LatashaCrosbie wrote:
So I've just done implied nudes for a photographer and mum's good with it dad (being a dad doesn't like seeing me half naked... doing the dad thing) is fine with it and I'm 17 turning 18 in less than 5 months

Is it bad that I have done implied because I'm under 18?

I don't think it's bad. And I don't think you should worry about what anyone else thinks as long as you're happy and comfortable. Your only concern should be getting images that will further your career

LatashaCrosbie wrote:
So I've just done implied nudes for a photographer and mum's good with it dad (being a dad doesn't like seeing me half naked... doing the dad thing) is fine with it and I'm 17 turning 18 in less than 5 months

Is it bad that I have done implied because I'm under 18?

Yes it's horrible

LatashaCrosbie wrote:
So I've just done implied nudes for a photographer and mum's good with it dad (being a dad doesn't like seeing me half naked... doing the dad thing) is fine with it and I'm 17 turning 18 in less than 5 months

Is it bad that I have done implied because I'm under 18?

I think they look great- I would shoot em with you and not feel bad about it.  Your not doing anything illegal or immoral.

LatashaCrosbie wrote:
So I've just done implied nudes for a photographer and mum's good with it dad (being a dad doesn't like seeing me half naked... doing the dad thing) is fine with it and I'm 17 turning 18 in less than 5 months

Is it bad that I have done implied because I'm under 18?

Do you hang out at the beach topless?

I've been to Oz four different times and noticed the going topless is an option for females of all ages at most beaches I visited...

If you (and possibly your mum - if not now, perhaps in days gone by) do go topless at the beach - what does Dad think of that?

David_M wrote:
For those in the US, the law is pretty clear, ...

Your answer is pretty much correct. However, you have made two serious errors:

1. You have cited the wrong definition of "sexually explicit conduct" for child pornography that is a digital image. The correct definition is at 18 usc 2256(2)(B). It is somewhat broader. It still does not encompass the photograph in question.

2. Some state laws regulate more things. In particular, some states regulate the lewd display of breasts and buttocks. The federal law does not.

LatashaCrosbie wrote:
That's true, but I'm a bit worried about the 'future employer' thing everyone waves around

& they're going to know that you were under 18, how exactly (unless you tell them)?

LatashaCrosbie wrote:
But there could be the whiny people going "your too young! child porn!! child porn!!"

Ok if that's your concern (which may be legitimate), why do them in the first place?

This entire thread just sounds like a case of buyer's remorse.

AJScalzitti wrote:
Again speaking from the US, its not a great idea for underage nudes or lingerie.

I see lots of great photographers mentioned about their celebrity shots, heck we could go way back to Brook Shields and that controversial movie/images.  Lets keep in mind that those great photographers also had great legal and PR teams, for the average professional its a bad idea to even go down that road.

Also don't let me get too off topic, to the OP its a great image and you are a very beautiful young woman who will no doubt have a productive career.

You seem to post with significant authority regarding the police seizing a photogrpher's equipment for up to 12 months (a specific time period).  I continue to desire (as per my previous post) you to post a link to a case in which equipment was seized given the circumstances presented by the OP.  I would relish the ability to better understand your post as I assume your post was based on an actual occurance and not just dogma.

LatashaCrosbie wrote:
Is it bad that I have done implied because I'm under 18?

No.

Visions By Rhonda wrote:
Remember Ashcroft having the statues covered for being too sexually explicit?

No, I don't because it never happened. I remember a liberal smear campaign saying he was going to in an attempt to keep his nomination from going through. I may even remember certain newspapers lyingly saying it happened and then retracting in small type on page B37...

And if you read the law, I can take a nude picture of a 21-year-old and a nude picture of a 14-year-old and have them come out such that the one of the 21-year-old meets the definition of child porn and the one of the 14-year-old does not.

Efan Bruder wrote:
No, I don't because it never happened. I remember a liberal smear campaign saying he was going to in an attempt to keep his nomination from going through. I may even remember certain newspapers lyingly saying it happened and then retracting in small type on page B37...

Actually, he did. Here's a photo of him standing in front of the statue before he had it covered:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … ft_soj.jpg

Efan Bruder wrote:
And if you read the law, I can take a nude picture of a 21-year-old and a nude picture of a 14-year-old and have them come out such that the one of the 21-year-old meets the definition of child porn and the one of the 14-year-old does not.

Actually, in the US, you can't. In Australia or Canada you can, but in the US, if the model is an adult, it's not child pornography, no matter how young the model appears to be.

LatashaCrosbie wrote:
But there could be the whiny people going "your too young! child porn!! child porn!!"

there are lots of idiots on this planet that cant distinguish nudity from sex....

LatashaCrosbie wrote:
So I've just done implied nudes for a photographer and mum's good with it dad (being a dad doesn't like seeing me half naked... doing the dad thing) is fine with it and I'm 17 turning 18 in less than 5 months

Is it bad that I have done implied because I'm under 18?

The ones I saw on your page are gorgous and not really showing very much at all. You have nothing to be ashamed of with those photo's. You follow your heart and also if your like most, in hard times follow the money, and more or less thats where allot of the newer ladies are making their money to pay the bills at doing the same thing. But the human body is a beautiful piece of art. No matter the race or color. People that are not prudes are always attracted to it, so someone has to do it. And if you get paid and make good money it might as well be you. Just my 2 cents.

Thornton Harris wrote:

Actually, he did. Here's a photo of him standing in front of the statue before he had it covered:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … ft_soj.jpg

No, he really didn't.  I'm only responding to this as people keep defaming a good man and a tireless servant of the law, and I won't stand for people spreading lies.

