CGI Images wrote:
So your saying you have no logical basis to back up what you said in the first place, got it.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
I was asked if I thought it OK for whatever reason to shoot nudes of minors.  That like asking you CGI if you still beat your wife.  LOL     Do You???

violence against women and nudity are not the same...one is illegal, the other is not..aside from the other obvious differences..

Ray Holyer wrote:
Americans, especially, tend to equate nudity with sex, whereas many cultures equate nudity with beauty.


There was a case last year where a man was caught having sex with a bicycle.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ … court.html

I have no intention of having sex with my bicycle, but I might want to take photographs of it.  Presumably, in the USA, I might be prevented from doing so?

I remember that one. Crazy F*cker.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
an observation on our society was summed nicely by g.carlin

on television, its ok to hack off a breast with a chainsaw, but don't dare kiss one.....

we are a nation of brain dead idiots...(collectively)

Not really. The majority don't have a problem with nudity it's the very vocal few that do and make life difficult for the rest of us.

The majority of people in AZ want marijuana legalized. It's the very vocal few that keep it from happening.

c_d_s wrote:
No, you try to make the law say what you want, that it's perfectly legal to photograph someone under 18, anywhere, no matter what. Texas law says differently. Ohio law says differently. You refuse to accept it.

I have NEVER heard him say "no matter what."  He's said there're no laws forbidding nude photographs of someone at any age for simple nudity.

c_d_s wrote:
My only agenda is to counter yours, which is to spew false information on this site, demanding links, citations, then when provided, you launch into your spiel about how you know more about it than the legislators who wrote the laws and the prosecutors who prosecuted.

Actually he's usually countering false information & demands cites because the people providing it usually can't give any & if they can it doesn't actually support their argument.

c_d_s wrote:
I'm sure you have no concept of how this works, Roger, but there are people who can look at laws and cases and have a discussion about them. You can't. You simply tell everyone that they're wrong and you're right. You say no law exists. It does exist, so you go to your backup plan of, "that's not what it says."

But he's NOT wrong.  The laws DO demand "lewd" or "sexual conduct" or some similar qualifiers.  There are NO laws prohibiting SIMPLE NUDITY for someone under age 18.
People who want to insist otherwise typically either have no basis for saying so or they're misinterpreting other laws.

c_d_s wrote:
Where exactly was I asked to provide a link which showed that non-sexual nude photography of minors was illegal?

c_d_s wrote:
You keep making up shit to try and bolster your foolish, irresponsible argument. No one is buying it but your drooling sycophants.

I resent that.  I do not drool.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
I can think of only ONE reason someone would want a minor to pose nude.  And it has NOTHING to do with art.

So what is that ONE REASON that, for instance, all the parents who take pics of their kids in the tub share?

Ray Holyer wrote:
Americans, especially, tend to equate nudity with sex, whereas many cultures equate nudity with beauty.

True and I'll even add to that, americans tend to equate nudity and sexuality/body pleasure with negative harmful things.

Other cultures dont do that either.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
To vague a question.  "For what ever reason".   "is it Ok."   Are you asking if there is something magical about the day one is no longer a minor?   Are you asking if one's intention of shooting nudes changes on that day too?    Is the model who asked me to shoot nudes of her BEFORE that day any different on the day after when we did? 

I need not, nor am I qualified to, go into the cultural, religious and psychosocial differences that exist world wide. And the taboos associated with this all.

How can you admit that while simultaneously saying that crap about "only one reason"?

Ray Holyer wrote:
In the (too) many threads about nudity and under 18's, no-one has been able to prove that it is illegal to take photographs of minors.  No-one.

In a way, I wish someone would.  Then we could just link to the one law, or case, or whatever, that proved it, and stop these threads.

Kind of like how people always say "Well, ok it might not be porn, some bubba will interpret it that way and you'll be sitting in jail for sure"

Well if that was so likely too they could find many, many examples of people sitting in jail after something was mis-interpreted.

SLE Photography wrote:

So what is that ONE REASON that, for instance, all the parents who take pics of their kids in the tub share?

Or all the family photo's I see being taken at nudist places. Perverts.

c_d_s wrote:
Fine, have it your way. I offered you multiple chances to correct yourself, but you just keep spewing lies, so here you go:

1.
CGI Images responded to this quote:

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.

With this:

CGI Images wrote:
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.

