ei Total Productions wrote:
OK Stephen, I have come down off the soapbox.

And for the record ei, your soapbox speaches are always entertaining, you used to be a traveling preacher...didnt you?

Stephen Markman wrote:

Honestly, I wasn't BASHING you. I understood the general intent of your post.  And, more pointedly, you were not the only offender (if you will excuse the negative connotation of that word.)  I have no problem with the general advice contained in your post, as it seemed sound.  My problem came (and always comes) when people start citing statutes and then posting what they believe the outcome would be in a legal proceeding commenced under that statute.
Do you see what I'm saying?

Well, if you understood the original premis of my original reply then why go and start quoting me and repling to my statemets as you did?  Well, that's almost a dead point by now.  A suggestion to you if I may, in a fourm such as this where not all responses seem as sound as ours to "play it safe" and not do such work with somebody under the legal age in your jurisdiction, it is a futile attempt to make point and counter point with people who may not see things your way.  One more suggestion for you if I may once again, next time, before both of us are viewed in a negative light and hijack a thread, which both of our accounts could be deleted for under the MM TOS, send me a private/personal message and let me know your viewpoints, that way, if I have made a public post, and wish to save face, then I can put out a retraction, and vice versa if so warrented.  In otherwords, some things should be discussed behind closed doors and out of the public spotlight.

Vito wrote:
So are some people going to come into every thread that asks if something is legal/ethical/moral and say that no one should give advice?

Especially when it is not their field of law?

I think this guy spelled it out pretty well.

Ray Holyer wrote:
Running a red light is against the law.

Aw crap, I take that back - I am not a lawyer specializing in traffic law therefore I cannot say with any credibility or authority that running a red light is illegal.

Consult with (i.e. pay a hefty retainer to) an attorney to see if running a red light is legal or not.
Rob Domaschuk - https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 199&page=5 - quoted without permission.

Isaiah Brink wrote:

Well, if you understood the original premis of my original reply then why go and start quoting me and repling to my statemets as you did?  Well, that's almost a dead point by now.  A suggestion to you if I may, in a fourm such as this where not all responses seem as sound as ours to "play it safe" and not do such work with somebody under the legal age in your jurisdiction, it is a futile attempt to make point and counter point with people who may not see things your way.  One more suggestion for you if I may once again, next time, before both of us are viewed in a negative light and hijack a thread, which both of our accounts could be deleted for under the MM TOS, send me a private/personal message and let me know your viewpoints, that way, if I have made a public post, and wish to save face, then I can put out a retraction, and vice versa if so warrented.  In otherwords, some things should be discussed behind closed doors and out of the public spotlight.

Isaiah,
You are certainly free to choose NOT to engage in public discussions (and I do respond to all PMs), but I don't think our discussion was --in any fashion-- a threadjack and am not remotely concerned if my repeated admonitions are viewed as "negative" by some people.

Most of the people who view them negatively are the people who are very self-important; people who (for one reason or another) despise lawyers and think they know more about the law than trained professionals; people who see no difference between cautioning people "not to run red lights" and offering patently false, misleading or incomplete legal advice about complex substantive & procedural issues of law, to impressionable (and possibly vulnerable) readers.

You should not take my earlier criticisims personally.  They were not --nor were they intended to be-- a personal attack on YOU.  They were intended to be a criticism of what I view as a harmful pattern of conduct in the forum threads.   

And I'm gonna respectfully disagree with your opinion about the need to publicize these discussions.  If you did not wish to finish the conversation publicly, you could have PM'd me (and I certainly would have respected the request and responded to you) but, even though I'm not in this Forum all that often, I do think it's important to publicly warn against taking advice of any kind (good, bad, really bad, really REALLY bad,  devastatingly bad or otherwise) from the self-proclaimed "experts" posting in these threads.  Even advice which is seemingly "good" (i.e. contains no patently incorrect statements of law) is very dangerous as posters rarely give all of the relevant facts, responders rarely know all of the substantive laws that affect the poster's question and almost NEVER know any of the procedural or evidentiary laws that affect the poster's question.

