Davian J wrote:
innocent til proven guilty but that's fucked up they got his house and shit on there. even if he get off he's ruined in that town.

Photo Chan wrote:
Agreed, they should have kept his face and HOUSE out of it since they did say he was not guilty as of yet and if they do find him innocent then no ones going to trust him again.

But naked photos + underage teen = SENSATIONALISM!!!
Unfortunately

Al Lock Photography wrote:

The Police can be sued for false arrest and damages related to that arrest.

I know they can be but how often does it happen?  I hear what your saying, I'm just saying often there is no backlash to them for being overzealous or flat out wrong especially when they are "protecting the children".

studio36uk wrote:
PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGSIN CRIMINAL CASES

TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER

I think the title of this law says a lot about American attitudes (at least in Massachusetts).

I am not defending shooting under-18's in sexually suggestive and/or nude poses, but there is a big difference between being turned on by a pre-pubescent child (the definition of a pedophile) and being turned on by a 17-year old who is sexually mature from a biological standpoint, and quite possibly sexually active.

17-year-old shot nude and hit on by creepy GWC: "Fry the perverted bastard!!"
18-year-old shot nude and hit on by creepy GWC: "You should have checked references and left when he did something inappropriate."

This photographer deserves a fair trial, not a lynching. And some people need to look up the definition of "pedophile."

Starburst Photography wrote:
Moral of the story, never shoot under-age models nude.

                    irregardless of the laws

Have they found nude photos of the girl yet?

Steinberg Photo wrote:
News Story (Video): Local photog arrested, charged with taking nude photos of 17 y/o
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/video/2 … index.html

(If this has already been posted, please accept my apology for the dupe post).

The interesting thing here is - if the photographer checked this girl's ID - did she have a fake ID? 

They story also says that the one girl was under age, but there were pics of other models who looked questionable. 

Could it be they altered their appearance to appear underage for the photos?  Now you know the importance of seeing a photo ID and getting a copy of it for all models.

RW Photo Art wrote:

I think the title of this law says a lot about American attitudes (at least in Massachusetts).

I am not defending shooting under-18's in sexually suggestive and/or nude poses, but there is a big difference between being turned on by a pre-pubescent child (the definition of a pedophile) and being turned on by a 17-year old who is sexually mature from a biological standpoint, and quite possibly sexually active.

17-year-old shot nude and hit on by creepy GWC: "Fry the perverted bastard!!"
18-year-old shot nude and hit on by creepy GWC: "You should have checked references and left when he did something inappropriate."

This photographer deserves a fair trial, not a lynching. And some people need to look up the definition of "pedophile."

Exactly the point I've been trying to make.  Well put.

Starburst Photography wrote:
Poor unfortunate guy.

I know this happened in United States and perhaps laws are a bit different there. I live in Canada but have seen it happen here too.

TI wonder, how can he be charged with kitty porn, if he was just taking nude photos.

Sorry, couldn't resist. Explicit images of cats mating come to mind. [/hijack]

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

IMHO, if I'm going to have European-style healthcare and taxes forced on me, then I also want the European-style attitudes on art and nudity.

RW Photo Art wrote:
This photographer deserves a fair trial, not a lynching. And some people need to look up the definition of "pedophile."

The definition is way too loose now, just as it is with "child porn" and "sex offender.

JSchro Photo wrote:
*gasp* they found thousands of photos on a photographer's computer??? My god, the humanity!

Ridiculous how the media portrays this. I don't understand why the parents with small children in his neighborhood are worried...he's not sneaking around taking shots through their bedroom windows or standing outside with a bucket of candy and a camera.  The girl was 17 people.  Get real.

Unfortunately the laws tend to hard code the age as 18. There is no flexibility there. "Close enough" is not good enough. They are over 18 or they aren't.

The girl could have been sucking c*cks in grade school for candy money, had her own first child at 14, and been prostituting herself on street corners at 16, but you still can't make nude photos of her until she is 18 where such chiselled in stone law exists.

Studio36

Blakberi Photography wrote:
There but for the grace of God and photocopied ID...

The guy said he has ID on all the girls.  They didn't really say and I don't trust the media to be 100% inclusive with information but the scary part is the reaction based on someones "word".

Seems like the police didn't even ask the guy for ID's he might have copied, they just seemed to raid the place, confiscate all his things in front of the neighborhood and haul him in.  To me that is the bigger issue in this situation.

