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.

I've seen you post this a lot, so after a quick search I've come up with this:

OHIO STATE LAW wrote:
2907.323 Illegal use of minor in nudity-oriented material or performance.

(A) No person shall do any of the following:

(1) Photograph any minor who is not the person’s child or ward in a state of nudity, or create, direct, produce, or transfer any material or performance that shows the minor in a state of nudity, unless both of the following apply:

(a) The material or performance is, or is to be, sold, disseminated, displayed, possessed, controlled, brought or caused to be brought into this state, or presented for a bona fide artistic, medical, scientific, educational, religious, governmental, judicial, or other proper purpose, by or to a physician, psychologist, sociologist, scientist, teacher, person pursuing bona fide studies or research, librarian, clergyman, prosecutor, judge, or other person having a proper interest in the material or performance;

(b) The minor’s parents, guardian, or custodian consents in writing to the photographing of the minor, to the use of the minor in the material or performance, or to the transfer of the material and to the specific manner in which the material or performance is to be used.

(2) Consent to the photographing of the person’s minor child or ward, or photograph the person’s minor child or ward, in a state of nudity or consent to the use of the person’s minor child or ward in a state of nudity in any material or performance, or use or transfer a material or performance of that nature, unless the material or performance is sold, disseminated, displayed, possessed, controlled, brought or caused to be brought into this state, or presented for a bona fide artistic, medical, scientific, educational, religious, governmental, judicial, or other proper purpose, by or to a physician, psychologist, sociologist, scientist, teacher, person pursuing bona fide studies or research, librarian, clergyman, prosecutor, judge, or other person having a proper interest in the material or performance;

(3) Possess or view any material or performance that shows a minor who is not the person’s child or ward in a state of nudity, unless one of the following applies:

(a) The material or performance is sold, disseminated, displayed, possessed, controlled, brought or caused to be brought into this state, or presented for a bona fide artistic, medical, scientific, educational, religious, governmental, judicial, or other proper purpose, by or to a physician, psychologist, sociologist, scientist, teacher, person pursuing bona fide studies or research, librarian, clergyman, prosecutor, judge, or other person having a proper interest in the material or performance.

(b) The person knows that the parents, guardian, or custodian has consented in writing to the photographing or use of the minor in a state of nudity and to the manner in which the material or performance is used or transferred.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of illegal use of a minor in a nudity-oriented material or performance. Whoever violates division (A)(1) or (2) of this section is guilty of a felony of the second degree. Whoever violates division (A)(3) of this section is guilty of a felony of the fifth degree. If the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of this section or section 2907.321 or 2907.322 of the Revised Code, illegal use of a minor in a nudity-oriented material or performance in violation of division (A)(3) of this section is a felony of the fourth degree.

Effective Date: 07-01-1996

So to sum it up:
1) You can't shoot nude underage unless:
a) It's "bona fide art"
b) You have written consent of parent guardian (note there's no requirement for them to be present)

If you don't abide by those conditions, you're looking at second and fifth degree felonies.

SpecopsPhoto wrote:
But who defines what is "art", I work with a guy who thinks swim suit and implied nude models are porn. Play it safe, don't shoot underage (

SpecopsPhoto wrote:
But who defines what is "art", I work with a guy who thinks swim suit and implied nude models are porn. Play it safe, don't shoot underage (

Andrew Vorobyov wrote:

I'm not saying there's no gray areas. But I don't think people would classify that water dress as porn.

I agree, not even close.  Same with the miley image which I would say was on an equal level.

I've seen way more sexual, way more sexy images of minors that were perfectly legal that the op's image and the miley image dont even come close too.  Several are even here on MM.  I'm not going to out anyone, but there is a model in my area that does way more sexier shots with many different photographers than the OP's example, and there's never been an issue, she's 17, alot of them were taken when she was 16.

I've seen many 16, 17yr old MM ports with way more "sexual" images than these, and if the MM gatekeepers allow it, I cant see how anyone would be able to argue they were all illegal.

Andrew Vorobyov wrote:

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.

