|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
15 year old implied topless.. What would you do???
If I were a photographer, everything was legal, parent was there and signed release, I'd shoot it as a paid shoot. Afterall the image doesn't have to go online anywhere, doesn't have to be printed for any publication, image only has to go to the paying client. Feb 22 10 09:03 am Link I've done it, but the parents were part of that shoot as well. No, they didn't watch, but they did dictate the content in very concise terms, and they signed an agreement to that effect, as did the girl (to show that we were all aware of the terms and conditions). There was no nudity, since hands or arms are probably more effective at hiding stuff then clothes are. In other words, they aren't nudes at all. They are simply sans clothes. Reminds me of Miley Cyrus. Feb 22 10 09:05 am Link I'll say this.. there's nothing trashy or immoral about the sample image. In Holland, perhaps I would do the shoot, as long as the mother was supportive and there. People in that area of the world aren't as hung up on nudity (or in this case, implied nudity) as we are in the US. Personally I'd try to have her wear something that could be hidden with her arm and camera angles. If the image was something that I thought would possibly draw negative attention on myself I wouldn't put it on my website or promote it in any way. Feb 22 10 09:06 am Link As a European with different cultural biases towards nudity I would be reluctant to take advice from a us (or other)-centric viewpoint. Why make a big thing about it? Just say to the daughter she needs to get her parent's approval and if they're ok with it, and you are too, surely that's the end of it? ie Checklist: 1. Local community standards 2. Parent's standards 3. Your standards. i Feb 22 10 09:32 am Link In most states, the law says no nudity with underage models, her parents are not given the permission to say the law will not apply with my given consent.. Stay away from this shoot, it is not worth the worry... jp Feb 22 10 09:34 am Link I'm European or based in the UK and I would'nt even consider doing such a shot. Walk away. Feb 22 10 09:35 am Link James T Parsons wrote: Stop lying. Feb 22 10 09:35 am Link Chieffie wrote: Feb 22 10 09:36 am Link It's always a good policy to leave the little girls alone. Her mother sounds like she doesn't have good judgment, and the girl is too young to make that kind of decision. Just my opinion. Feb 22 10 09:36 am Link PYPI FASHION wrote: I have no idea what the laws are like in Holland, but in the UK it would be asking for problems and I wouldn't personally touch it with a bargepole. Feb 22 10 09:39 am Link Anyone remember the shot of Brooke Shields nude at ten years old? Feb 22 10 09:39 am Link Ken Marcus Studios wrote: For god's sake, are you even READING what's being said here? Feb 22 10 09:39 am Link James T Parsons wrote: Absolutely wrong! Feb 22 10 09:40 am Link nothing illegal about it in the USA Feb 22 10 09:40 am Link Its not worth it... DONT DO IT!!!! NOOOOO!!! here is a little legal junk for you: On obscenity (a) whether the "average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest â¦, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. My point... it only takes one person to be offended by it, regardless of whether or not the MOM thinks its ok. That has nothing to do with it... You would essentially need to ask the comminuty. It aint worth it... IMO Feb 22 10 09:41 am Link I'd run as fast as my legs would carry me... Feb 22 10 09:42 am Link i doint see why its so nuts, if the op isnt posting it online anywhere and its for the client get them to sign releases do the photos for them and give them a disc of them. make sure the parent is ok with it and that they are there the entire time also if you do it artistically i really dont see the problem... dont post them anywhere and dont use just do it for money tahts all Edit: is this for a model? or a client... if its a model i would not do it as they would likely post them online etc... if its just prints for the average family i dont see a problem but i wouldnt want to get into it with an actual model who will be using this in portfolios and such Feb 22 10 09:44 am Link Bottom line: If you are uncomfortable with the idea, just because someone is willing to pay you does't mean that you have to do it. Feb 22 10 09:45 am Link There's a big difference between 'illegal' and 'inappropriate' Feb 22 10 09:45 am Link Welcome to the US, where paranoia reigns. Feb 22 10 09:45 am Link Fast Trax wrote: Indeed. I'm so glad I live in The Netherlands Feb 22 10 09:48 am Link Chieffie wrote: This is the key: Why are you uncomfortable. Is unclothed inherently sexual? Is the pose cliched to the point that it's meaningless anyway, so it's pointless to shoot it. What is the purpose of the image? Maybe you should consider the purpose of the image, so that would alleviate your discomfort, or