I'll pause now, so you can read these carefully and ponder these points:

a) The challenge was directed at Justin Foto, not me.

b) The challenge was to link several cites where people were convicted of taking simple nudes of minors.

I posted one such link. Again, plese note that the original challenge said "simple nudes of minors." You changed it to "non-sexual nude photography of minors." Here's your direct quote:


Since you are so utterly lacking in logic, I'll do it for you:

a) Your statement that I was asked to provide a link is false. Someone else was asked to provide a link, not me.

b) Your statement that I was asked to provide a link "which showed that non-sexual nude photography of minors was illegal" is false. That is not what anyone was asked. You made that shit up.

Both parts of your statement are patently false, therefore, you are a liar.


2.


No, you claimed that I claimed that. I never said it. You did. I gave you ample opportunity to show where I said it, but, since it never happened, you couldn't show it.

Your statement is patently false, therefore, you are a liar.

Ok, so this is now officially the dumbest thread I've ever read. I left the building and didn't realize that I had been challenged. But for the record...

CGI Images wrote:
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.

Who said anything about opening a can of worms having anything whatsoever to do with convictions?  Can I point to convictions? NO - BECAUSE I MADE NO SUCH CLAIM

Want proof that this issue is a can of worms? Start reading this thread from the very beginning. It's very existence proves my point. Here you will find all kinds of ill informed people from all walks of society. Ergo - the kind of people who would land you in the shit and ruin your reputation - while making you incur huge legal costs - all the while you having broken no laws. That is a can of worms. If you want to research where this has actually happened - Google is your friend. There's even a guy on MM whose business and reputation was left in tatters after shooting in a suggestive manner with someone "underage" Even though no laws were broken and he was convicted of nothing.

Another example - Annie and Mylie. A shit storm about nothing.

As for the laws themselves, I had a non-exhaustive poke around and I can't find any laws pertaining to an age limit for shooting nudes. That doesn't mean they don't exist - I'm not a lawyer or law maker so I don't know. And even if I were - I'd have no idea what the laws are where you live. I do know that shooting nudes with people under 18 with parental consent can get you in trouble purely because society is fucked up as this very thread demonstrates so very very clearly.

My advice to anyone who is going to shoot nudes with under 18's is make sure it's legal where you live (and before anyone chimes in with "but it is legal" I'm not limiting this advice to where you live or even what country you live in - but the entire world) And even if it is legal - if you live in a puritanical part of the world be it Saudi Arabia or the or countrybumkinsville USA - just don't bother if there's a good chance you're going to start a shit storm.  You're not going to change society views on your own, and neither will this thread.

Justin Foto wrote:
Want proof that this issue is a can of worms? Start reading this thread from the very beginning. It's very existence proves my point. Here you will find all kinds of ill informed people from all walks of society. Ergo - the kind of people who would land you in the shit and ruin your reputation - while making you incur huge legal costs - all the while you having broken no laws.

Alright, first off no I never said that YOU said "cases", but then again we arent talking about "trouble" meaning other peoples opinion ect, it is after all the "legal" trouble people are saying is a virtual certianty.  Your only "proof" of this being a can of worms is in regard to fear mongering and mis-information, I'll grant you that one, this and the other threads are definately proof of that.

Justin Foto wrote:
If you want to research where this has actually happened - Google is your friend. There's even a guy on MM whose business and reputation was left in tatters after shooting in a suggestive manner with someone "underage" Even though no laws were broken and he was convicted of nothing.

Like it was pointed out before, good luck finding a prosecutor thats willing to put it on the line when something is so clearly NOT illegal.  Do they exist, sure, is it in the realm of possibility, sure, is it likely no. 

But for every case you can find where a prsecutor actually went ahead and indicted someone I'll find you two cases where someone had drugs planted on them, was falsely accused of rape ect.  And I'd bet those defenses were just as likely to "incur huge legal costs" and "loss of reputation".  Are you saying people shouldnt drive, date, etc because of those "risks" as well?

Justin Foto wrote:
As for the laws themselves, I had a non-exhaustive poke around and I can't find any laws pertaining to an age limit for shooting nudes. That doesn't mean they don't exist - I'm not a lawyer or law maker so I don't know. And even if I were - I'd have no idea what the laws are where you live.

