Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
Bahehehe

CGI Images wrote:

You see that a lot with these kinds of cases, the media in particular doesn't really put much effort into differentiating between the two.  To point out they may be simple nudes and quite possibly legal would kill the excitement of having yet another child predator on the loose in your neighborhood as a story.

what is the world coming too:(

Beatrix Mae wrote:
So are they nude photos or porn? they kind of blended the two together

so far the police have not show either.  they are looking for people to come forward so  they can nail him on some of  the other pics they found.

Beatrix Mae wrote:
So are they nude photos or porn? they kind of blended the two together

The news story was very poorly written. They should have been asking the police whether the photos fit the legal definition of child porn. Did the model's parents sign a consent form? Did the police actually see the photos in question?

I worked in television news for over twenty years. My news director would have never allowed that story to air as it was written. It was too one sided and it didn't ask the proper questions to get an accurate idea of what the guy was being accused of and whether the police were justified in making an arrest in the first place. Part of the problem is that many reporters in smaller markets are young and have little life experience and don't know enough about topics they encounter or what questions to ask.

Columbus Photog wrote:

The last time I checked, 5,000 is 10% of 50,000, not 500,000

d'oh  there are reasons I am a photographer  LOL you are correct sir

Dario Western wrote:
This is what's so screwed up about America - David Hamilton and Jock Sturges and Sally Mann are allowed to sell images of similar stuff in bookshops but this guy is treated just like a rapist or a paedophile?

America is a sick country and has the worst people working in the media.  I pray for one whole year that nobody is able to speak or write a single lie and see how things will change.  Maybe that could be the making of a sequel to Jim Carrey's film "Liar, Liar". 

If Americans didn't get so uptight with nudity or sex unlike most European people, then things would be in a much better state.

Curse Queen Victoria and the Comstock regime, may both of them rot in hell.

can i just stop you there i'm writing a dissertation on this exact subject David Hamilton is british and the other two yes sell books in book shop but all have been charged and investigated by governing bodies SM and JS by FBI and David H by Scotland yard they have also all had there family possessions seized and been and continue to be under scrutiny all the time most bookshop now refuse to sell there books the reason why they get away with it is cause of section 4 of the obscene publication act 1959 that states that if the can prove it to be good for public interest because of it having valid artistic, scientific, other other valid merit it is allowed .

Bill Mason Images wrote:

The news story was very poorly written. They should have been asking the police whether the photos fit the legal definition of child porn. Did the model's parents sign a consent form? Did the police actually see the photos in question?

I worked in television news for over twenty years. My news director would have never allowed that story to air as it was written. It was too one sided and it didn't ask the proper questions to get an accurate idea of what the guy was being accused of and whether the police were justified in making an arrest in the first place. Part of the problem is that many reporters in smaller markets are young and have little life experience and don't know enough about topics they encounter or what questions to ask.

But Bill it was WCVB Boston, market #6. Tho you are correct about the youngsters They just need to go out with a grizzled grouch old guy like me to set em straight.
I think the big guys are just looking to foxify their news and get eyeballs..... no need to tell the truth just sensationalize a tiny bit of info.

BTW did you like the whip zoom in the stand up

Angela Michelle Perez wrote:
OMG a girl was talking on MM about this guy before  she had a thread in Model colloguy I asked her who the photographer was she said he found her on facebook and had shot photos of her nude when she was 17 and  he was also taking photos of her friends still who were still under age she sent me the link to his facebook and this was the same dude. I still have the private message from her telling me about this guy.

What a coincindence. I had asked her who she was talking about because she was local to me.


This is the thread

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 847&page=1


The Photographer the OP is talking about it's the same guy in the news.


Atleast I can say I heard it on MM before it hit the news.

I remember that thread, too. But I just looked at the model's MM portfolio. Her clothed pics are fairly provocative. She is touching her breast in one lingerie pic. Very seductive facial expressions. Makes me wonder what she was doing in the alleged nudes. And why the heck wasn't one of her parents present when she was doing this photo shoot?

CGI Images wrote:

Needs quoted again for emphasis...

AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN.

That's why we ALL MUST ACT ACCORDINGLY.

Murphy's Law applies here too.