The National Review wrote:
BREASTGATE . . . PLUS, CATS: NOW AND FOREVER
The war aside, this AG has been swimming in bad raps. Maybe the baddest of them all has been Breastgate. Surely you are familiar with the statues that live in the Great Hall of the Justice Department: the Spirit of Justice (a lady) and the Majesty of Law (a gent). (Spirit has a nickname, by the way: Minnie Lou.) Because these statues are partially nude, they are noticed only during conservative Republican administrations. Minnie Lou and her one exposed breast became famous when photographers gleefully took their picture with Ed Meese, as he announced President Reagan's report on pornography back in the mid 1980s. The presence of the Breast was thought to have "stepped on" the administration's "message." Washington liberals are still yukking about that one today.

The Breast was pretty quiet during the eight years of Janet Reno. As one peeved administration official puts it, "No cameraman was ever at Reno's feet, trying to get a shot of her with that thing." But Minnie Lou's outstanding feature stormed back with Ashcroft. When President Bush visited the Justice Department to rededicate the building to Robert Kennedy, his advance men insisted on a nice blue backdrop: "TV blue," infinitely preferable to the usual dingy background of the Great Hall. Everyone thought the backdrop worked nicely — made for "good visuals," as they say. This was Deaverism, pure and simple. Ashcroft's people intended to keep using it.

An advance woman on his team had the bright idea of buying the backdrop: It would be cheaper than renting it repeatedly. So she did — without Ashcroft's knowledge, without his permission, without his caring, everyone in the department insists.

But ABC put out the story that Ashcroft, the old prude, had wanted the Breast covered up, so much did it offend his churchly sensibilities. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, ever clever, wrote that Ashcroft had forced a "blue burka" on Minnie Lou. Comedians had a field day (and are still having it). The Washington Post has devoted great space to the story, letting Cher, for example, tee off on it — as she went on to do on David Letterman's show.

And yet the story is complete and total bunk. First, Ashcroft had nothing to do with the purchase of the backdrop. Second, the backdrop had nothing to do with Breast aversion. But the story was just "too good to check," as we say, and it will probably live forever. Generations from now, if we're reading about John Ashcroft, we will read that he was the boob who draped the Boob. The story is ineffaceable.

Link to article: http://old.nationalreview.com/flashback … 072402.asp

That story was spread by the absolute worst kind of trash journalism and the most egregious abuse of the power of photography in news.  If you've ever been to the justice department and seen the statue and its relation to the podium during news conferences, one really does have to get down on the ground to frame a human being in the same shot as the breast, which indicates that the photojournalist in question is editorializing.

LatashaCrosbie wrote:
That's true, but I'm a bit worried about the 'future employer' thing everyone waves around

Your future employers will be modeling agencies. You're tall and fantastic looking. You're going places, I can guarantee it ;-)

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the matter in a wider context, I would suggest that the OP take the image down ASAP as it is against MM rules for an under 18 member to have implied photos.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/info/rules/ … quirements

"Members under 18 are not allowed to display photos that we deem too provocative or revealing. Unless you’re 18 or over you may not display any level of nudity/sheer (that includes “implied” nudity), depictions of bondage or any image that is sexual in nature."



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

What he said ^^^^^ so don't freak when you find them missing from your port.

LatashaCrosbie wrote:

Hahaha to hell and back I say!
Thanks

Nah, we don't want them back - let em stay there!

-The Dave- wrote:

What he said ^^^^^ so don't freak when you find them missing from your port.

Maybe after the mods get through sanitizing her portfolio they could delete a few hundred spams from casting that also violate MM rules.

S W I N S K E Y wrote:

there are lots of idiots on this planet that cant distinguish nudity from sex....

+100000

Thornton Harris wrote:

Your answer is pretty much correct. However, you have made two serious errors:

1. You have cited the wrong definition of "sexually explicit conduct" for child pornography that is a digital image. The correct definition is at 18 usc 2256(2)(B). It is somewhat broader. It still does not encompass the photograph in question.

2. Some state laws regulate more things. In particular, some states regulate the lewd display of breasts and buttocks. The federal law does not.

Thanks, I just googled what I pasted LOL

c_d_s wrote:
Just one? Where are the other 16?

LatashaCrosbie wrote:
haha no I mean I'm 17 years old

So your implied nudes are 17 year old and you are asking NOW?

Digitoxin wrote:

You seem to post with significant authority regarding the police seizing a photogrpher's equipment for up to 12 months (a specific time period).  I continue to desire (as per my previous post) you to post a link to a case in which equipment was seized given the circumstances presented by the OP.  I would relish the ability to better understand your post as I assume your post was based on an actual occurance and not just dogma.

I cannot I am afraid, I spent about 10 years with a different day job in information security.  I have spoken on it and computer forensics professionally and acted as expert witness in a past life.  Regardless of the type of evidence it can be held for 12 months, its not specific to electronic equipment.  This is if no case is filed, actual court proceedings would change that one way or another.

If I recall correctly there was at least one post with a link to a case before my second comment.

Stephanie M wrote:
I'd much rather have my 16 or 17 year old daughter posing for implied nudes with good photographers and take pride in the work and their art, than being like the billion idiots on facebook/myspace with half nude photos to show how "hawt" they are.

OP, scanned your portfolio and saw one implied nude - it was very pretty! You've got good work. If you like it, the photographer likes it, and your parents are cool with, then fuck everyone else' opinion

+1