We dont know if this guy is guilty of breaking any laws or not.  Based on the information we do have the situation seems a little concerning as a photographer.  Like the comment made by the officer in the interview "seemed to be other questionable...", so even if they may "appear" to be close to under 18 this could have happened to the guy.

I used to say these over reactions and vilifications of photographers when it came to "underage" images was overblown and extreme exceptions to the rule.  I'm starting to think perhaps I was wrong.

Cherrystone wrote:
Did I read that right.....bail of 5 Thousand?

They must not be to confident of the case against him with a bail that low.

In the report it had a CASH bail of $5000 That means he paid all of the bail and far as I know if he has a bail bond of only $5000 the charges will be dropped but he is still screwed.

John Jebbia wrote:
Have any of you thought of how easily this same thing could happen to any one of us?  According to the news story here, all it took was for a 17yr old girl's accusation.

Gee kind of like the Witch trials they had

retphoto wrote:
Mass is the same state that arrested and Prosecuted a Photographer on Child Porn years ago....

the Victims...cheerleaders at football games...so yes they were dressed.

the shots.... close-ups of their crotches while they were doing various routines.


The court decided since the shots were of close-ups and concentrated on their crotches , the intent was that they were pornographic, and since the subject were minors, Child Porn.

If you look at the definitions in Section 31 of that state's laws [I posted the link on page 3 of this thread] you see the cack hand of the Dost test, blended to some degree with Miller. And that is one element of that [Dost] test. But is also goes to the nub of the US v. Knox case, more particularly, where the presence of clothing, as opposed to nudity, is not a defence.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
ATTENTION IN THE PEANUT GALLERY - I ASSURE YOU THAT THE GUY IS IN DEEP DOO-DOO WITH THIS AND IN THAT STATE [MA]. Take note, in particular of the title wording in 29A and 29B  "...[a] child in a state of nudity OR sexual conduct...". If you read the actual full text of the defintions for those sections [Section 31, linked below] you will also find that nudity includes the uncovered breast of said "child" and that a "child" is anyone U-18 for the purpose:

...

Studio36

He is already in deep doo doo, but let's read that statute carefully.  You left out the most critical part of the passage, the first words say:

Section 29B. (a) Whoever, with lascivious intent

The statute is no different than any of the others, it is still more than just mere nudity, they have to, in this case, prove "lascivious intent."  If that weren't the case, every Barnes and Noble exec would be in jail because they sell books by Jock Sturges.

It would be nice to know the whole story here.  From what I can tell, having read the two news articles I have seen:

1.    Man photographs 17 year old girl.
2.    Girl claims, some time later that he photographed her nude.
3.    Girl has none of the photos of herself showing she was nude.
4.    Based on girl's accusation, court issues warrant for arrest
5.    Court also issues search warrant.
6.    Police seize computer and find nude images of girls.
7.    Police have yet to find nude images of the girl accusing him.
8.    Police see photos they say appear could be young girls.
9.    Police have yet to identify any of them nor know their age for certain.
10.  Photographer denies shooting the 17 year old nude.
11.  Photographer claims he has ID on all girls he has shot nude
12.  None of us here have any idea if that is true or false.

The guy might be guilty as hell or he may be innocent.  What I find troubling is that the state, both got an arrest warrant and a search warrant at the same time.  I think the search warrant was appropriate, I think the arrest warrant was pre-mature.

Then again, none of us know what the  police know.  They never tell us everything.  There may be more to this.

In any case, the other thing I found interesting was that his bond was apparently only $50,000 (with a 10% payment) ror a $5,000 cash bond.  Both are quite low. 

Likewise, the photographer was ordered to stay away from the 17 year old, which is common, I didn't read where he was ordered to not take pictures or use the Internet while the case is in progress.  One wonders whether the court is taking this a little bit slowly, absent a nude photo of the 17 year old.

I have no idea how this will play out, but it is both interesting and scary.  This is either the case of an incredibly stupid photographer or a DA looking to make a name for himself without doing his homework first.  Either way, the photographer can look forward to some very unpleasant days ahead.

Knz-Jade-Kai wrote:
I am confused.
So the other thread OP was the girl that turned this guy in?
Have we established that or did someone make that relate without proof?

Has anyone contacted the other OP to see if she was the one that turned him in?
Or the photographer that took the images that you folks are posting (and critiquing here?)

If OP was that same girl I wouldn't be surprised if the police get a hold of that thread. Would you?

This is going to be interesting either way.

The OP in this thread isn't a girl but a photographer.  It would be interesting though to find out, for certain, if the girl in the other thread was the girl that turned him in.

