ei Total Productions wrote:

Fine art is more protected than commercial speech.  This is the first statute that I have seen that has made simple, non-sexual nudity of a minor illegal.  You are correct, it doesn't apply to non-commercial situations.  I don't think it matters if it is a photo though so long as commercial gain applies.

In some respects it is a good statute in that it creates a bright line.  It was never smart to shoot minors nude.  You were always at risk.  At least with this statute, the only grey area is "commercial gain."  Show a nipple and then commercially exploit the iamge and you know it is illegal. 

On the other hand, it remains to be seen if this will survive a constitutional challenge.  Statutes this restrictive never have.  I don't see where it has been challenged yet in the federal courts.  In today's climate, who knows how the courts will rule.

In the meantime, it does create a bright line in AZ.

Here is an interesting question, what about a runway show?  The minor goes off stage and is compelled to change in front of the crew.  There is clearly financial gain and there is clearly exposure.  How would that fit into this statute?

Great hypothetical.  I have asked a few lawyers that may know.  I will report back.

Bruce Talbot wrote:

It is not illegal. The OP is only citing a portion of ARS §13-3552, the intent of the statute is lost.

As published, the statute does not make it unlawful to photograph a minor's nipple. As published, it is deemed unlawful to exploit a minor to entice another to expose "areola or nipple of the female breast" to be photographed. Emphasis added as the word is "the" not "their".

The example written by the OP of a NY fashion model exposing a nipple in Phoenix is moot in light of ARS §13-3552.  ARS §13-3553 addresses photographing said satanic nipple. All you need is a widely accepted community definition of "exploited and exploitation" in hand to make the Arizona Revised Statute definitive.

bt


edit: easily digestible information - http://www.law.arizona.edu/depts/clinics/cac/cps.html

I don't see how it is moot.  In fact the statutes that you list are one... the one I listed... two... seem to actually enforce my question.

But I really appreciate the intelligent post rather than the typical.

Breann Rambo wrote:
EEK!!! I knew there was something wrong with these BREAST!!!

Someone call a Priest!!! I need an exorcism! Get Him Out!!! Get Him Out...

I would be very interested in your opinion of the general premise.  Respectfully and hypothetically...

If American Apparel wanted to shoot you for their catalog in Phoenix and your nipple appeared through a shear fabric would you feel sexual exploited?

bencook2 wrote:
I don't see how it is moot.  In fact the statutes that you list are one... the one I listed... two... seem to actually enforce my question.

But I really appreciate the intelligent post rather than the typical.

Welcome. 

I do maintain you are interpreting the statute(s) erroneously. Omitting sections of ARS §13-3552 and authoring a 'best case' scenario that leads the reader, garnered my attention.

Before continuing, it's prudent to have definitions and complete statutes.

13-3551. Definitions: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/03551.htm

13-3552. Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor; classification: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/03552.htm

13-3553. Sexual exploitation of a minor; evidence; classification: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/03553.htm

The first part of your answer is contained in lines 4 and 9 of 13-3551. Definitions.  The remainder of your answer is contained in the useful application of those definitions in the two statutes.

My summation of the spirit of your original question reads like this:

A commercial fashion model from NYC, under the age of 18, can participate in a photo shoot in Phoenix with an exposed nipple. It is prudent for the photographer to do so within the confines of Arizona Revised Statutes, provided he/she/they understands them, including statutes not referenced above.

bt

Bruce Talbot wrote:

Welcome. 

I do maintain you are interpreting the statute(s) erroneously. Omitting sections of ARS §13-3552 and authoring a 'best case' scenario that leads the reader, garnered my attention.

Before continuing, it's prudent to have definitions and complete statutes.

13-3551. Definitions: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/03551.htm

13-3552. Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor; classification: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/03552.htm

13-3553. Sexual exploitation of a minor; evidence; classification: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/03553.htm

The first part of your answer is contained in line 4 of 13-3551. Definitions.  The remainder of your answer is contained in the useful application of that definition in the two statutes.

My summation of the spirit of your original question reads like this:

A commercial fashion model from NYC, under the age of 18, can participate in a photo shoot in Phoenix with an exposed nipple. It is prudent for the photographer to do so within the confines of Arizona Revised Statutes, provided he/she/they understands them, including statutes not referenced above.

bt

I'm with Bruce on this one.  Before thinking you can interpret a statute out of context consider that lawyers spend 3 years learning.  If it were as easy as simply reading what you wish and copy/paste do you honestly think it would take 3 years plus multistate prep etc etc etc to be able to form an opinion ?  What you are doing is akin to saying "I have a stuffy nose, sore throat, ear pain and watery eyes" and concluding that you have a cold.  you might.  but you could also have a sinus infection, bad allergies, or a few dozen other things that a doctor could figure out.

