Photographer
Brian Diaz
Posts: 65617
Danbury, Connecticut, US
TXPhotog wrote:
No, that doesn't qualify either. I apologize--I should have clarified. The law does seem to make a few exceptions possible.
The law does appear to prohibit taking photos in Ohio of nude minors in scenarios that would encompass the vast majority of shoots involving Model Mayhem members. Would you agree?
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Brian Diaz wrote:
It appears that Ohio has such a law.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.323
That's the only one of which I know. I think I've seen some local ordinance similar in Utah as well, but if memory serves it was nullified with parental consent or similar. I'm sure someone will have more info.
Point remains overwhelmingly generally there are no such laws.
Photographer
Brian Diaz
Posts: 65617
Danbury, Connecticut, US
CGI Images wrote:
Point remains overwhelmingly generally there are no such laws. I agree. Another point that remains is that one should take precaution and check one's local laws.
Photographer
Ray Holyer
Posts: 2000
Doug Swinskey wrote:
model release threads, escort threads and underage model threads always have the most inaccurate info posted in them...i am drawn to them like a moth to a flame...
i wish i could keep away, but its sooooo beautiful ~ These threads often reveal more about the posters' attitudes than they realise.
Photographer
Digitoxin
Posts: 13456
Denver, Colorado, US
Brian Diaz wrote:
It appears that Ohio has such a law.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.323
That's the only one of which I know. Oh, this one is rich:!!!!!
(A) No person shall do any of the following:
(1) Photograph any minor who is not the personâs 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, member of the clergy, prosecutor, judge, or other person having a proper interest in the material or performance;
(b) The minorâs 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.
I wonder if it is a problem is the clergy member is Catholic? They really should ban the dissemination of nudes to Catholic Priests --- always ends badly. 
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Justin Foto wrote:
I think this is what is known as a can of worms. Legal or not, it's just asking for trouble to shoot nudes under 18. really? Then it should be no problem for you to link several cites where people were convicted of taking simple nudes of minors. If it's the virtual minefield you describe I'm sure there are dozens to choose from.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Ray Holyer wrote:
These threads often reveal more about the posters' attitudes than they realise. Darn those people that are against repression, mis-information and fear mongering!
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
While we are at it, the requirement that the model be 18 has been thrown around quite a bit, despite the fact that state law for "underage nudes" is lower than 18 in several states. "18" is not the magic answer.
Photographer
Michael McGowan
Posts: 3829
Tucson, Arizona, US
Even the Ohio law allows photographing underage models nude for artistic, medical, educational, religious and a raft of other purposes.
The true answer, as with most of these threads, is: "It depends."
One of the things on which it depends is the local constabulary. You might ask the woman in Virginia who took pictures of her babies nude for use in paintings of cherubs for a church. Some brain-dead clerk called the cops, who charged her with a felony and took away her kids. She eventually won the case, but going through that hell wasn't something she wanted to do again.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Brian Diaz wrote:
The law does appear to prohibit taking photos in Ohio of nude minors in scenarios that would encompass the vast majority of shoots involving Model Mayhem members. Would you agree? It's hard to know.
Given the preponderance of MM members who seem to feel the need to for the country judge, the sheriff, their lawyer, the model's lawyer, both parents and a delegation from the National Guard to be in their studios before they will shoot any kind of picture of a minor, it's hard to judge what the typical MM shoot of a minor might be.
Photographer
Michael McGowan
Posts: 3829
Tucson, Arizona, US
Roger, even the Ohio law specifically states what photos can be done, under what circumstances.
Now, getting somebody to decide which photo of a naked 16-year-old is art and which is not might be a bit on the iffy side.
The real problem faced by photographers is over-zealous local cops who consider such shoots "contributing to the delinquency of a minor." And that opens a whole nother can of worms.
Photographer
AHS Photography
Posts: 148
Lake Oswego, Oregon, US
Geez, there are way too many internet lawyers on Model Mayhem. I fail to understand why people that have no clue as to what they are talking about feel obligated to post as if they do.