It would also be interesting to see if the guy is convicted, because, everyone in that thread encouraged the girl to contact the police based upon what she was saying.  I also suspect she wouldn't have done so had she not posted the thread first.

If the guy is guilty, then we encouraged her to do the right thing.  If the girl made up the story and was looking for a way to "get the guy," then we gave her a road map to getting him arrested.

That having been said, I don't really know all the facts here.  None of us know anything more than that which was written in the articles.  Whenever a girl suggests inappropriate conduct, it is best to refer her to authorities and let them sort it out.  It will be nice to find out if he actually did it.

OssianaT wrote:
Oh no...The precious snowflake is so damaged and traumatized. Whatever shall we do? Wait another 3 months till she's doing hardcore?

Oh think of the children....

Seriously, stuff like this really upsets me in the modeling world. After 14, no one is a "precious snowflake". That is NOT kiddie porn if the girl is about to turn 18. The girl should have checked ID better, yeah, but it takes two to tango. The 17 year old should be blamed a little, too.

Great point.
It's far from kiddie porn.
Moral of the story for me; is a reminder to photographers how vigilant we need to be about id checking etc.
Give the media/feds one inch and they immediately start pounding on your ass.

ei Total Productions wrote:
He is already in deep doo doo, but let's read that statute carefully.  You left out the most critical part of the passage, the first words say:

I didn't miss it but I also didn't post the whole of the text, only the section titles and links.

That is the easiest part to infer to a jury. Showing "intent" amounts to no more or less than thought crime. The prosecution plants, waters, and fertilizes that seed at trial and it will invariably grow x12.

ei Total Productions wrote:
I have no idea how this will play out, but it is both interesting and scary.  This is either the case of an incredibly stupid photographer or a DA looking to make a name for himself without doing his homework first.  Either way, the photographer can look forward to some very unpleasant days ahead.

Yes

Studio36

Knz-Jade-Kai wrote:
I am confused.
So the other thread OP was the girl that turned this guy in?
Have we established that or did someone make that relate without proof?

Has anyone contacted the other OP to see if she was the one that turned him in?
Or the photographer that took the images that you folks are posting (and critiquing here?)

If OP was that same girl I wouldn't be surprised if the police get a hold of that thread. Would you?

This is going to be interesting either way.

ei Total Productions wrote:
The OP in this thread isn't a girl but a photographer.  It would be interesting though to find out, for certain, if the girl in the other thread was the girl that turned him in.

It would also be interesting to see if the guy is convicted, because, everyone in that thread encouraged the girl to contact the police based upon what she was saying.  I also suspect she wouldn't have done so had she not posted the thread first.

If the guy is guilty, then we encouraged her to do the right thing.  If the girl made up the story and was looking for a way to "get the guy," then we gave her a road map to getting him arrested.

That having been said, I don't really know all the facts here.  None of us know anything more than that which was written in the articles.  Whenever a girl suggests inappropriate conduct, it is best to refer her to authorities and let them sort it out.  It will be nice to find out if he actually did it.

FYI, I know the OP in this thread is a Photographer, in my quote (quoted above) I was asking if the "other thread OP" was in fact the girl that turned the guy in.

And, wondering if we should be discussing the OTHER post's OP's images in THIS thread without the photographer's or her permission. That's all.

kjk

OssianaT wrote:
Oh no...The precious snowflake is so damaged and traumatized. Whatever shall we do? Wait another 3 months till she's doing hardcore?

Oh think of the children....

Seriously, stuff like this really upsets me in the modeling world. After 14, no one is a "precious snowflake". That is NOT kiddie porn if the girl is about to turn 18. The girl should have checked ID better, yeah, but it takes two to tango. The 17 year old should be blamed a little, too.

And the parents.  I dont know many precious snowflakes throwing around terms like "doggy style" such as the victim did.

iamjohnnyrose wrote:
Great point.
It's far from kiddie porn.
Moral of the story for me; is a reminder to photographers how vigilant we need to be about id checking etc.
Give the media/feds one inch and they immediately start pounding on your ass.

Ya see, I don't understand that moral at all.   The photographer knowingly shot a seventeen year old.  He claims it was non-nude.  How would ID have made any difference at all?

If the photographer knowingly shot a seventeen year old nude, he is stupid.  The moral of the story would then be:  Smart photographers don't shoot minors in the nude.

If the photographer didn't shoot her nude, as he claims, the moral of the story is:  Somewhere, every day, there is an over-zealous district attorney that wants to make a name for himself.