You seem determined to push this point so... everyone is going to keep on pointing and laughing and making "TODD AND THE BOOK OF PURE EVIL" references.

ei Total Productions wrote:
Fine art is more protected than commercial speech.  This is the first statute that I have seen that has made simple, non-sexual nudity of a minor illegal.  You are correct, it doesn't apply to non-commercial situations.  I don't think it matters if it is a photo though so long as commercial gain applies.

In some respects it is a good statute in that it creates a bright line.  It was never smart to shoot minors nude.  You were always at risk.  At least with this statute, the only grey area is "commercial gain."  Show a nipple and then commercially exploit the iamge and you know it is illegal. 

On the other hand, it remains to be seen if this will survive a constitutional challenge.  Statutes this restrictive never have.  I don't see where it has been challenged yet in the federal courts.  In today's climate, who knows how the courts will rule.

In the meantime, it does create a bright line in AZ.

Here is an interesting question, what about a runway show?  The minor goes off stage and is compelled to change in front of the crew.  There is clearly financial gain and there is clearly exposure.  How would that fit into this statute?

In my best, non-lawyer opinion, a strict interpretation of the statute would make everyone associated with the show in a management or producing capacity actionable.

Just for the fun of it, let me go you one better: How about a doctor conducting a routine examination for incipient breast cancer?  I see no exemption in the quoted statute.

bencook2 wrote:
I would be very interested in your opinion of the general premise.  Respectfully and hypothetically...

If American Apparel wanted to shoot you for their catalog in Phoenix and your nipple appeared through a shear fabric would you feel sexual exploited?

You asked for my opinion and I will give it... but keep in mind I am 16 and I am still learning. I don't want a bunch of adults beating me up afterwards... and if they do, you have to find out where they live and beat them up...

Here goes my novel...

I like my body a lot... However, in this business it is all about marketing yourself and for that reason I do not show nipples - even IF Satan is inside them. I have really grandiose ideas and am engrossed in my marketing ... Anyway...

I have no problem being very sexy... It is a part of who I am. I find this photo of me sexy. You may not...



(Edit: My mom LOVES this photo and encourages me to be myself and be sexy, so long as I stick to my own plans and don't compromise them).

I like to do sexy - but "my" sexy interpretation, may be different than others. I don't find "nipples" or "asses in thongs" to be sexy at all. I have turned down tons of money for Bathing Suit stuff... I find it boring and "not-sexy.... I have a hard time doing glamor work. Sexy comes from within, not from what you are wearing, or showing, or NOT showing. I find that sort of sexy sort of "contrived." I don't think you have to show anything at all in order to be sexy - including Satan nipples. People are so caught up with WHAT is showing (showing something OR not) that they forget about the feel and the edge of the photo.

If a client tried to make the photo all about my Satanistic Nipple, OR my ass, OR any other part of my body, then I WOULD feel sexualized or at least belittled, because then it is no longer about the photo, it becomes more about my PARTS... which exclude most of me. Are you saying that the rest of me is NOT sexy??? I tend to disagree with that. All of me is HAWT!!! lol

I think any woman would feel sexually exploited if the photo was not done correctly... has nothing to do with age or what is being shown. You can show an entire body naked and it will not be sexy AT ALL.

For example, those kids running around playing in other countries (naked) in National Geographic ... They are oblivious to the fact that they are naked... but if you walked up to them and made SURE that their Satan nipple was in the shoot and made it a point to expose the nipple, then YOU just made it dirty and YOU just sexualized it. 

Again this is only the opinion of a kid... take it for what it is worth.

Breann Rambo wrote:

You asked for my opinion and I will give it... but keep in mind I am 16 and I am still learning. I don't want a bunch of adults beating me up afterwards... and if they do, you have to find out where they live and beat them up...

Here goes my novel...

I like my body a lot... However, in this business it is all about marketing yourself and for that reason I do not show nipples - even IF Satan is inside them. I have really grandiose ideas and am engrossed in my marketing ... Anyway...

I have no problem being very sexy... It is a part of who I am. I find this photo of me sexy. You may not...