Good thing for you and I, many people on MM have had exhaustive pokes around and even a few are lawyers that have pointed out the truths of these laws, or at least I should say lack of laws.  Funny thing with them though, is usually they back up they say with some kind of proof.

Justin Foto wrote:
I do know that shooting nudes with people under 18 with parental consent can get you in trouble purely because society is fucked up as this very thread demonstrates so very very clearly.

Again all this thread proves is people dont know the truth or laws about it.  What "proof" in this thread is there of actuall "trouble" people have had to deal with when shooting nudes of minors in a legal fashion?  Are there people in this thread that have suffered real damage aside from someones opinion doing it? I didnt see any.

Justin Foto wrote:
My advice to anyone who is going to shoot nudes with under 18's is make sure it's legal where you live (and before anyone chimes in with "but it is legal" I'm not limiting this advice to where you live or even what country you live in - but the entire world) And even if it is legal - if you live in a puritanical part of the world be it Saudi Arabia or the or countrybumkinsville USA - just don't bother if there's a good chance you're going to start a shit storm.  You're not going to change society views on your own, and neither will this thread.

Again you keep talking about these pending "shit storms" from doing this kind of shooting.. where's the proof of the shit storm?  Where is the proof of people actually hurt or damaged by doing it in a legal way??

Like I've said a dozen times if it was such a virtual "shit storm" of trouble, finding examples of the damage from that "shit storm" would be easy..well.. where are they?

Even the extreme one in a million freak occurance things like lightning striking or falling and dying in the bathtub can be found more readily than people incuring damage from taking legal nudes of minors.

You need a first hand account of the actual lack of that "shit storm" you are so sure is coming you feel the need to warn people.  I've pointed it out before and I will again.  I go to nudist camps and beaches occasionly, have grown up around it and continued with it in my adult life.  I'm pushing 40, in those 40yrs I've witnessed countless, countless pictures being taken of nude minors.  I have never heard of a single instance of damage this has brought about for anyone.

If it was such a coming "shit storm" dont you think I would have at least seen or heard of 4 or 5 instances where people were damaged by doing that? In all those years? Just 4 or 5 would be a given.

Joseph Molosky wrote:
18

18 what?

Joseph Molosky wrote:
18

Good grief!

Ok, really - where are you? And please cite your reference. If you have none, please go away.

CGI Images wrote:
Again all this thread proves is people dont know the truth or laws about it.  What "proof" in this thread is there of actuall "trouble" people have had to deal with when shooting nudes of minors in a legal fashion?  Are there people in this thread that have suffered real damage aside from someones opinion doing it? I didnt see any.

That's the whole point.

CGI Images wrote:
Again all this thread proves is people dont know the truth or laws about it.  What "proof" in this thread is there of actuall "trouble" people have had to deal with when shooting nudes of minors in a legal fashion?  Are there people in this thread that have suffered real damage aside from someones opinion doing it? I didnt see any.

I"m on your side as far as what the law is, but I'd have to say that Jock Sturges suffered "real damage" from his experiences, even though he was never convicted of anything.

Art of the nude wrote:
I"m on your side as far as what the law is, but I'd have to say that Jock Sturges suffered "real damage" from his experiences, even though he was never convicted of anything.

There are people who have, and folks on the paranoid side of this argument can find press reports of some of them.  As always is true in these discussions, a sense of proportion seems to be lacking. 

Yes, taking pictures (of any type) of a minor could get you in trouble.  Taking pictures of an adult can get you in the same kinds of trouble, for pretty similar reasons.  Walking across the street to get to the studio can get you in trouble too.  The existence of possible "trouble" needs to be evaluated on a probabilistic basis, not an existential one.

And sure as hell, there are those (including in this thread) who take the position that any probability, however remote, is adequate to justify scaring the bejesus out of anyone who reads these threads.

Art of the nude wrote:
I"m on your side as far as what the law is, but I'd have to say that Jock Sturges suffered "real damage" from his experiences, even though he was never convicted of anything.

Emeritus wrote:
There are people who have, and folks on the paranoid side of this argument can find press reports of some of them.  As always is true in these discussions, a sense of proportion seems to be lacking. 

Yes, taking pictures (of any type) of a minor could get you in trouble.  Taking pictures of an adult can get you in the same kinds of trouble, for pretty similar reasons.  Walking across the street to get to the studio can get you in trouble too.  The existence of possible "trouble" needs to be evaluated on a probabilistic basis, not an existential one.