CGI Images wrote:
I think this guy spelled it out pretty well.

Ray Holyer wrote:
Running a red light is against the law.

Aw crap, I take that back - I am not a lawyer specializing in traffic law therefore I cannot say with any credibility or authority that running a red light is illegal.

Consult with (i.e. pay a hefty retainer to) an attorney to see if running a red light is legal or not.
Rob Domaschuk - https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 199&page=5 - quoted without permission.

Just curious: is that the 2nd time or the 3rd time you're quoting that clever little post in this thread?  You seem so proud of it.  Almost as if you were the witty author of the quote yourself.

Incidentally, I don't see any references to the exceptions.
WHAT, you may ask, am I talking about??
Well, by your repeated posting of this silly quote, you would seem to be endorsing the statement of law (i.e. that passing a red light is prohibited by law)

Many jurisdictions allow operators of motor vehicles to make right turns at red lights.  Many allow left turns if the turn is from one one-way street onto another one-way street.  I don't know of ANY jurisdiction that doesn't allow authorized government vehicles, with emergency signals in use, to pass a solid red light.  Still other jurisdictions which do outlaw some of these things also permit for affirmative defenses based on duress, emergency . .. .etc.
SO, what started out as a seemingly SIMPLE statement of a law that you think we were all taught in Kindergarten, has become a misstatement of law; an incomplete and misleading statement of the state of the law.

If you keep repeating this (red light) comment and then actually take the time to read any of my posts about the nuances of law, that make it ill-advised to give GENERAL (authoritative and declaratory) statements about the state of the law, maybe a light will finally go on.  Rather than attempting to embarass those of us who know what we're talking about by posting glib (and incorrect) statements of the law.  Maybe you'll sit back and READ and LEARN and realize that the internet is not a proper forum for the dissemination of legal advice.

Vanishing Point Ent wrote:

I've said this before & I'll say it again here.

Celebrity, has it's perks.  If we photographed anyone,

underage, like Miley Cyrus, was.  If we had gotten the

same publicity, for what ever reason, we would be under

investigation, at best, or under arrest, at worst.

If we had lived in the Mid-West, or the South,

it would probably be more of the worst.

                      --  Remember Jock Sturges !  --

Right is right.  Wrong is wrong.

Sometimes you need to be willing to get bloody for a cause.

I remember my mom telling me I shouldn't fight a traffic ticket because if you do, then you can't take Traffic School (I think they've changed this, but this was the case in 1991).  I didn't care though.  It was the principle and I felt I was right.

The judge for the case, though he agreed with the officer as far as the "letter of the law" agreed with me and dismissed the ticket.

I am not a fan of inviting undue trouble/drama into my life, as I said above, sometimes you need to be willing to get bloody for a cause.

Ruben Sanchez wrote:
If I'm the law, I'm looking at 2 photos of a minor.  Did you take the nude one on the bottom, and then photoshop it, to make it look like the one on the top?  Could be a jury will have to decide that, and the expenses of going to court, will be very expensive.  Of course, in a Texas court, the little old ladies on the jury will find you guilty.  Of course, that's my hypothetical answer.

Granted, some DA's might be nuts, but for a DA to try to make that case in court, I think even a $5/hr lawyer could win.

Stephen Markman wrote:
Just curious: is that the 2nd time or the 3rd time you're quoting that clever little post in this thread?  You seem so proud of it.  Almost as if you were the witty author of the quote yourself.

Is condescension a personal attack?  Do we need a lawyer, English major, or a MOD to decide this?

SunArcher Photography wrote:
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.

Hey, my clock is only right once a day!

But the bottom line, and you need to understand this, is that "legal" is only half the issue.  It's whether someone wants to make your life miserable and if you want to defend it.

Life is about 80 years long now.  Why risk it on the 1-2 years between 16-18, ???  There are far, far more people over 18 available.....