(Edit: My mom LOVES this photo and encourages me to be myself and be sexy, so long as I stick to my own plans and don't compromise them).

I like to do sexy - but "my" sexy interpretation, may be different than others. I don't find "nipples" or "asses in thongs" to be sexy at all. I have turned down tons of money for Bathing Suit stuff... I do not do glamor work. It just does not suit me. I don't think you have to show anything at all in order to be sexy - including Satan nipples. People are so caught up with WHAT is showing (showing something OR not) that they forget about the feel and the edge of the photo.

If a client tried to make the photo all about my Satanistic Nipple, OR my ass, OR any other part of my body, then I WOULD feel sexualized or at least belittled, because then it is no longer about the photo, it becomes more about my PARTS... which exclude most of me. Are you saying that the rest of me is NOT sexy??? I tend to disagree with that. All of me is HAWT!!! lol

I think any woman would feel sexually exploited if the photo was not done correctly... has nothing to do with age or what is being shown. You can show an entire body naked and it will not be sexy AT ALL.

For example, those kids running around playing in other countries (naked) in National Geographic ... They are oblivious to the fact that they are naked... but if you walked up to them and made SURE that their Satan nipple was in the shoot and made it a point to expose the nipple, then YOU just made it dirty and YOU just sexualized it. 

Again this is only the opinion of a kid... take it for what it is worth.

makes a lot of sense to me

Breann Rambo wrote:

You asked for my opinion and I will give it... but keep in mind I am 16 and I am still learning. I don't want a bunch of adults beating me up afterwards... and if they do, you have to find out where they live and beat them up...

Here goes my novel...

I like my body a lot... However, in this business it is all about marketing yourself and for that reason I do not show nipples - even IF Satan is inside them. I have really grandiose ideas and am engrossed in my marketing ... Anyway...

I have no problem being very sexy... It is a part of who I am. I find this photo of me sexy. You may not...



(Edit: My mom LOVES this photo and encourages me to be myself and be sexy, so long as I stick to my own plans and don't compromise them).

I like to do sexy - but "my" sexy interpretation, may be different than others. I don't find "nipples" or "asses in thongs" to be sexy at all. I have turned down tons of money for Bathing Suit stuff... I find it boring and "not-sexy.... I have a hard time doing glamor work. Sexy comes from within, not from what you are wearing, or showing, or NOT showing. I don't think you have to show anything at all in order to be sexy - including Satan nipples. People are so caught up with WHAT is showing (showing something OR not) that they forget about the feel and the edge of the photo.

If a client tried to make the photo all about my Satanistic Nipple, OR my ass, OR any other part of my body, then I WOULD feel sexualized or at least belittled, because then it is no longer about the photo, it becomes more about my PARTS... which exclude most of me. Are you saying that the rest of me is NOT sexy??? I tend to disagree with that. All of me is HAWT!!! lol

I think any woman would feel sexually exploited if the photo was not done correctly... has nothing to do with age or what is being shown. You can show an entire body naked and it will not be sexy AT ALL.

For example, those kids running around playing in other countries (naked) in National Geographic ... They are oblivious to the fact that they are naked... but if you walked up to them and made SURE that their Satan nipple was in the shoot and made it a point to expose the nipple, then YOU just made it dirty and YOU just sexualized it. 

Again this is only the opinion of a kid... take it for what it is worth.

i'm going to move there just so i can work with you. hope that doesn't sound too stalkerish

Breann Rambo wrote:
I have no problem being very sexy... It is a part of who I am. I find this photo of me sexy. You may not...

That's not sessy.

Chainmail Treasures wrote:

i'm going to move there just so i can work with you. hope that doesn't sound too stalkerish

Bring on the stalking! LOL As long as you bring your designs with you, we are good...

Breann Rambo wrote:

Bring on the stalking! LOL As long as you bring your designs with you, we are good...

wouldn't leave home with out them

Bruce Talbot wrote:

It is not illegal. The OP is only citing a portion of ARS §13-3552, the intent of the statute is lost.

As published, the statute does not make it unlawful to photograph a minor's nipple. As published, it is deemed unlawful to exploit a minor to entice another to expose "areola or nipple of the female breast" to be photographed. Emphasis added as the word is "the" not "their".

