bencook2 wrote:

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.

Well said.

Justin Foto wrote:

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.
.

Hey!  I live in that Bible Belted South you are talking about!!!  :-)

And yes, I do worry a little when I work with underage models with their clothes on!

But, to be honest, I don't worry much.  IF I were to shoot nudes of minors I would consult a lawyer.  There are photographers in SC that do shoot -18 nudes.  Beautiful work!  So far none have gone to jail. 

I think if you are legit you have very little to worry about.  IF you are trying to make artistic images it will shine through in the work.  If you are making borderline kiddy porn you can't hide it.

I have seen artistic nudes of Jenna Jameson and I have seen her other work.  I can tell the difference.

Trimester Images wrote:
Lewdness is in the eye of the beholder and the sheriff/DA out to make a name for themselves.

To some degree, but in reality, lewdness is in the eye of the law.

As the courts have shown, it is one thing for a sherriff to be overzealous, it is another to litigate or prosecute.

To wit:  http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=3745

The courts have made it clear that to be lewd, it does indeed have to be lewd.

Joseph Molosky wrote:
18

CGI Images wrote:
18 what?

the number of page this topic will grow to? (but I'm hoping it ends sooner than that)

ei Total Productions wrote:
As the courts have shown, it is one thing for a sherriff to be overzealous, it is another to litigate or prosecute.

To wit:  http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=3745

The courts have made it clear that to be lewd, it does indeed have to be lewd.

QFT...  This is a fact all the "take your chances" people often choose to overlook.

Justin Foto wrote:
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.

There have been law changes, or rather amendments to existing laws, both in England and later in Scotland. These amamndments subastituted 18 foir 16 without changing much else, so were not now laws. However, they refer to indecent not nude pictures. No one seems willing to provide the test case to settle what indecent actually means, and whether nude would automatically be considered indecent if the model was a minor. 

http://www.iwf.org.uk/police/page.22.13.htm

http://www.iwf.org.uk/police/page.22.37.htm

Scott Johnson Studios wrote:
18 or 19.

Is there an echo in here?  Or is there a rule that once someone gives a dumb answer others have to chime in as well with it?

Scott Johnson Studios wrote:
18 or 19.

Scott...

So far today, you have made the statement that models "lack manners" in another thread, and then you give an absolutely wrong answer in this thread.

Can I make a suggestion? Take a break from the forums for a day...

...or two.

WMcK wrote:

There have been law changes, or rather amendments to existing laws, both in England and later in Scotland. These amamndments subastituted 18 foir 16 without changing much else, so were not now laws. However, they refer to indecent not nude pictures. No one seems willing to provide the test case to settle what indecent actually means, and whether nude would automatically be considered indecent if the model was a minor. 

http://www.iwf.org.uk/police/page.22.13.htm

http://www.iwf.org.uk/police/page.22.37.htm

Yeah, I saw that - Studio 36 posted in a different thread. The only effect I see is that UK red sheets post 18+ for topless, probably out of fear of prosecution rather than any real legal standing.

As a side note, I wonder why they did this? What a waste of tax payers money - granted not so much of a waste as moat cleaning or paying interest on the second mortgage you forgot you didn't have - but really, isn't there something better the legislatures can be doing?

Sophistocles wrote:
The correct answer is "half my age plus two."

So since I turn 42 on Sunday, I won't sleep with anyone younger than 23.

Oh, wait, that's what we were talking about, right?

But there is no fun in shooting with wrinklies.  All those toilet pauses, the dribbling, and the nanna naps break the creative flow.  And then there are the models.

True Colours Photograph wrote:
But there is no fun in shooting with wrinklies.  All those toilet pauses, the dribbling, and the nanna naps break the creative flow.  And then there are the models.

you are replying to a thread from June, 2009.

why?

SLE Photography wrote:



I knew I was getting old this past weekend when I shot nudes of a model (at her request, I might add) who wasn't born until after I graduated high school & I stopped to think "boy, this's a little weird."

Get used to it.  A majority of the models that i work with were born after i graduated.

Actually, in modeling terms, a woman born before '75 is approaching being considered "mature".

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? I was thinking 18, but then I was thinking 21. Not sure which one is "legal". I have some ideas that I feel would work great with the model either nude, or semi nude, but feel like an old pervert asking an 18 year old to take their clothing off. Comments?

I've shot ladies from 18 to 40. It's all legal. I will say this though, ladies in their 30's tend to be a LOT more fun to work with because they are more mature, likely have a work ethic, and don't have all the image issues that teens and 20-somethings do, but that's just MHO.

Under 18 we call jail bait. Care to guess why?