I *THINK* that *THAT* is why underage images are such an issue.   People simply wonder *WHY* ....   

Scott

Christopher Hartman wrote:
For those that keep bringing up lawyers.  I'd like to point out the following:

In most cases, there are at least two opposing lawyers.

In most cases, one of them will lose.

>>> In most cases, one of them will lose.

In far more cases, they both win (eg get paid regardless)... and the clients both lose.

Scott

Stephen Markman wrote:
the internet is not a proper forum for the dissemination of legal advice.

I agree completely with that Stephen, as well as the fact you point out there are always variances, nuances and caveats to the law.  And if you want absolutes to seek proper legal counsel.  Even then though you'll still get varying opinions not all lawyers know every law and not all of them interpret them accuratly. 

But I do believe the internet is a fine place for discussions, opinions and different points of view.  Would you walk into a coffee shop and overhear a discusson amongst friends where one asked their opinions on a topic, interject and tell the person those people have no grounds to give proper legal advice? 

If you want to operate on that premis then why dont you chime into every thread where someone posts.  "my camera quit working, any help" and tell everyone there they arent qualified and the OP should seek the advice only from an experienced, trained technician?

And where does fear mongering come into play?  I'm not talking about you directly, I dont feel you've done that. But reacting to those people has been the basis of most of my responses.

And for the record its the 2nd time I quoted that, its humorous and I like it.

And for the further record though, this is about the 6th time I've asked for you or someone else to cite a case of someone sitting in prison for taking an image of a minor similar to the OP's example.

And with all your legal expertise and history, with all the implication that this type of thing will almost certainly land you in legal hot water, it shouldnt be difficult to cite a case example.

BodyartBabes wrote:

>>> In most cases, one of them will lose.

In far more cases, they both win (eg get paid regardless)... and the clients both lose.

Scott

I meant as far as court decisions.  Rarely, if ever, do both win.  I suspect it's more likely neither would win than both.

CGI Images wrote:
I agree completely with that Stephen, as well as the fact you point out there are always variances, nuances and caveats to the law.  And if you want absolutes to seek proper legal counsel.  Even then though you'll still get varying opinions not all lawyers know every law and not all of them interpret them accuratly. 

But I do believe the internet is a fine place for discussions, opinions and different points of view.  Would you walk into a coffee shop and overhear a discusson amongst friends where one asked their opinions on a topic, interject and tell the person those people have no grounds to give proper legal advice?

No, but I wasn't invited into that conversation. This is a forum for members only.  I am a member.  I have many friends on this site and, for those that aren't friends, I think it's better that they hear the truth from me, than relying on someone here who MAY be their "friend."

CGI Images wrote:
If you want to operate on that premis then why dont you chime into every thread where someone posts.  "my camera quit working, any help" and tell everyone there they arent qualified and the OP should seek the advice only from an experienced, trained technician?

Very simply, because if someone's camera "quit working", it may not be a problem that requires a technician.  People here ARE experts on photographic equipment and may be able to offer a solution which does not require the OP to unscrew the case on his camera and expose the inner workings.  Moreover, the experts on this site may very well recognize the "symptoms" of a more serious problem and be able to refer the OP to the CORRECT trained technician.  Incidentally, there are no laws regulating the licensing of camera technicians.  There are no minimum education requirements and no mandated code of conduct for camera technicians. 

CGI Images wrote:
And for the record its the 2nd time I quoted that, its humorous and I like it.

Yeah, I gathered that much.  But, again, Red light-Green light is "Kindergarten Law."  Stating an axiom (which, as I showed in my previous response, is not always true) is actually a very simplified, but perfect example of what I've been talking about.  People on this site do NOT need anyone to tell them the basic rule of red lights.  People asking questions about red lights need to know the nuances of traffic law.  They need to know the exceptions.  They need to know modifications.  They need to know the affirmative defenses.  They need to know a lot more than the basic Kindergarten answer (which, more often than not, they came into the thread already knowing.)