The example written by the OP of a NY fashion model exposing a nipple in Phoenix is moot in light of ARS §13-3552.  ARS §13-3553 addresses photographing said satanic nipple. All you need is a widely accepted community definition of "exploited and exploitation" in hand to make the Arizona Revised Statute definitive.

bt


edit: easily digestible information - http://www.law.arizona.edu/depts/clinics/cac/cps.html

Just keeping it going as a sophistic arguement, 13-3551 and 3553 are essentially mirrors of USC18-2557.  3552 reads: "A person commits commercial sexual exploitation of a minor by knowingly:

1. Using, employing, persuading, enticing, inducing or coercing a minor to engage in or assist others to engage in exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction or live act depicting such conduct.

2. Using, employing, persuading, enticing, inducing or coercing a minor to expose the genitals or anus or the areola or nipple of the female breast for financial or commercial gain.

3. Permitting a minor under the person's custody or control to engage in or assist others to engage in exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction or live act depicting such conduct.

4. Transporting or financing the transportation of any minor through or across this state with the intent that the minor engage in prostitution, exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction or live act depicting such conduct.

B. Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor is a class 2 felony and if the minor is under fifteen years of age it is punishable pursuant to section 13-705"

Note that there is no "and" after "knowingly".  Therefore, IMHO, each of the individual conditions cited creats a violation independently and rather precisely define "exploitation" under the statute.  Thus, there is no need for there to be an "exhibition" for number 2 to come into play, at least theoretically.  Hence my raising the (frankly ridiculous) argument concerning breast cancer.

The legal landscape is littered with poorly-worded statutes that, until challenged in court, remain the law of the land, no matter how silly.

Cuica Cafezinho wrote:
That's not sessy.

It may not be sessy but it is sexy. I think the tight belly and the arch of the back are very erotic and the outfit shows off her shape. Nice B&W shot and the tilt is perfect for the pose. Love that shot!

Cuica Cafezinho wrote:

That's not sessy.

Everyone will find something different sexy - and that is ok. This is one reason why I think defining "exploitation" is very difficult. Each person could feel exploited for totally different things.

rdallasPhotography wrote:

It may not be sessy but it is sexy. I think the type belly and the arch of the back are very erotic and the outfit shows off her shape. Nice B&W shot and the tilt is perfect for the pose. Love that shot!

Thank you very much!! Jesse rocks - I could shoot with him all day, everyday.

ei Total Productions wrote:
Here is an interesting question, what about a runway show?  The minor goes off stage and is compelled to change in front of the crew.  There is clearly financial gain and there is clearly exposure.  How would that fit into this statute?

I would think the financial gain means seeing the model in some state of undress by the public, not changing into another outfit backstage. And during a runway show, I don't see a child having to strip in front of the whole crew anyway. At least any decently run show. She would have people, undoubtedly female doing costumes, make up and hair in a dressing area.

Breann Rambo wrote:

Everyone will find something different sexy - and that is ok. This is one reason why I think defining "exploitation" is very difficult. Each person could feel exploited for totally different things.

I was kidding. It's a beautiful photo.

Cuica Cafezinho wrote:

I was kidding. It's a beautiful photo.

lol - it is all ok... thank you very much...

Breann Rambo wrote:

lol - it is all ok... thank you very much...

so it's true after all. I had my doubts about the Faustian legend but selling your soul (or nipples) to the devil really does work. awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bruce Talbot wrote:

Welcome. 

I do maintain you are interpreting the statute(s) erroneously. Omitting sections of ARS §13-3552 and authoring a 'best case' scenario that leads the reader, garnered my attention.

Before continuing, it's prudent to have definitions and complete statutes.

13-3551. Definitions: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/03551.htm

13-3552. Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor; classification: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/03552.htm

13-3553. Sexual exploitation of a minor; evidence; classification: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/03553.htm

The first part of your answer is contained in lines 4 and 9 of 13-3551. Definitions.  The remainder of your answer is contained in the useful application of those definitions in the two statutes.

My summation of the spirit of your original question reads like this:

A commercial fashion model from NYC, under the age of 18, can participate in a photo shoot in Phoenix with an exposed nipple. It is prudent for the photographer to do so within the confines of Arizona Revised Statutes, provided he/she/they understands them, including statutes not referenced above.



bt

given this ...would you do such a shoot under any circumstances ?

rdallasPhotography wrote:
he would have people, undoubtedly female doing costumes, make up and hair in a dressing area.

While I've never been back stage at a fashion show, I know several models who have. And I'm told it's a mixed bag of nekkedness back there.

