't matter if it's legal or not. Actually it's quite illegal to mess with any sort of minorâs that would be deemed inappropriate. I heard of how some pedophiles tried to get around the laws by retouching a childâs face on a womanâs bodyâ¦sick @#$@#.. they got busted.. itâs illegal. How much do you have in your budget for legal funds?
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36332
San Francisco, California, US
KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote: Actually it's quite illegal to mess with any sort of minorâs that would be deemed inappropriate. Please don't use words like illegal and then follow it up with vague words like "mess with" and "inappropriate". I highly doubt you will find any laws that use those terms.
Photographer
KMP
Posts: 4834
Houston, Texas, US
Teddy Tran wrote:
Exactly what I was thinking when he brought it up I doubt the model's Miley and he ain't Annie Liebovitz and I'll bet money it's not for Vanity Fair... don't assume anything from THAT situation..
Photographer
KMP
Posts: 4834
Houston, Texas, US
PYPI FASHION wrote: Please don't use words like illegal and then follow it up with vague words like "mess with" and "inappropriate". I highly doubt you will find any laws that use those terms. I aplogize for not being a legal wiz.. but I think you get the point.. It's a very slippery slope.. (edit)
Photographer
Andrew Thomas Evans
Posts: 24079
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
It's going to be up to your area as far as what someone complains about, and what a local DA will pick up. Some may see this as not a big deal, others may use you to make a statement. This may totally be safe, and more than likely is, but you never know who needs an example or who is running for office. Personally I see nothing wrong with the image, it's not really sexual, and she is wearing a "Dress" and your original shot wasn't sexual. But I'm not in a position to make your life fun for a while.
Photographer
Corey Anna
Posts: 607
Huntsville, Alabama, US
To echo those above....There is NO law on implied nudity OR nudity for those who are underage. The federal law says it needs to be a sexual act or an implied sexual act. You might hear horror stories of someone being arrested for taking pictures of someone underage who is nude. Truth is, this does happen but because of the federal law it never gets a conviction. I have this question come up often because I take pictures of children in the nude. I live in a nudist camp. These are just pictures of children running around and playing. They aren't sexual in any fashion. Still I hear people ask me left and right "Are you worried you're going to get in trouble"? The pictures you have shown aren't completely innocent but they aren't implied nudes either. There's more underage models working professionally in large publications with similar images. That hot girl you see in a national underwear campaign is very possibly underage. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2257.html
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36332
San Francisco, California, US
KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote:
I aplogize for not being a legal wiz.. but I think you get the point.. It's a very slippery slope.. (edit) No I don't get your point. You made a specific statement about something being illegal. If you don't know it to be true, don't state it as fact.
Photographer
KMP
Posts: 4834
Houston, Texas, US
I'll try to be more precise from now on.
Photographer
Lynn Helms Photography
Posts: 382
Austin, Texas, US
Teddy Tran wrote: A friend of mine brought up a interesting question. The question is it is against the law to shoot a minor in a implied manner. Hypothetically, if the model below was underage, would it be illegal to photograph her in this way. I would like some info to shed light on this subject. Depends where you are but in the vast majority of cases, no. Not if it's like the example you posted, it would not be illegal.
Photographer
Studi0 8
Posts: 525
San Jose, California, US
I've been questioned a couple times in the past about the ages of my models who looked young when showing my portfolio. Almost 100% of the time they are 18 & over. However, I'd be careful about dealing with minors images - it can be sticky. The minors parent or guardian should always be present during photo shoot - this is for your safety as well as models. More times than not it's just as easy to find a model 18 & over.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
M2 Photography Studios wrote: you are "contributing to the delinquency" no matter if she is nude or not. You really need to do a little research on the term "contributing to the delinquency of a minor." It is clear that you don't know the legal definition of the offense.
Photographer
Studi0 8
Posts: 525
San Jose, California, US
KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote: I doubt the model's Miley and he ain't Annie Liebovitz and I'll bet money it's not for Vanity Fair... don't assume anything from THAT situation.. Comparing a model to Miley or a photographer to Annie has little to do with the original question. There's a vast amount of people who may think Miley & Annie aren't that hot. Therefore, rather the image gets used for "vanity fair" or if the photographer throws darts at it in his garage is beside the point. Making comments like the above is a round about way to state in public that you think the image sucks - which is a hit below the belt & has nothing to do with whats being discussed in the forum.
Photographer
Ken Marcus Studios
Posts: 9421
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Ask for trouble enough times . . . and eventually you'll get it. KM
Photographer
Scott Aitken
Posts: 3587
Seattle, Washington, US
M2 Photography Studios wrote: If the model has a parent at the shoot, which is law for under 17 in Georgia, then you are fine. If no parent/guardian is present, you are "contributing to the delinquency" no matter if she is nude or not. This is completely incorrect. Having a parent present at a shoot will not protect a photographer in any way. If you take a photo of a minor that is deemed to be illegal (for whatever reason), then the presence of a parent doesn't make it legal. Think of it like this. Say you assault a minor, break her knee caps, and take all her money. If her parent allows it, does that make it legal? No. It makes the parent an accomplice in your illegal act.
Photographer
Joshua Tyler
Posts: 130
Hebron, Ohio, US
how hard could it be to just find an older model ....
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
M2 Photography Studios wrote: If the model has a parent at the shoot, which is law for under 17 in Georgia, then you are fine. If no parent/guardian is present, you are "contributing to the delinquency" no matter if she is nude or not. Scott Aitken wrote: Having a parent present at a shoot will not protect a photographer in any way. If you take a photo of a minor that is deemed to be illegal (for whatever reason), then the presence of a parent doesn't make it legal. OK, but what makes you think that the photo he is suggesting would be illegal?