I've seen you post this a lot, so after a quick search I've come up with this:


So to sum it up:
1) You can't shoot nude underage unless:
a) It's "bona fide art"
b) You have written consent of parent guardian (note there's no requirement for them to be present)

If you don't abide by those conditions, you're looking at second and fifth degree felonies.

You can't "sum it up." The above is so wildly vague, ambiguous, and subject to precedent, opinion, interpretation, and political reasons, that it could be the subject for entire treatises. The only clear message from this whole thread is the risk of shooting stuff like this with minors.

CGI Images wrote:
I've seen many 16, 17yr old MM ports with way more "sexual" images than these, and if the MM gatekeepers allow it, I cant see how anyone would be able to argue they were all illegal.

The Gatekeepers are not lawyers,
just sayin....

Chris Macan wrote:

The Gatekeepers are not lawyers,
just sayin....

lol.. oh I know, but my implication was even they were able to apply a little common sense, unlike alot of the people that speak on this topic.

They just keep pulling you back in, dont they Chris.

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.

Andrew Vorobyov wrote:
I've seen you post this a lot, so after a quick search I've come up with this:



So to sum it up:
1) You can't shoot nude underage unless:
a) It's "bona fide art"
b) You have written consent of parent guardian (note there's no requirement for them to be present)

If you don't abide by those conditions, you're looking at second and fifth degree felonies.

Andrew....... Your law does not conflict what PYPI stated.
It simply laid out some constraints....
but does not outlaw minor nudity in photographs. (aka... try again)

And we do not know that the quoted law is enforceable or would withstand the appeals process.

glamour pics wrote:

You can't "sum it up." The above is so wildly vague, ambiguous, and subject to precedent, opinion, interpretation, and political reasons, that it could be the subject for entire treatises. The only clear message from this whole thread is the risk of shooting stuff like this with minors.

I agree with you on everything you said, except for in my opinion the risk is very negligible.  And I've yet to see evidence to the contrary.

Scott Aitken wrote:

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.

My response was in part to this as well.

It seems pretty clear that consent is required to make it legal.

Chris Macan wrote:

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.

Andrew....... Your law does not conflict what PYPI stated.
It simply laid out some constraints....
but does not outlaw minor nudity in photographs. (aka... try again)

And we do not know that the quoted law is enforceable or would withstand the appeals process.

He didn't say "outlaw" minor nudity.

He said there' no law "against" minor nudity. The law I provided give constrictions and limitations of use of minor nudity, so as I understand it it's "against" it. At the very least it's against minor nudity without parental consent.

Andrew Vorobyov wrote:
He didn't say "outlaw" minor nudity.

He said there' no law "against" minor nudity. The law I provided give constrictions and limitations of use of minor nudity, so as I understand it it's "against" it. At the very least it's against minor nudity without parental consent.

Your right Andrew, but I think this is a bit of nitpicking.  I think the general implication and topic of conversation was about the images themselves.  They are not inherently illegal in and of themselves simply because of the level of clothing.  There are always little caveats of "HOW" the images were obtained that need to be taken into consideration legally, but thats a different thread.

For example, there is nothing inherently illegal about an image of an adult woman masterbating, but if I took it through a peephole in a dressing room.  The means have crossed a legal line.  Like with your example, in that jurisdiction taking images of a minor nude without parental consent could be illegal thus effecting that particular image.  But the law itself doesnt outlaw the image simply because of content if it was made in a legal way.

Thanks for posting that law by the way.

CGI Images wrote:

Your right Andrew, but I think this is a bit of nitpicking.

That's intentional and interent in the subject matter. I'm trying to be as nitpicky as I can when it comes to law interpretation.

Andrew Vorobyov wrote:
He didn't say "outlaw" minor nudity.

He said there' no law "against" minor nudity. The law I provided give constrictions and limitations of use of minor nudity, so as I understand it it's "against" it. At the very least it's against minor nudity without parental consent.

Well it would seem (in my opinion) that this law is not "against" minor nudity,
But instead essentially treats each minor as property of the guardian.