Benjamin Wallace wrote:

can i just stop you there i'm writing a dissertation on this exact subject David Hamilton is british and the other two yes sell books in book shop but all have been charged and investigated by governing bodies SM and JS by FBI and David H by Scotland yard they have also all had there family possessions seized and been and continue to be under scrutiny all the time most bookshop now refuse to sell there books the reason why they get away with it is cause of section 4 of the obscene publication act 1959 that states that if the can prove it to be good for public interest because of it having valid artistic, scientific, other other valid merit it is allowed .

Is National Geographic pulled off those same shelves? They show Naked children.

All I am saying is there is such a fine line on what should be allowed and what crosses the line. I do not agree with any child under the age of 18 being shown naked because of all the screwed up people in this world.

David Simpson Images wrote:

But Bill it was WCVB Boston, market #6. Tho you are correct about the youngsters They just need to go out with a grizzled grouch old guy like me to set em straight.
I think the big guys are just looking to foxify their news and get eyeballs..... no need to tell the truth just sensationalize a tiny bit of info.

BTW did you like the whip zoom in the stand up

I thought it was a Worcester station. Oh well, large or small...they all suck at writing good stories. Even here in Philadelphia, a network O&O market, the reporters are idiots..and many of them are young, too. The mentality is here is to garner ratings, not to provide a balanced newscast. I'll have to go back and critique the photojournalist now. Time for some NPPA whoop-ass.

Bill Mason Images wrote:
I remember that thread, too. But I just looked at the model's MM portfolio. Her clothed pics are fairly provocative. She is touching her breast in one lingerie pic. Very seductive facial expressions. Makes me wonder what she was doing in the alleged nudes. And why the heck wasn't one of her parents present when she was doing this photo shoot?

So I'm guessing the OP of that thread  either contacted the police or another model contacted the police about him since the News says the underage model was shot by him 2 weeks ago so it must be a diferent model. depending on how many models are accusing him he could be in big trouble.

Nic wrote:

Is National Geographic pulled off those same shelves? They show Naked children.

All I am saying is there is such a fine line on what should be allowed and what crosses the line. I do not agree with any child under the age of 18 being shown naked because of all the screwed up people in this world.

national geographic and geographical magazine are scientific journals and os there for are given scientific merit

Bill Mason Images wrote:

I remember that thread, too. But I just looked at the model's MM portfolio. Her clothed pics are fairly provocative. She is touching her breast in one lingerie pic. Very seductive facial expressions. Makes me wonder what she was doing in the alleged nudes. And why the heck wasn't one of her parents present when she was doing this photo shoot?

He should fry but let's also look at this and say WTF? A 17 YO should have a shot like this with a top saying sexy 69?



Way wrong IMO!

Dubz Photography wrote:
Worcester T&G article

http://telegram.com/article/20100329/NE … 29694/1116

Why in the world would they give out his address?

David Simpson Images wrote:
Get em Bill  LOL

Actually the photography isn't bad. I see what you were talking about on the stander, but they were trying to show where the reporter was and it ended up being a rather awkward zoom and tilt. But I have to applaud the use of tripod in several shots. I still hate those dang mic cubes as well as seeing a hand held mic wobbling around at the bottom of the screen during an interview.

But I digress from the true subject of this thread...

Benjamin Wallace wrote:

national geographic and geographical magazine are scientific journals and os there for are given scientific merit

And plenty of perverts spank to them I bet! If you see the provacativness in the mage it will stir you. It's who views the images that can be the problem... .BUT I do not approve of intention provacativness by anyone under 18. As you will see in my previous posts. All I am saying is it's the viewer that ultimately "Sees the image" for whatever they see it as. It's all subjective.

Tell me a pedophile see's National Geo showing naked children as "Scientific" LMAO!

No Non pedophile would see a naked child as provacative....

Point made?

Beatrix Mae wrote:

The Lingerie one is more suggestive IMO

I agree but here her legs are spread and the theme of the wardrobe etc.... Way out of line In my opinion for a minor. Lingerie is also way out of line.

Nic wrote:

And plenty of perverts spank to them I bet! If you see the provacativness in the mage it will stir you. It's who views the images that can be the problem... .BUT I do not approve of intention provacativness by anyone under 18. As you will see in my previous posts. All I am saying is it's the viewer that ultimately "Sees the image" for whatever they see it as. It's all subjective.