CGI Images wrote:
And for the further record though, this is about the 6th time I've asked for you or someone else to cite a case of someone sitting in prison for taking an image of a minor similar to the OP's example.

And with all your legal expertise and history, with all the implication that this type of thing will almost certainly land you in legal hot water, it shouldnt be difficult to cite a case example.

Well, the "legal hot water" to which you refer is really the only important issue for me.  I would love to be able to truly help every MM member with every one of their legal issues and would love to be able to do so, at no charge.  Unfortunately, I am not permitted to do this and, I am not certain that the MM community will take up a collection to pay my bills if I lose my license and law firm.

ei Total Productions wrote:
OK Stephen, I have come down off the soapbox.

CGI Images wrote:
And for the record ei, your soapbox speaches are always entertaining, you used to be a traveling preacher...didnt you?

No, but I noticed that it is now possible to become ordained on the Internet.  Perhaps I need an avocation to go along with photography.  I am glad you are entertained.

Stephen Markman wrote:

CGI Images wrote:
I agree completely with that Stephen, as well as the fact you point out there are always variances, nuances and caveats to the law.  And if you want absolutes to seek proper legal counsel.  Even then though you'll still get varying opinions not all lawyers know every law and not all of them interpret them accuratly. 

But I do believe the internet is a fine place for discussions, opinions and different points of view.  Would you walk into a coffee shop and overhear a discusson amongst friends where one asked their opinions on a topic, interject and tell the person those people have no grounds to give proper legal advice?

No, but I wasn't invited into that conversation. This is a forum for members only.  I am a member.  I have many friends on this site and, for those that aren't friends, I think it's better that they hear the truth from me, than relying on someone here who MAY be their "friend."

CGI Images wrote:
If you want to operate on that premis then why dont you chime into every thread where someone posts.  "my camera quit working, any help" and tell everyone there they arent qualified and the OP should seek the advice only from an experienced, trained technician?

Very simply, because if someone's camera "quit working", it may not be a problem that requires a technician.  People here ARE experts on photographic equipment and may be able to offer a solution which does not require the OP to unscrew the case on his camera and expose the inner workings.  Moreover, the experts on this site may very well recognize the "symptoms" of a more serious problem and be able to refer the OP to the CORRECT trained technician.  Incidentally, there are no laws regulating the licensing of camera technicians.  There are no minimum education requirements and no mandated code of conduct for camera technicians. 




Yeah, I gathered that much.  But, again, Red light-Green light is "Kindergarten Law."  Stating an axiom (which, as I showed in my previous response, is not always true) is actually a very simplified, but perfect example of what I've been talking about.  People on this site do NOT need anyone to tell them the basic rule of red lights.  People asking questions about red lights need to know the nuances of traffic law.  They need to know the exceptions.  They need to know modifications.  They need to know the affirmative defenses.  They need to know a lot more than the basic Kindergarten answer (which, more often than not, they came into the thread already knowing.)



Well, the "legal hot water" to which you refer is really the only important issue for me.  I would love to be able to truly help every MM member with every one of their legal issues and would love to be able to do so, at no charge.  Unfortunately, I am not permitted to do this and, I am not certain that the MM community will take up a collection to pay my bills if I lose my license and law firm.

Fine on everything you said Stephen, point taken.  So if this topic isnt "red light, green light" kindergarten law.  Can I have those case cite's now?

My point is, and has been, all the legal "what if this million to one shot, right turn on red is ok some places" caveats aside, Is I see no real world examples these kinds of images bring this almost certain legal trouble to people.  Only have I see it in extreme freak accident types of cases.

I'm waiting for the real world examples from you "experts" that this is such a cause for trouble.

Vanishing Point Ent wrote:
I've said this before & I'll say it again here.

Celebrity, has it's perks.  If we photographed anyone,

underage, like Miley Cyrus, was.  If we had gotten the

same publicity, for what ever reason, we would be under

investigation, at best, or under arrest, at worst.