reinforce your intuition. Feb 22 10 09:48 am Link MM should adopt a law baring Americans from expressing opinions about moral issues in Europe. Or at least have them required to preface their post with a disclaimer: "I am an American. I have never been outside of the US, much less to your country, or anywhere in Europe for that matter. I live in a very puritanical society that cannot differentiate nudity from sexuality. Please consider these facts when you read what I write." Feb 22 10 09:48 am Link Fast Trax wrote: prudence (the exercise of sound judgment in practical affairs), not paranoia Feb 22 10 09:49 am Link I've done similar here in the US for paying clients... I had a video camera recording ME the whole time to show that I never touched the model, parents were present during the entire shoot, and had an extra statement in the contract stating "model and parents have had a chance to review all images and delete any they felt were unsuitable." I also did the post production on 5 images then and there, working off the memory card, files never touched my hard drive. I personally would do it again under those same circumstances... as in the model and her family paying me. I would never do it as trade, or hire such a model. Feb 22 10 09:50 am Link I can think of a whole list of reasons not to do this shoot. The fact that her mom is a colleague is about #3 on the list. Feb 22 10 09:53 am Link I thought he stated he's done with this issue now on the 1st page...? Feb 22 10 09:53 am Link Hell, yeah, I'd shoot it. It's not a problem. 2 clicks and I'd be done with it. Have her wear a string bikini. Pose like she is but rotate a couple of degrees towards the camera. Then her hands would cover the bottom strap. Let her hair flow down her neck and cover the top strap. Bang -- implied topless. Then have her move her hand just a touch and put a small gap in her hair and show the strap. Keep it on file. Done in 15 minutes, no laws broken. Feb 22 10 09:53 am Link PYPI FASHION wrote: James T Parsons wrote: Who do I see to collect my winnings? Feb 22 10 09:54 am Link You're going to get half the people in here flailing their arms & screaming "run away" or "stay away" w/ having anything to do w/ shooting minors (let alone it being implied or not). You're going to get the other half here who will tell you there's nothing wrong w/ shooting underage nudity, so long as the context to which it was shot was redeeming. (After all, those shots of the models backstage changing during fashion week are often nude or topless. Same w/ that shot of the infant taking a bath in a kettle.) The question is not what would we the rest of us do (afterall, I don't know the parents in question, nor do I know the model, nor do I live in your locality, nor is your comfort level the same as mine, nor do you know what my experience has been in such situations, etc) but the question is what will you do about it? Only you can really decide that for yourself. If you don't feel comfortable about the situation (regardless as to whether its an implied, nude, clothed, or whatever shoot), don't shoot it. If you do, shoot it. If you're on the fence & aren't sure, consult your attorney to make sure you're not running afoul of local laws. Feb 22 10 09:54 am Link Alan Mura wrote:
Feb 22 10 09:56 am Link While I personally see nothing wrong with nudity especially implied nudity, I also think there's no reason what so ever do to this. Explain to the mother that you are not comfortable with that shot and that you feel it's not age appropriate. She'll probably respect you more for turning it down. Do the rest of the shoot, do a good job, make the daughter look beautiful, she'll be happy. Feb 22 10 09:58 am Link I would thank them, tell them I am very flattered but must decline. See me in a few years. Feb 22 10 09:58 am Link Run away. And don't look back... Feb 22 10 10:00 am Link Ken Marcus Studios wrote: i have seen about 5 images from antoine verglas using a 16 year olds that are virtually the same as the one provided..(one girl is on MM)... ken you know that models work in "age ranges"...some 15yos routinely do work portraying 21 yos. Feb 22 10 10:00 am Link Fast Trax wrote: Indeed. It's not that even bad here in Colombia where there is a significant problem with actual child abuse. Feb 22 10 10:04 am Link It sounds like you are nervous about the shoot..... Follow your instincts! Feb 22 10 10:04 am Link Chieffie wrote: I would not shoot,, even with the mother right there.. I can dig up a playboy case that started like this... but it ended up costing 500,000.00 when someone changed their mind,, or said well" I did not know her friends were going to take it that way.. Feb 22 10 10:04 am Link has anyone brought up miley and annies work? nobody is in jail..nobody's computers have been confiscated or homes raided...  Feb 22 10 10:06 am Link Chieffie wrote: If the mother will be there, I would do it. .........get the money. Feb 22 10 10:11 am Link |