And sure as hell, there are those (including in this thread) who take the position that any probability, however remote, is adequate to justify scaring the bejesus out of anyone who reads these threads.

Yep.  I'm not interested in scaring anyone.  I have my own policies, but they're based on my own situation, not a misinterpretation of the law.

Art of the nude wrote:
Yep.  I'm not interested in scaring anyone.  I have my own policies, but they're based on my own situation, not a misinterpretation of the law.

Thank you, and thats fine to have one's own tastes and opinion policies.  I don't like feet, I think pictures of feet are gross and disgusting.  I dont go around telling people they are playing legal russian rolloute for shooting feet with nothing to back it up.

And as far as the Jock Sturges thing goes, I'd argue that he was more likely a target than the smaller guy that operates under that big name radar.  But again, even giving that as an example, its one example.  Like Roger said its a matter of probability not pure possibility and the probability is extreme contrary to what so many on here say.

Joseph Molosky wrote:
18

its funny how some people will post information, regardless of accuracy, having knowledge (or no knowledge) on the subject....

maybe he's a frustrated writer and just wants to see his name associated with published copy...

Joseph Molosky wrote:
18

Doug Swinskey wrote:
its funny how some people will post information, regardless of accuracy, having knowledge (or no knowledge) on the subject....

maybe he's a frustrated writer and just wants to see his name associated with published copy...

Or just lack of reading a few previous posts that might have been enlightening.

CGI Images wrote:
Again all this thread proves is people dont know the truth or laws about it.  What "proof" in this thread is there of actuall "trouble" people have had to deal with when shooting nudes of minors in a legal fashion?  Are there people in this thread that have suffered real damage aside from someones opinion doing it? I didnt see any.

Justin Foto wrote:
That's the whole point.

No its not, your saying that is proof that legal trouble from this type shooting is probable.

CGI Images wrote:
Or just lack of reading a few previous posts that might have been enlightening.

but who to believe?.....all the folks posting great thoughtful information or the people who post something like "18"....or cite law that supports the contradictory position????????

matthew turner images wrote:
What is the legal age for a model to pose nude, or better yet, what is the appropriate age that a photographer can ask a model to pose nude?

under 60

SayCheeZ! wrote:

No circumstances at all?

Obvioulsy and forever, these kinds of baby pictures have been made. (Love em of someone else, hate em of myself...  LOL)

Distribution of such images might create legal exposure.(from parents?)  But we're exposed to just about anything if one digs deep enough.  One can only mitigate, not eliminate.

Tim Orden
(No, I'm not on the bar, but you can always sue me.)

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
I can think of only ONE reason someone would want a minor to pose nude.  And it has NOTHING to do with art.

I guess I'd better delete those bathtub photos I shot of my baby sons yesterday. Then I'll turn myself in at the local police station. Thanks for making me aware that I'm a sick, sick person.

BarryH wrote:

I guess I'd better delete those bathtub photos I shot of my baby sons yesterday. Then I'll turn myself in at the local police station. Thanks for making me aware that I'm a sick, sick person.

Refer to Doug's quote on his page for enlightenment.

CGI Images wrote:

CGI Images wrote:
Again all this thread proves is people dont know the truth or laws about it.  What "proof" in this thread is there of actuall "trouble" people have had to deal with when shooting nudes of minors in a legal fashion?  Are there people in this thread that have suffered real damage aside from someones opinion doing it? I didnt see any.

No its not, your saying that is proof that legal trouble from this type shooting is probable.

Doesn't it just boils down to common sense and understanding your environment? For instance, the guy who lost everything when he was accused of kiddie porn. (I can't find the thread, so if someone else could, I'd be grateful) I seem to remember that he was in the deep south / bible belt so it was hardly surprising.

If he'd been in Paris, France, albeit a Catholic city, but really quite liberal, I doubt anyone would have taken any notice. If he lived in Riyadh, he'd probably have been beheaded.

There are societies where any kind of nudity is seen as dirty. If you live in such a place (and not just in the USA) and shoot, within the law, but outside of what people may find acceptable, then I'm pretty sure you're going to feel heat. The small town sheriff who locks you up will win points in a popularity contest and he doesn't give a shit about the letter of the law.

And for the record, I'll say this. Whether or not you are liable to kick up a shit storm is dependent on your exact circumstances.