If we had lived in the Mid-West, or the South,

it would probably be more of the worst.

                      --  Remember Jock Sturges !  --

Oh quit the fear mongering.......

I don't care who the photographer was........
I can not think of any scenario in the U.S. where the Miley photo (by itself) running with the rest of the spread in a fashion publication would land anyone in jail.

Sure some people might pitch a moral fit......
There could be picketing by the local outrage squad,
And who knows...... maybe a deputy would come ask a few questions,
But it's just not a case that a DA is likely to take......
They like to win and prosecuting that photo does not look like a winning case.



And and BTW.......
Jock was made a household name by the attempted/failed prosecution of him.


disclaimer.....
this is just an observation not legal advice,
nor does it contain a statement of historical fact....
It's just one man's opinion....... That is all.......

Chris Macan wrote:
Oh quit the fear mongering.......

I don't care who the photographer was........
I can not think of any scenario in the U.S. where the Miley photo (by itself) running with the rest of the spread in a fashion publication would land anyone in jail.

Sure some people might pitch a moral fit......
There could be picketing by the local outrage squad,
And who knows...... maybe a deputy would come ask a few questions,
But it's just not a case that a DA is likely to take......
They like to win and prosecuting that photo does not look like a winning case.



And and BTW.......
Jock was made a household name by the attempted/failed prosecution of him.


disclaimer.....
this is just an observation not legal advice,
nor does it contain a statement of historical fact....
It's just one man's opinion....... That is all.......

Welcome aboard Chris,  you almost missed this one.

CGI Images wrote:
Welcome aboard Chris,  you almost missed this one.

I've been staying out of this one........
But it has been an amusing read.

Chris Macan wrote:

I've been staying out of this one........
But it has been an amusing read.

Its ALWAYS ammusing.

So far I'm up to about count 10 of asking for a single case where someone is sitting in jail for a similar type photo.

Even the "legal experts" keep ignoring my requests for proof of how risky this is.

PYPI FASHION wrote:

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.

This is true.  If the minor is clothed but portrayed lewdly, you are breaking the law even without nudity.  However, without lewdness or sexual content it's legal to photograph anyone at any age naked.  For example, there are many legal images of underage nudists.

That being said, for me I wouldn't tempt fate.  Even if I'm legally in the right, one moderately public accusation of that nature might be permanently damaging.

Ruben Sanchez wrote:
If I'm the law, I'm looking at 2 photos of a minor.  Did you take the nude one on the bottom, and then photoshop it, to make it look like the one on the top?  Could be a jury will have to decide that, and the expenses of going to court, will be very expensive.  Of course, in a Texas court, the little old ladies on the jury will find you guilty.  Of course, that's my hypothetical answer.

Of course, you've also made less hypothetical answers about other things where your knowledge of the law was...interesting.

Regarding someone taking photos of your house from the street, you've said "I'd call the police and ask them to take your camera away from you, as I don't know why you're taking photos of my building, and without my permission, as the building is my private property. "

You've claimed that "If she's underage, naked, and you take a photo of her, you're going to jail."

You've claimed that street photography is illegal: "If you mean taking photos of women you don't know, in public places, you'll probably get arrested [...] All she has to say is, "I want him arrested and his camera taken away", and they'll do it. "

But, of course, your disclaimer might save you: "I wish all you new photographers would learn the law, and what you can do and can't do with your camera, and what your rights as photographers are, and what you can and can't claim as a "right".  It's all written in black & white. "

Confidence is nice. Accuracy is better.

Kevin Connery wrote:
Of course, you've also made less hypothetical answers about other things where your knowledge of the law was...interesting.

Regarding someone taking photos of your house from the street, you've said "I'd call the police and ask them to take your camera away from you, as I don't know why you're taking photos of my building, and without my permission, as the building is my private property. "

You've claimed that "If she's underage, naked, and you take a photo of her, you're going to jail."