This case has nothing at all to do with ID.  He knew she was under aged when he shot her.

ei Total Productions wrote:

Ya see, I don't understand that moral at all.   The photographer knowingly shot a seventeen year old.  He claims it was non-nude.  How would ID have made any difference at all?

If the photographer knowingly shot a seventeen year old nude, he is stupid.  The moral of the story would then be:  Smart photographers don't shoot minors in the nude.

If the photographer didn't shoot her nude, as he claims, the moral of the story is:  Somewhere, every day, there is an over-zealous district attorney that wants to make a name for himself.

This case has nothing at all to do with ID.  He knew she was under aged when he shot her.

I do quite a few senior portraits every year hardly any of them are ever over 18 and I dont get ID. 

Like I said before the scary and relevant part of this as a photographer is the seemed reaction by people based on someones word with no hard proof.

ei Total Productions wrote:
He is already in deep doo doo, but let's read that statute carefully.  You left out the most critical part of the passage, the first words say:

studio36uk wrote:
I didn't miss it but I also dosn't post the whole of the text, only the section titles and links.

That is the easiest part to infer to a jury. Showing "intent" amounts to no more or less than thought crime. The prosecution plants, waters, and fertilizes that seed at trial and it will invariably grow x12.

If that were true, then Jock Sturges and Sally Mann would both have been charged when the authorities went after them.

Actually, I understand what you were getting at, but we can't forget that none of the statues are absolute bars on shooting minors in the nude.  They all have a caveat such as "lascivious intent."  Now, you may well be right.  It may be easy for a jury to find lasciviious intent when a glamour photographer shoots a minor in the nude.   None the less, it still has to be proven.

Which goes back to what I have always said, it may be legal to shoot a minor in the nude, that doesn't make it smart.

CGI Images wrote:
I do quite a few senior portraits every year hardly any of them are ever over 18 and I dont get ID. 

Like I said before the scary and relevant part of this as a photographer is the seemed reaction by people based on someones word with no hard proof.

I've shot many minors over the years and really don't worry about it that much.  I also never do anything inappropriate.


You are right though, the scary part is the scary part.

ei Total Productions wrote:
grapher shoots a minor in the nude.   None the less, it still has to be proven.

Which goes back to what I have always said, it may be legal to shoot a minor in the nude, that doesn't make it smart.

Starting to agree with you EI.. but again it appears we are opening the doors to not only "shooting" them, but being persecuted on someones word who thinks we might even be shooting them.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
The Police can be sued for false arrest and damages related to that arrest.

In MA, damages against the state are limited to $100K.  That's why it's common to file a civil suit as well against the arresting officer.  However, the officer's lawyer gets paid by the state (aka, our taxes).
They can pretty much do whatever they want to you here... :-P

p.s., I posted a link to this story in the off-topic forum yesterday, but only one person replied...funny how this thread is huge here :-)

ei Total Productions wrote:
grapher shoots a minor in the nude.   None the less, it still has to be proven.

Which goes back to what I have always said, it may be legal to shoot a minor in the nude, that doesn't make it smart.

CGI Images wrote:
Starting to agree with you EI.

Now that really is SCARY.

CGI Images wrote:
but again it appears we are opening the doors to not only "shooting" them, but being persecuted on someones word who thinks we might even be shooting them.

If this guy turns out to be innocent, then we all need to take a deep breath and take pause ...

If he turns out to be guilty, then we need to ask, "What did they know that we didn't?"

And scary again, I totally agree with you!

RW Photo Art wrote:

I think the title of this law says a lot about American attitudes (at least in Massachusetts).

I am not defending shooting under-18's in sexually suggestive and/or nude poses, but there is a big difference between being turned on by a pre-pubescent child (the definition of a pedophile) and being turned on by a 17-year old who is sexually mature from a biological standpoint, and quite possibly sexually active.

17-year-old shot nude and hit on by creepy GWC: "Fry the perverted bastard!!"
18-year-old shot nude and hit on by creepy GWC: "You should have checked references and left when he did something inappropriate."

This photographer deserves a fair trial, not a lynching. And some people need to look up the definition of "pedophile."

Many years ago, I read a story which has parallels. There was an 18 year old dating a 16 year old. The police could do nothing about it, because it was legal. Then he took nude pictures of his girlfriend. They arrested and convicted him of kiddie porn.

Telephoto Studio wrote:
They story also says that the one girl was under age, but there were pics of other models who looked questionable.