Tell me a pedophile see's National Geo showing naked children as "Scientific" LMAO!

No Non pedophile would see a naked child as provacative....

Point made?

no, your opinion is part of the problem.

Nic wrote:

I agree but here her legs are spread and the theme of the wardrobe etc.... Way out of line In my opinion for a minor. Lingerie is also way out of line.

I agree its a tacky for sure, just my opinion.  But as far as whats being revealed skin wise.  Go to any beach and you'll see more skin than that on girls younger than that.  I've seen teens with my daughter at the mall wearing less.  So its all of a sudden a big deal if its not "live" but perfectly ok "live".  Or should we advocate laws regarding what we see live as well?

"Mr.. I clearly saw you reading that "PORN STAR" on that young ladies shorts and the lobes of her butt cheeks are clearly visible,.....she's 16... your under arrest for being a potential child pornographer lacking the equipment to carry out the intended act...you have the right to remain...."

Martin Bielecki wrote:
no, your opinion is part of the problem.

How is my opinion part of the problem? Does the way I think make others think like sick basterds? LMAO!

Maybe you have not looked at my port and have a simple minded view of one comment I made. I am all about sexually erotic nude Photography. Just not with minors.

You may want to re step yourself....

CGI Images wrote:

I agree its a tacky for sure, just my opinion.  But as far as whats being revealed skin wise.  Go to any beach and you'll see more skin than that on girls younger than that.  I've seen teens with my daughter at the mall wearing less.  So its all of a sudden a big deal if its not "live" but perfectly ok "live".  Or should we advocate laws regarding what we see live as well?

"Mr.. I clearly saw you reading that "PORN STAR" on that young ladies shorts and the lobes of her butt cheeks are clearly visible,.....she's 16... your under arrest for being a potential child pornographer lacking the equipment to carry out the intended act...you have the right to remain...."

Agree. I was expressing personal opinion earlier, not saying it's wrong just... off colour?

CGI Images wrote:

I agree its a tacky for sure, just my opinion.  But as far as whats being revealed skin wise.  Go to any beach and you'll see more skin than that on girls younger than that.  I've seen teens with my daughter at the mall wearing less.  So its all of a sudden a big deal if its not "live" but perfectly ok "live".  Or should we advocate laws regarding what we see live as well?

"Mr.. I clearly saw you reading that "PORN STAR" on that young ladies shorts and the lobes of her butt cheeks are clearly visible,.....she's 16... your under arrest for being a potential child pornographer lacking the equipment to carry out the intended act...you have the right to remain...."

Ok but her legs are way spread and just read the top! Come on! Is that appropriate for a responsibe adult to take a pic of a minor? It's obviously pushing the limits... Legal yes but come on... The pose kills it for me totally!

Tell me you approve?

Nic wrote:

How is my opinion part of the problem? Does the way I think make others think like sick basterds? LMAO!

Maybe you have not looked at my port and have a simple minded view of one comment I made. I am all about sexually erotic nude Photography. Just not with minors.

You may want to re step yourself....

BS. eroticism has nothing to do with your argument:

Nic wrote:
I do not agree with any child under the age of 18 being shown naked because of all the screwed up people in this world.

so none of us should have bathtime pics in our family photo albums and there shouldn't be naked amazonian kids in NatGeo because somebody could find them erotic.

I find that opinion hysterical and offensive. It is part of the problem.

Nic wrote:

Ok but her legs are way spread and just read the top! Come on! Is that appropriate for a responsibe adult to take a pic of a minor? It's obviously pushing the limits... Legal yes but come on... The pose kills it for me totally!

Tell me you approve?

My personal opinion is that its a tacky outfit, tacky pose and no I dont personally like it.  But I could say the same for many of the miniskirts, overly revealing tops and clothes I see live as well on teen girls.  Just my opinion of class and fashion.  Time and place.

My point is why is it so "inappropriate" in an image but perfectly appropriate live?  Have you seen the volleyball shorts these girls wear, way more revealing than that outfit.