You've claimed that street photography is illegal: "If you mean taking photos of women you don't know, in public places, you'll probably get arrested [...] All she has to say is, "I want him arrested and his camera taken away", and they'll do it. "

But, of course, your disclaimer might save you: "I wish all you new photographers would learn the law, and what you can do and can't do with your camera, and what your rights as photographers are, and what you can and can't claim as a "right".  It's all written in black & white. "

Confidence is nice. Accuracy is better.

LOL. I admire your willingness to keep up the good fight despite it falling on deaf ears.

Dave the design student wrote:
I agree with Stephen Markman.

Kevin Connery wrote:

Of course, you've also made less hypothetical answers about other things where your knowledge of the law was...interesting.

Regarding someone taking photos of your house from the street, you've said "I'd call the police and ask them to take your camera away from you, as I don't know why you're taking photos of my building, and without my permission, as the building is my private property. "

You've claimed that "If she's underage, naked, and you take a photo of her, you're going to jail."

You've claimed that street photography is illegal: "If you mean taking photos of women you don't know, in public places, you'll probably get arrested [...] All she has to say is, "I want him arrested and his camera taken away", and they'll do it. "

But, of course, your disclaimer might save you: "I wish all you new photographers would learn the law, and what you can do and can't do with your camera, and what your rights as photographers are, and what you can and can't claim as a "right".  It's all written in black & white. "

Confidence is nice. Accuracy is better.

Your the man Kevin.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Ask for trouble enough times . . . and eventually you'll get it.



KM

I agree.  Why play with fire when there's so many more models out there that are of age.
Kim

Kim Nodurft Photography wrote:

I agree.  Why play with fire when there's so many more models out there that are of age.
Kim

True, but then again we all do it everyday when we get in a car, get on a motorcycle, climb on a jet ski.  I think the issue is somewhat level headed evaluation of the real level of risk.

I can find lots of cases where people were horrifically harmed partaking in those recreations.  I've yet to see one case where someone is sitting in jail over an image similar to the OPs example.

CGI Images wrote:

on use studio wrote:
Stephen,

You're beating a dead horse.  There's no way that anyone here truly comprehends what you're saying unless he/she has been to law school.  They don't understand that their [amateur] interpretation of any statute (assuming they even pick the right statute in the right jurisdiction, etc.) without checking how that statute is currently applied can be very misleading.

And I'm sure my paragraph above is probably wrong in how the law works, but I think I have some appreciation of where you're coming from.

Chris

I would refer you to this post.


Some things you dont need a law degree or deep understanding in the linquistics of statutes because they are so obvious if you just apply a little common sense.

it's quite apparent that you've never been to law school.

CGI Images wrote:

Its ALWAYS ammusing.

So far I'm up to about count 10 of asking for a single case where someone is sitting in jail for a similar type photo.

Even the "legal experts" keep ignoring my requests for proof of how risky this is.

1. Westlaw and Lexis cost a lot
2. Who the heck would want to go through legal books to look for examples for YOU?

on use studio wrote:

1. Westlaw and Lexis cost a lot
2. Who the heck would want to go through legal books to look for examples for YOU?

Because it is potentially misleading, if not dishonest, to claim something and be unable to back it up.

If I told you that Nikon was going to release a new firmware for the D300 giving it high definition video capability but was unable and even refused to provide a resource for it, would you then still buy the camera based on this information if having video capability for a dSLR camera was important to you?

Christopher Hartman wrote:

Because it is potentially misleading, if not dishonest, to claim something and be unable to back it up.

If I told you that Nikon was going to release a new firmware for the D300 giving it high definition video capability but was unable and even refused to provide a resource for it, would you then still buy the camera based on this information if having video capability for a dSLR camera was important to you?

The why everyone's saying either 1) stay away from the doing this with a minor, or 2) get real legal advice.

Frankly, I thought CGI was a bit obnoxious and patronizing (although I pretty much agree with him) whereas Stephen was real professional about it.  Of course this is the internet, for all we know CGI could be a Supreme Court judge and Stephen could be a janitor.