Photographer
Teddy Tran
Posts: 68
Houston, Texas, US
Joshua Sikorski wrote: how hard could it be to just find an older model .... This situation wasn't about me not being able to find an older model. The model I photographed is a friend, shes was covered and a guardian was present. I just didn't think about it being implied if I photoshopped a water dress on her until a friend brought it up. I wanted her to have a water dress image as the girl above received. It seems bit controversial so we decided not to edit her pictures.
Photographer
Keys88 Photo
Posts: 17646
New York, New York, US
Of course, despite all of the fantastic resources you've been provided in this thread, I would think the better question is this: if you think there's the chance, even the remote chance, that you're going to wind up going to prison for doing it, don't you think you'd be better off getting an opinion from an actual attorney, rather than relying upon opinions, links, references and commentary from a bunch of photographers??
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote: I doubt the model's Miley and he ain't Annie Liebovitz and I'll bet money it's not for Vanity Fair... don't assume anything from THAT situation.. Yet you claimed that it was "quite illegal"; are you now saying that it's not illegal if the people involved are famous? Or would it only be 'slightly' illegal? 'Just barely' illegal? Or is it, in fact, not illegal at all? I'll paraphrase a section of my earlier post: One excellent rule to follow is to avoid making proclamations about things where you donât understand the facts. It helps a lot if you: Understand the society under discussion. Understand the laws in that society. Understand the reasons for both of the above, and the penalties for violating either cultural norms or the law, while recognizing that the laws are not the same as the cultural mores. There are many instances where unlawful activities are widely accepted (e.g. speeding, changing lanes without signaling, tax evasion, copyright violations), and many instances where lawful activities are anathema (or are proclaimed to be anathema...) to many (e.g. adultery, adult pornography). This is an area where many peoples' beliefs are at odds with the law, yet many of them insist that There Is A Law, apparently because they feel there should be one.
Photographer
Keys88 Photo
Posts: 17646
New York, New York, US
Kevin Connery wrote: There are many instances where unlawful activities are widely accepted (e.g. speeding, changing lanes without signaling, tax evasion, copyright violations), and many instances where lawful activities are anathema (or are proclaimed to be anathema...) to many (e.g. adultery, adult pornography). This is an area where many peoples' beliefs are at odds with the law, yet many of them insist that There Is A Law, apparently because they feel there should be one. So, are you suggesting that there is or is not a law that prohibits the type(s) of photography and photographic displays that the OP asked about?
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
M2 Photography Studios wrote: If the model has a parent at the shoot, which is law for under 17 in Georgia, then you are fine. If no parent/guardian is present, you are "contributing to the delinquency" no matter if she is nude or not. Citation? What law(s) in Georgia require a parent to be at a photoshoot? What laws make it permissible to shoot a minor differently when a parent is present?
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
Kevin Connery wrote: There are many instances where unlawful activities are widely accepted (e.g. speeding, changing lanes without signaling, tax evasion, copyright violations), and many instances where lawful activities are anathema (or are proclaimed to be anathema...) to many (e.g. adultery, adult pornography). This is an area where many peoples' beliefs are at odds with the law, yet many of them insist that There Is A Law, apparently because they feel there should be one. Stephen Markman wrote: So, are you suggesting that there is or is not a law that prohibits the type(s) of photography and photographic displays that the OP asked about? That is correct: I am suggesting that there is OR is not a law that prohibits the type(s) of photography and photographic displays that the OP asked about. I did not indicate whether there was or was not such a law. I stated that there are instances when people's beliefs are different than what the law indicates. Please accept my apologies if it was unclear.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Christopher Hartman wrote: Miley did it with whatsherface. And she apparently was nude. actually, she was wearing a backless dress...
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
once again...lots of misinformation and paranoia
Photographer
ChanStudio - OtherSide
Posts: 5403
Alpharetta, Georgia, US
Teddy Tran wrote: A friend of mine brought up a interesting question. The question is it is against the law to shoot a minor in a implied manner. Hypothetically, if the model below was underage, would it be illegal to photograph her in this way. I would like some info to shed light on this subject. Dude! Get away from any implied or nude image of minor!!! Don't try to manipulate any images that will transform or suggest implied. Rather it is legal or not, that is another matter but avoid any hassle later on by not shooting or manipulating images that will suggest implied or nude of minor. All it takes is some one (might not be her family member) that make big deal out of it and blame, all the sudden you are being watched bye police. Here are some crazy minor links: Might not be related to yours stuff though. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/1 … faces.html http://kaganof.com/kagablog/2009/01/16/ … hemselves/
Photographer
Soft Shadows Art Photo
Posts: 705
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Doug Swinskey wrote:
actually, she was wearing a backless dress... But, Brooke Shields was 14 and topless for Jordache Jeans many years ago...and it was a National Campaign
Photographer
SunArcher Photography
Posts: 7669
Washington, District of Columbia, US
OP, if someone on MM says that it's against the law, and cannot quote said law, you can almost always safely ignore the advice given. Simple as that. Note that I said almost because a broken clock is right twice a day, and sometimes people get lucky. For everyone else saying that there are laws against this, post them up, please. State and statute number, please. Otherwise, shut up. That's about as good as I can get in these nonsense threads. The OP asked NOTHING about anyone's beliefs or feelings. Let's assume for one thread for Pete's sake that the OP is aware of the ramifications from outsiders and the viewing public regarding what he is asking and how it can be frowned upon. He asked if there was a law against it. And for those saying yes, either put your money where your mouth is and post up the law, or keep quiet and let those with a true answer to the OP's question answer it. Don't worry, I'll wait.
|