Bill Mason Images wrote:

I remember that thread, too. But I just looked at the model's MM portfolio. Her clothed pics are fairly provocative. She is touching her breast in one lingerie pic. Very seductive facial expressions. Makes me wonder what she was doing in the alleged nudes. And why the heck wasn't one of her parents present when she was doing this photo shoot?

I feel bad for the Model, what a shitty situation to be put in at such a young age.

Nic wrote:

He should fry but let's also look at this and say WTF? A 17 YO should have a shot like this with a top saying sexy 69?

[img]http://modelmayhm-3.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/100324/20/4baad

Way wrong IMO!

You really ought take this post down.......this isn't the critique forum, nor is the OP from that thread even in this one.

Martin Bielecki wrote:

BS. eroticism has nothing to do with your argument:


so none of us should have bathtime pics in our family photo albums and there shouldn't be naked amazonian kids in NatGeo because somebody could find them erotic.

I find that opinion hysterical and offensive. It is part of the problem.

SO WOULD I! Like I said.... You OBVIOUSLY only read one post I made and not from what I said in the beginning...... Including kids in bath etc all being ok...

Do your self a favor and read up.. You can appologize after! (lol)


"This is a train wreck either way....

Way 1) Photographer is stupid enough to shoot with a minor and then REALLY STUPID to shoot her naked.

Way 2) What is porn and what is art? If the Model in question is nude but the images does not portray the subject in a provacative or sexual way then even as a child it's legally ok. (I did not say morally in my mind!)

By law it's perfectly fine to shoot children and minors in the nude in a non sexual way like at a nudist resort, bathing, a baby running around naked. It's when the image can be percieved as "In a sexual nature" Who decides that? Thats why I do not shoot minors even clothed if a young female Model that wants "sexy" shots and Mom is willing to come and sign a relese. If I feel they will arouse I won't do it even if all legit!

Think of it this way.... Pedophiles are not mentally sound (agreed?) and they have their own idea of what they find provacative. They are sick so any images of a nude minor can be found to be provacative to them. That would make it pedophile porn in their eyes.

No take into account all the bible bangers and porn advocates etc... If they find it to be offensive then what does that say about them? They must find it to be provacative to them as well to feel that way.

It's such a messed up world we live in. 

Oh and wasn't Mass where all the witch hunts were? (lol)

If he's guilty of doing wrong I wish they'd fry him! (No whimpy lethal injection) but let's not persucute him without knowing all the facts. Then lets fry him! (lol)

Just my 2 cents....."

Beatrix Mae wrote:

I feel bad for the Model, what a shitty situation to be put in at such a young age.

I so agree and having read the othe rpost I hope they fry him! (it its all true)

tenrocK photo wrote:
Due process...

This thread really should have ended here.

Nic wrote:

I so agree and having read the othe rpost I hope they fry him! (it its all true)

well no I'm not saying they should fry him. I just feel bad for her and hope she can get help building her confidence

Martin Bielecki wrote:

Nic wrote:
How is my opinion part of the problem? Does the way I think make others think like sick basterds? LMAO!

Maybe you have not looked at my port and have a simple minded view of one comment I made. I am all about sexually erotic nude Photography. Just not with minors.

You may want to re step yourself....

BS. eroticism has nothing to do with your argument:


so none of us should have bathtime pics in our family photo albums and there shouldn't be naked amazonian kids in NatGeo because somebody could find them erotic.

I find that opinion hysterical and offensive. It is part of the problem.

So nic.. if you found out many pedophiles actually get off and aroused at looking at childrens knee's and feet, then we should ban any images of that?  Wouldn't it be wiser to focus on the people with the problems than trying to eliminate all fodder from them?

OK  NEW RULE::  PEOPLE.. there are a lot of car stereo thieves out there, so from now on we will not allow anyone to have a radio in their cars in order to not "tempt" the thieves.

Yeah.. I see the logic.

Beatrix Mae wrote:

well no I'm not saying they should fry him. I just feel bad for her and hope she can get help building her confidence

No offense but let's hope you are not on the jury! (lol)

Any 40 YO man that takes advantage of a minor should FRY!

Nic wrote:

No offense but let's hope you are not on the jury! (lol)

Any 40 YO man that takes advantage of a minor should FRY!

*face palm*