Anyway, for those who's dying for a case, here's one from Westlaw:

http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl … default.wl

Feel free to look it up with your Westlaw account.   Alright, here's one of the issues:

Even if defense expert on child pornography established by his testimony that images of real children could be altered or “morphed” without detection to appear children were engaging in sexual activity, those images would not come within the scope of protected “virtual child pornography,” which is either entirely computer-generated or created using only adults.

I'll give you a hint.  It's a Ohio case decided on July 25th, 2007.  So unless the image is ENTIRELY computer generated, the shooter could have problems.  That being said, I agree with CGI that the probably of any image getting into court is extremely low, but like someone else said, it sucks if some old lady, insane DA, or whatever else decide to hang you out to dry.

CGI Images wrote:
Still waiting on case examples from the experts.....

What?  You can't do a google search yourself? 

When a photographer takes photos of a minor, it's called Child Pornography (a felony), and there's a whole lot of photographers in prison for that, sent there by little old ladies who sat on the jury.

It's not called "art", or "freedom of expression", it called Child Pornography.  That definition has already been legally defined, so I'm not going to debate it.  As an example, having nude photos of Traci Lords, when she was a teenager, will get you sent to jail for a long time, as has already been proven.  Also, cell phone pornography, is a new crime, as teenagers are being arrested and charged with Child Pornography.

But, you wanted a link.  So I'll give you one.  Here in Texas, and in all states as well, if a teenager sends nude photos of himself to another teen, using his cell phone, the teenager is charged with Child Pornography (a felony).  Will he go to jail?  It depends on whether the little old ladies find him guilty.  If I sat on the jury, Hell Yes!  But that's me.  You would probably say, "What's wrong with that?"   

http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/2 … /810080302
Law didn't anticipate cell phone photo case (video)

http://www.daniweb.com/blogs/entry3821.html
"In Texas, a 13-year-old boy was arrested on child pornography charges in October after he received a nude photo of a student on his cell phone (a particularly ominous development -- getting back at someone by sending a nude photo to them and getting them arrested)."

Stephen Markman wrote:

CGI Images wrote:
I think this guy spelled it out pretty well.

Just curious: is that the 2nd time or the 3rd time you're quoting that clever little post in this thread?  You seem so proud of it.  Almost as if you were the witty author of the quote yourself.

Incidentally, I don't see any references to the exceptions.
WHAT, you may ask, am I talking about??
Well, by your repeated posting of this silly quote, you would seem to be endorsing the statement of law (i.e. that passing a red light is prohibited by law)

Many jurisdictions allow operators of motor vehicles to make right turns at red lights.  Many allow left turns if the turn is from one one-way street onto another one-way street.  I don't know of ANY jurisdiction that doesn't allow authorized government vehicles, with emergency signals in use, to pass a solid red light.  Still other jurisdictions which do outlaw some of these things also permit for affirmative defenses based on duress, emergency . .. .etc.
SO, what started out as a seemingly SIMPLE statement of a law that you think we were all taught in Kindergarten, has become a misstatement of law; an incomplete and misleading statement of the state of the law.

If you keep repeating this (red light) comment and then actually take the time to read any of my posts about the nuances of law, that make it ill-advised to give GENERAL (authoritative and declaratory) statements about the state of the law, maybe a light will finally go on.  Rather than attempting to embarass those of us who know what we're talking about by posting glib (and incorrect) statements of the law.  Maybe you'll sit back and READ and LEARN and realize that the internet is not a proper forum for the dissemination of legal advice.