Me personally, I've shot underage nudes when I lived in the UK - my cousin who my Aunt had left naked knowing full well I had a camera and was taking pictures of her. But I notice that attitudes have hardened there in the last 20 odd years and if I lived there right now, I'm not sure I'd do it again - even with a baby (as this was). At the time it wasn't unusual for people to have pictures of their kids butt naked. It does seem to be these days. I've seen pictures of my friends as kids naked, but not their kids.

The Sun newspaper (A Rupert Murdoch rag) used to have an age limit of 16 for their topless shots, but from what I hear that is no longer the case (18 now), but as far as I'm aware, there have been no law changes in England or Scotland, just a shift in societal thinking.

Shutterbug5269 wrote:
This is the definition of Obscenity according to NY State Penal code:
Please note the portion in bold

S 235.00 Obscenity; definitions of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to sections 235.05, 235.10
and 235.15:
1. "Obscene." Any material or performance is "obscene" if (a) the
average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find
that considered as a whole, its predominant appeal is to the prurient
interest in sex, and (b) it depicts or describes in a patently offensive
manner, actual or simulated: sexual intercourse, criminal sexual act,
sexual bestiality, masturbation, sadism, masochism, excretion or lewd
exhibition of the genitals, and (c) considered as a whole, it lacks
serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.

As community standards are the determining factor for what is considered

A. "obscene material"
B. weather the image is sexual in nature
C. weather it lacks literary, artistic, political, and scientific value

(at least in NY State) that renders the legality or illegality of nude photography of minors to be subject to the accepted standards for the jurisdiction involved.

So what part of my statements were false again??

Pay attention.  I've already explained that to you.  www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=42 … st10177089

You have completely misunderstood the issue.  This is not about "obscenity", which is illegal regardless of age, and for which the community standards rule does apply.  Rather, it is about "child pornography", which is illegal only at certain ages (and the age limit is not 18 under New York law), and for which the "community standards" test is not used.

If you don't even know what we are discussing it's easy to understand why you cannot follow the concepts.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
The point was, this question has been ask numerous times before.  WHY?  What is the interest in shooting minors without clothes?   It just strikes me as strange that there is ALWAYS someone seeking validation in doing something that some societies say is taboo.  When someone asks "when can I"  "why can't I". I begin to think the worst of their intentions.

OH

OH

OH

Pick me! **waves hands wildly**

The question: " WHY?  What is the interest in shooting minors without clothes?   It just strikes me as strange that there is ALWAYS someone seeking validation in doing something that some societies say is taboo."

The Answer:  If you want to photography a 13 year old girl completely naked what are the reasons you as an artist might want to do that?

1.  You see yourself as an artists that captures a moment in life.  (Are 13 year olds ever naked in life?  Can they be at once naked and beautiful?  Can a skilled artist capture that and it not be sexual?  Yes to all.)

2.  As an artist you see yourself as someone who documents life as it is.  You want to document what it is like to be a 13 year old.  (Once again, are 13 year olds ever naked in real life?  Is real life what you are capturing?  Could you as an artist capture that particular part a persons life?  Yes...)

___

I think part of the problem is that so many of us shoot in styles that are not appropriate for the "13 year old".  It is hard to distance yourself from what it is you do and think of art as something different for other people.

The "taboo" question...
Then there is society that says one societal norm is that naked = sex.

When there are those of us that have a very valid point, that courts have upheld for ages, that naked = natural.

The "interest in shooting minors without clothes" question...
That is actually a good question.  Why does someone want to take pics of naked girls 18+?  To get laid?  Yeah.  Sure.  There is a good contingent of those folks on this site and all over the world.  Then there are those that do it because they see their creation and collaboration at the end of the day and they love the feeling it gives them.  That feel is satisfaction.  Not a hard on. 

Can't a person photograph minors nude for the same reason?  Can't if be for the simple feeling satisfaction and a job well done?

_____ 

A photographer that dares work with under age models has my respect and admiration because so many people see him as guilty until proved innocent.  You are automatically a pedophile until proven otherwise.  And folks that make statements like you just made infuriate me.  Good manners is all that is keeping me from verbally filleting you right her and now. 

The body is at once beautiful and sexual.  All of that is in the eye of the beholder.  If you behold sex when you see a naked person in a non sexual photograph... that is on you my friend not the photographer.