Quick question for all you internet lawyers that said that 18 was the "legal" age for a model depicted in the nude: How exactly did Jock Sturges and David Hamilton get away with shooting and publishing books of nudes of models under 18? I'll give you a hint... because its not illegal.
Now, if the issue is shooting porn / eroticia (or whatever you want to call it) that's an entirely different subject. There are, obviously, state and federal laws prohibiting child porn. Also, some MMers posting here correctly recognized that there may be local (City / County) laws that enter into the equation as well.
Having said that, I agree with the people that posted advice to the effect that regardless of the technical legality of it, it may not be wise to shoot with underage models for a host of other reasons, some of which relate to potential "legal" issues.
Its just not worth it.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Michael McGowan wrote:
Roger, even the Ohio law specifically states what photos can be done, under what circumstances. I agree. That was my point in responding to Brian. It is not a blanket prohibition.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Everything we do in life carries some extreme 1 in a million risks. Let's not overblown those risks if you do things properly.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
CGI Images wrote:
Everything we do in life carries some extreme 1 in a million risks. Let's not overblown those risks if you do things properly. But . . . some people really get off on telling us about those risks, and even better, what superior people they are for not assuming those risks themselves. We wouldn't want to deny them their fun, would we?
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
TXPhotog wrote:
This has been one of those threads just chock full of misinformation. Perhaps we can go for the world record? ei Total Productions wrote:
I could spend my retirement just responding to the misinformation, but alas, I have other things to do.
I will have to settle for a little sigh Aw c'mon guys, I TRIED back when this thing was born to give a detailed correct answer in the 6th post. Not my fault it didn't work!
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
SLE Photography wrote:
TXPhotog wrote:
This has been one of those threads just chock full of misinformation. Perhaps we can go for the world record? Aw c'mon guys, I TRIED back when this thing was born to give a detailed correct answer in the 6th post. Not my fault it didn't work! Sometimes there just isn't enough drama in the truth James.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Sorry dp. Bad iPhone bad!
Photographer
Tim Foster
Posts: 1816
Orlando, Florida, US
CGI Images wrote:
Everything we do in life carries some extreme 1 in a million risks. Let's not overblown those risks if you do things properly. I admire your persistence. I gave up a long time ago, and now I just tell people I'm a terrorist and a repeat sex offender.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Tim Foster wrote:
I admire your persistence. I gave up a long time ago, and now I just tell people I'm a terrorist and a repeat sex offender. so your sayin your a white middle aged male....
Photographer
glamour pics
Posts: 6095
Los Angeles, California, US
Michael McGowan wrote:
Even the Ohio law allows photographing underage models nude for artistic, medical, educational, religious and a raft of other purposes.
The true answer, as with most of these threads, is: "It depends."
One of the things on which it depends is the local constabulary. You might ask the woman in Virginia who took pictures of her babies nude for use in paintings of cherubs for a church. Some brain-dead clerk called the cops, who charged her with a felony and took away her kids. She eventually won the case, but going through that hell wasn't something she wanted to do again. Jock Sturges was famously nuked in San Francisco years ago, though he had enough fame and help that the matter was eventually dropped, after trashing his life. Sally Mann has reportedly been threatened. There have been NUMEROUS incidents where decent people were tormented due to baby photos or the like. It is possible for someone's life to be ruined without a conviction and without even charges being formally filed. There are parallels in related fields, such as the McMartin Preschool case where lives were destroyed by entirely bogus accusations.
Photographer
glamour pics
Posts: 6095
Los Angeles, California, US
TXPhotog wrote:
It's hard to know.
Given the preponderance of MM members who seem to feel the need to for the country judge, the sheriff, their lawyer, the model's lawyer, both parents and a delegation from the National Guard to be in their studios before they will shoot any kind of picture of a minor, it's hard to judge what the typical MM shoot of a minor might be. Typical? For those who don't like to live on the edge, how about a headshot shoot?