What's more, you guys do realize that simply seeing a nude minor isn't illegal right. The keyword is exploitation.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
...and they wonder why  there is so much trouble with the church....first hint of a nipple the Arizonians call for a priest

Actually, probably not.

rdallasPhotography wrote:

I would think the financial gain means seeing the model in some state of undress by the public, not changing into another outfit backstage. And during a runway show, I don't see a child having to strip in front of the whole crew anyway. At least any decently run show. She would have people, undoubtedly female doing costumes, make up and hair in a dressing area.

Models of all ages dress and undress backstage at fashion shows. There are no dressing rooms. I shoot fashion shows, sometimes behind the scenes and I am careful not to catch anyone with bare breasts as they do quick wardrobe changes during a show. It's just a matter of being respectful. And if I did capture a 16 year old with her breasts exposed in the background, I would likely not use it in my portfolio or for any commercial use.

The crux of this thread is using images of nude minors, shot in AZ, for commercial use. My questions is, even if the OP shoots a minor as an "art" shoot, if he turns around and sells the pics, does he violate the state statute?

Carlos Occidental wrote:
How is Arizona different than the other 49 states on this matter?

It's my understanding that in most of the other 49 states, it isn't a criminal offence to induce a minor to expose her breasts or genitalia for financial gain.

bencook2 wrote:
But I really appreciate the intelligent post rather than the typical.

Stop trying to make with the reasonable discussion!

It's much more interesting to read the hissing and spitting and casting of aspersions at the OP.

Davepit wrote:

It's my understanding that in most of the other 49 states, it isn't a criminal offence to induce a minor to expose her breasts or genitalia for financial gain.

you are joking, right?

John Jebbia wrote:

While I've never been back stage at a fashion show, I know several models who have. And I'm told it's a mixed bag of nekkedness back there.

What's more, you guys do realize that simply seeing a nude minor isn't illegal right. The keyword is exploitation.

+ 1

As for the dressing area - We are always changing in front of one another - some times even in front of other models of the opposite sex. It is no big deal - we are working. The average age of a fashion model is 17... this means that most of us are minors... it is not near the big deal that people make it out to be on these forums. The exploitation that is mentioned is the key I believe.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

you are joking, right?

For the love of Thai food and Bruce Campbell I sure as hell hope so

Breann Rambo wrote:
+ 1

As for the dressing area - We are always changing in front of one another - some times even in front of other models of the opposite sex. It is no big deal - we are working. The average age of a fashion model is 17... this means that most of us are minors... it is not near the big deal that people make it out to be on these forums. The exploitation that is mentioned is the key I believe.

Put your nipples away and step away from the pancakes please.

John Jebbia wrote:
Put your nipples away and step away from the pancakes please.

OMG Pancakes!!!

Edit: Satan is in control of my nipples remember... I can't put them away.

Cuica Cafezinho wrote:
That's not sessy.

Breann Rambo wrote:
Everyone will find something different sexy - and that is ok. This is one reason why I think defining "exploitation" is very difficult. Each person could feel exploited for totally different things.

Site rules, general public moralities and statutes like the one being discussed in this thread make it shameful to find anything sexy about your photos, Breann.

Come back in 2 years.  I suspect you'll be super sexy . . . THEN!

Artemis Bare wrote:

For the love of Thai food and Bruce Campbell I sure as hell hope so

it's difficult to tell.  the dry brit humour requires audio to detect.

if not, bring on the underage peeler clubs

Breann Rambo wrote:
OMG Pancakes!!!

Edit: Satan is in control of my nipples remember... I can't put them away.

But Jesus has blessed your ass.. You're well balanced..

Breann Rambo wrote:
+ 1

As for the dressing area - We are always changing in front of one another - some times even in front of other models of the opposite sex. It is no big deal - we are working. The average age of a fashion model is 17... this means that most of us are minors... it is not near the big deal that people make it out to be on these forums. The exploitation that is mentioned is the key I believe.

In all honesty, even though I would maintain a professional manner I would still sneak a peak..

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

it's difficult to tell.  the dry brit humour requires audio to detect.

if not, bring on the underage peeler clubs

Don't worry we can cover all the naughty bits in caution and electrical tape

Stephen Markman wrote:
Site rules, general public moralities and statutes like the one being discussed in this thread make it shameful to find anything sexy about your photos, Breann.

Come back in 2 years.  I suspect you'll be super sexy . . . THEN!

I think it's about 1yr.. she's been 16 forever!