The illegality seems to not be the minor nudity,
but rather the unauthorized use of a specific property.(the kid)

So I would say that your interpretation of this law as anti minor nudity is in a nit-picky sense wrong.
Point PYPI.

Chris Macan wrote:
So I would say that your interpretation of this law as anti minor nudity is in a nit-picky sense wrong.
Point PYPI.

I'm the one that said it was nit-picky and not about nudity in itself first... no points for me???

Chris Macan wrote:

Well it would seem (in my opinion) that this law is not "against" minor nudity,
But instead essentially treats each minor as property of the guardian.

The illegality seems to not be the minor nudity,
but rather the unauthorized use of a specific property.(the kid)

So I would say that your interpretation of this law as anti minor nudity is in a nit-picky sense wrong.
Point PYPI.

I see the point you're making and while it might be true that there's no law specifically stating: "Underage nudes are an offence in and out of themselves" as a photographer I'd rather see clarification and precautions one must take in the process of shooting minors as opposed to blanket statements like: "There's no law against minor nudity"

I feel my definition contributes more and covers the photog's ass. What is your problem with it?

Chris Macan wrote:

Well it would seem (in my opinion) that this law is not "against" minor nudity,
But instead essentially treats each minor as property of the guardian.

The illegality seems to not be the minor nudity,
but rather the unauthorized use of a specific property.(the kid)

So I would say that your interpretation of this law as anti minor nudity is in a nit-picky sense wrong.
Point PYPI.

Ok, never mind. I'm wrong. Ignore the above post.

You're talking about "minor nudity". There's no law against that. My law is about pictures of minor nudity and those are illegal in some circumstances.

But I find the whole issue moot. There's no law against use of penis either, but rape is somehow illegal. But when one asks about rape, how helpful is the reply: "There's no law against a penis"

It's not about having it. It's about using it, cause it's what we do.

Andrew Vorobyov wrote:

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.

I've seen you post this a lot, so after a quick search I've come up with this:


So to sum it up:
1) You can't shoot nude underage unless:
a) It's "bona fide art"
b) You have written consent of parent guardian (note there's no requirement for them to be present)

If you don't abide by those conditions, you're looking at second and fifth degree felonies.

In otherwords, there are no laws against photography of minors in the nude.  But should you take pictures of minors in the nude, they must meet certain circumstances.

Andrew Vorobyov wrote:

Ok, never mind. I'm wrong. Ignore the above post.

You're talking about "minor nudity". There's no law against that. My law is about pictures of minor nudity and those are illegal in some circumstances.

But I find the whole issue moot. There's no law against use of penis either, but rape is somehow illegal. But when one asks about rape, how helpful is the reply: "There's no law against a penis"

It's not about having it. It's about using it, cause it's what we do.

Quite possibly one of the worst analogies ever.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

In otherwords, there are no laws against photography of minors in the nude.  But should you take pictures of minors in the nude, they must meet certain circumstances.

And if they don't meet those circumstances the law is AGAINST you taking pictures and you get yourself in jail.

With this same logic, there's no laws against murder. Because murder is legal in some circumstances. IE you're driving a train and your choice is either to kill two people on the tracks willingly or drive the train off a cliff and kill two hundred.

Where the logic and how does it help us understand the law?

HARD CANDY IMAGES wrote:

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.

My apologies..I didn't mean that the image sucked.   I feel that famous people get attention because of who they are and can get dispensation for that too..

Andrew Vorobyov wrote:
And if they don't meet those circumstances the law is AGAINST you taking pictures and you get yourself in jail.

With this same logic, there's no laws against murder. Because murder is legal in some circumstances. IE you're driving a train and your choice is either to kill two people on the tracks willingly or drive the train off a cliff and kill two hundred.

Where the logic and how does it help us understand the law?

No, murder is ALWAYS illegal.  Do not confuse murder with killing.

And your current analogy is worse than the other one.  Want to try again?

Christopher Hartman wrote:

No, murder is ALWAYS illegal.  Do not confuse murder with killing.

And your current analogy is worse than the other one.  Want to try again?

no