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Doug Swinskey wrote:
Doug Swinskey wrote:
there is no state that i know of that prohibits underage models from posing nude.
add sexual situations, lascivious display of genitalia and you'll find lots of laws..
simply nudity..i dont think you can cite one law from any state. how about this, cite relevant law or shut up.... I just realized she didn't post after that...
Well played my friend, well played!
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45198
San Juan Bautista, California, US
What happened to the OP???? 
Photographer
glenn my name today
Posts: 1025
Lancaster, California, US
Mike Weston Photography wrote:
The bottom line here is that anything is legal until you get caught or someone complains. wait, so you are saying illegal acts, say murder or rape, are legal until you get caught?
this is amazing legal advice and an interpretation of laws I've never before seen.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Patrick Walberg wrote:
What happened to the OP???? What with this being a three month old thread, she likely got tired of it.
Photographer
Swank Photography
Posts: 19020
Key West, Florida, US
Doug Swinskey wrote:
there is no state that i know of that prohibits underage models from posing nude.
add sexual situations, lascivious display of genitalia and you'll find lots of laws..
simply nudity..i dont think you can cite one law from any state. Doug...Brian Diaz posted earlier that Ohio has such a law pertaining to this.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Doug Swinskey wrote:
there is no state that i know of that prohibits underage models from posing nude.
add sexual situations, lascivious display of genitalia and you'll find lots of laws..
simply nudity..i dont think you can cite one law from any state. Swank Photography wrote:
Doug...Brian Diaz posted earlier that Ohio has such a law pertaining to this. and he admitted that it still allowed underage nude modeling....did you bother to read it?...
Photographer
NewBoldPhoto
Posts: 5216
PORT MURRAY, New Jersey, US
Swank Photography wrote:
Doug...Brian Diaz posted earlier that Ohio has such a law pertaining to this. still not a prohibition just adds 2 qualifiers: parental consent + valid (nonporn) purpose.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Doug Swinskey wrote:
did you bother to read it?... Errr . . wait! We have to read laws now before telling people what they are? Say what? When did that happen?
Photographer
NewBoldPhoto
Posts: 5216
PORT MURRAY, New Jersey, US
TXPhotog wrote:
Errr . . wait! We have to read laws now before telling people what they are? Say what? When did that happen? Uhhhh... Last thurs... didn't you get the memo? I'm sure there was a memo. A memo, yes, definitely a memo, mmmmm....
Photographer
Swank Photography
Posts: 19020
Key West, Florida, US
CGI Images wrote:
I just realized she didn't post after that...
Well played my friend, well played! No. I"m still here. Let's stay on topic please
Photographer
Swank Photography
Posts: 19020
Key West, Florida, US
Doug Swinskey wrote:
Doug Swinskey wrote:
there is no state that i know of that prohibits underage models from posing nude.
add sexual situations, lascivious display of genitalia and you'll find lots of laws..
simply nudity..i dont think you can cite one law from any state. and he admitted that it still allowed underage nude modeling....did you bother to read it?... Yes I did.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Swank Photography wrote:
Yes I did. so as of yet, you would agree, no one has cited a law that prohibits underage nude modeling...
Photographer
Swank Photography
Posts: 19020
Key West, Florida, US
Doug Swinskey wrote:
so as of yet, you would agree, no one has cited a law that prohibits underage nude modeling... I responded in pm to you about this.
Look...my opinion here? This thread will get locked sooner than later because topics like this can and often do get nasty and overheated in words.
I made my statement here as a previous Victims Advocate.
On that note I will refrain from my further participation on this because it isn't going anywhere except downward at a pretty fast rate.
Thanks though for the chit chat
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Swank Photography wrote:
I made my statement here as a previous Victims Advocate. Is the law different if you are a victim's advocate?
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Doug Swinskey wrote:
so as of yet, you would agree, no one has cited a law that prohibits underage nude modeling... Doug . . . agreeing to that means admitting to being in error. We can't have that now, can we? Best to just drop out of the thread, or bluster.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
yeah TX...i give on this one....
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Swank Photography wrote:
I made my statement here as a previous Victims Advocate. So nudity = victim, got it.
|