So, while we agreed on my original advice, you decided to make a public example out of me when you boil it down to the basics.  Hijacking a thread is usually done when the discussion in the thread takes a large diversion in the topic, like this one has, and yes, I do have a part in it.  If you were to look at the first page or two of this thread, it's you responding not so much to the original poster but to all of the other responses that were given.  Ok, you may be a lawyer and thusly qualified to give legal advice, even though, you don't want to risk something like that.  You could have avoided personal attacks, by merely responding to the original poster and give him the best advice you felt comfortable with call it legal or business, where in that response you could say that you shouldn't listen to everything you hear, thereby adding to your point of not everybody being a creditable source of legal information.  But that's not what happened.  You went on and quoted repeatedly even before I made my reply to the OP and in one way or another, discredited them on this topic.  It's easy to understand that you have an interest, and from the sounds of it, an education in one form of law or another.  Let's take this time and reconsdier how all of us, not just you and I Stephen, how we reply, and how we quote other members here on MM, let's show a bit more professionalism.  I believe that both you and I both know that the internet, especially fourms are not creditbale sources of correct information, and I believe that the OP understood that when he asked the original question, but was looking for either some friendly advice or some guidence on a hypothetical situation.  I'm hoping that he found it.

Ruben Sanchez wrote:
When a photographer takes photos of a minor, it's called Child Pornography (a felony), and there's a whole lot of photographers in prison for that, sent there by little old ladies who sat on the jury.

Wow, there must be millions of senior portrait photographers going underground then, not to mention all the nudist website oporators with nude images from their camps, showing minors. 

I'm going to give you the benifit of the doubt and assume you meant, lewd and pornographic images of "minors".  I'm sure you did, not just minors in general.

And I'll point out again, what is considered "lewd and pornographic" is pretty clearly defined by the law.  Level of clothing has NOTHING to do with it.

on use studio wrote:
Frankly, I thought CGI was a bit obnoxious and patronizing (although I pretty much agree with him)

For the record I was not trying to be obnoxious, entertaining perphaps but not obnoxious.  Patronizing, yes but just to emphasize a point.

on use studio wrote:
for all we know CGI could be a Supreme Court judge and Stephen could be a janitor.

Hehe, I'll dispell that right now, I am NOT a justice, Stephen however is a janitor, good call.  (Just kidding Stephen, he is a lawyer).  And 95% of the time I agree with him and certainly give him his due for trying to help.  He's also much better than I am at conveing his point in a professional articulate manner.  After all I just gots me a simple state school edumacation.

on use studio wrote:
I agree with CGI that the probably of any image getting into court is extremely low,

This is and has been my point entirely.  People act like its such an extreme risk, such a virtual certianty of trouble.  Thats what I speak out against.  We all do things everyday that have risks, but the risks are so low often we dont even think twice about them.  The fearmongering and extreme over exhageration of the "risk" of this topic is what I try to point out.

If any of you know me, or read my posts you'll know I advocate CYA as long as its not some crazy over reaction, which I believe often is exactly what is proposed when it comes to this topic.

on use studio wrote:
but like someone else said, it sucks if some old lady, insane DA, or whatever else decide to hang you out to dry.

It does but we can all easily find cases of innocent people in jail because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, ended up infront of the wrong "little old lady", but again those are the far exceptions to the rule.  People are railroaded, set up, framed, evidence is planted, wrongly picked out in lineups etc.  But we still mostly go about our daily lives not living in fear we are the next people thats going to happen too.

And as far as the case examples posted, I appreciate the time you and Mr. Sanchez put into finding them.  I wasnt asking for examples of child porn cases or porn at all for that matter, thats easy to find.  I was talking about cases of photographers sitting in jail (convicted, sentenced) for implied NON PORN images, similar to what the OP posted or even the miley photo's.

And the cases pointed out for some reason or another were deemed "lewd" or "pornographic" I didnt see the images, but I'm willing to bet they were not simple nudity.  They probably werent a topless teen on a nude beach saying "hi from St. Barts" type of a thing.  I would bet (and could be wrong) they crossed a line in a way, "focus on the genitals" from 2256 comes to mind.

I fully expected people to be able to come up with a couple of cases.  But then again thats exactly my point, if it was the huge risk its made out to be it wouldnt take deep searches to find a couple of cases that are "sort of" like it.  There would be dozens of them easily found, and we'd all probably know of a photographer or two thats had problems.