Garry k wrote:
Should underage fashion models ( ie 15- 19 yrs ) be posing topless or nude for European Fashion Magazines such as Vogue ....( Italian , French etc )

If so - then is is hypocritical for such magazines to be sold in N America -when our own laws prohibit such ?

Our laws don't prohibit this at all, but our marketing; i.e. the stores which sell the magazines and the advertisers which buy the pages in them don't generally approve of such content as the American people don't generally approve of such content. there is nothing in US law which prohibits the photographing of underage models nude as long as it is not deamed to be explicitly sexual, ask Joque Sturges who did alot of his shoots (now published in books, which are sometimes found in Borders book stores until some mother catches her 14 son leafing through them in a corner and not wanting to stand up, and complains to the manager....) in nudist camps/beaches in California.......and had materials seized but there was never any legal action taken......EVER......because there are no laws and no real precidents.......still, I'm not ready to be the one to pioneer the field....

Ryan Entwistle - Photographer
re: photography

Brian Diaz wrote:
Nudity does not equal sex.

Why can't people understand that?

Because they're sexually confused and it turns them on.

re- photography wrote:

Our laws don't prohibit this at all, but our marketing; i.e. the stores which sell the magazines and the advertisers which buy the pages in them don't generally approve of such content as the American people don't generally approve of such content. there is nothing in US law which prohibits the photographing of underage models nude as long as it is not deamed to be explicitly sexual, ask Joque Sturges who did alot of his shoots (now published in books, which are sometimes found in Borders book stores until some mother catches her 14 son leafing through them in a corner and not wanting to stand up, and complains to the manager....) in nudist camps/beaches in California.......and had materials seized but there was never any legal action taken......EVER......because there are no laws and no real precidents.......still, I'm not ready to be the one to pioneer the field....

Ryan Entwistle - Photographer
re: photography

Well I dont know Jock Sturges to ask him such ...... but If what you are saying is true then what say would be the  difference between say his work and a $6.99  magazine availabe at your corner store - that would be filled with  underage models ,all nude , and all all posed in "non sexual poses " ie standing ... Following your argument - such a magazine  would be legal ?

oldguysrule wrote:
what laws prohibit this?

Imaginary moral ones?

Garry k wrote:

Well I dont know Jock Sturges to ask him such ...... but If what you are saying is true then what say would be the  difference between say his work and a $6.99  magazine availabe at your corner store - that would be filled with  underage models ,all nude , and all all posed in "non sexual poses " ie standing ... Following your argument - such a magazine  would be legal ?

I believe the wording of the law says something about the usage\intent of the photo....
There are naked baby pictures everywhere...but if someone took naked baby pictures for the intent of selling them for a sexual purpose...then, I believe, it's illegal....

Brian Diaz wrote:

Imaginary moral ones?

oh THOSEEEEEEEE
*runs

Iris Swope wrote:
Does it offend you? or do you find it morally wrong? (because you know, morals are not aloud here)

Thanks to you, we're gonna get our magazines with blacked out pages, like Iran does...Thanks alot!

Thanks to me what ??? ..( and for that matter , What the F ...)  Before you declare  war on me ,launch into some good ole Amerikan  anti muslim rhetoric( bizarre )   and pull the trigger let me just  say ...

I dont really have an opinion one way or another

Its just a subject to talk about - you know ....

Is such discussion "aloud " ( sic ) by yourself?

Garry k wrote:
Thanks to me what ??? ..( and for that matter , What the F ...)  Before you declare  war on me ,launch into some good ole Amerikan  anti muslim rhetoric( bizarre )   and pull the trigger let me just  say ...

I dont really have an opinion one way or another

Its just a subject to talk about - you know ....

Is such discussion "aloud " ( sic ) by yourself?

I knew I spelled that wrong... I need a spell checker!!!

and I was joking... sorry

But, I bet if someone in my city complained really loud. They could get all European fashion mags pulled off the shelves here....

And there would be sermons in churchs about how there was pornography in Vogue... (cuz we jump off the deep end)

Seriously...people around here (my city, well my country) are stupid...

Garry k wrote:

Well I dont know Jock Sturges to ask him such ...... but If what you are saying is true then what say would be the  difference between say his work and a $6.99  magazine availabe at your corner store - that would be filled with  underage models ,all nude , and all all posed in "non sexual poses " ie standing ... Following your argument - such a magazine  would be legal ?

it would be perfectly legal, and, ironically, I believe purchaseable by teens/children under the age of 18 (to do who knows what with), but I don't think that they would find any advertisers to place ads in said magazine for only US publication, so it would probably cost at least $20-$40, and only run a once, a few times, or once a year, which makes it a whole lot more like a book, and less like a magazine/periodical

again, I may be slightly wrong on this.....

I did however do a research project in school on Sally Mann, another photographer of "questionable subject matter" some nude or smi-nude photos of her children, sometimes male and female together, ages young child through young teen, and also book of non-explicit, but sometimes suggestive photos named "At Twelve" The redeeming factor in both cases is the artistry involved, whether real or no is determined by the viewer; and the fact that Sturges used 4x5 or 8x10 viewcamera's and Mann often used viewcameras and often even earlier technology of hand-mixed & hand/applied callotype (? I think this is right) process photography on glass plates rather than film.

If a no-tallent pedofile shoots nude "spreads" of little girls and boys with the new Digital Rebel he bought at BestBuy, then it is a different story altogether, and please do not think that I condone any of it. Certainly none of it which is illegal, and also, I wouldn't consider shooting any of it which is legal, and even if it is legal and tastfully shot by someone else, I would feel funny leafing through it in the company of non-artists/photographers.

Cspine wrote:
Ooooh look..... I found a penny on the floor! And it's heads up!

LUUUUCCCKKKYYY!

re- photography wrote:

it would be perfectly legal, and, ironically, I believe purchaseable by teens/children under the age of 18 (to do who knows what with), but I don't think that they would find any advertisers to place ads in said magazine for only US publication, so it would probably cost at least $20-$40, and only run a once, a few times, or once a year, which makes it a whole lot more like a book, and less like a magazine/periodical

again, I may be slightly wrong on this.....

I did however do a research project in school on Sally Mann, another photographer of "questionable subject matter" some nude or smi-nude photos of her children, sometimes male and female together, ages young child through young teen, and also book of non-explicit, but sometimes suggestive photos named "At Twelve" The redeeming factor in both cases is the artistry involved, whether real or no is determined by the viewer; and the fact that Sturges used 4x5 or 8x10 viewcamera's and Mann often used viewcameras and often even earlier technology of hand-mixed & hand/applied callotype (? I think this is right) process photography on glass plates rather than film.

If a no-tallent pedofile shoots nude "spreads" of little girls and boys with the new Digital Rebel he bought at BestBuy, then it is a different story altogether, and please do not think that I condone any of it. Certainly none of it which is illegal, and also, I wouldn't consider shooting any of it which is legal, and even if it is legal and tastfully shot by someone else, I would feel funny leafing through it in the company of non-artists/photographers.

So it is more than being none sexual , the work has to have "artistic "merit and be tasteful .....

Regarding the concept of aritistic merit , historically arent some of the greatest artists also the ones who shocked people the most ( at the time ) ?

Agreed advertising is needed to keep the cost of magazines down -but some more expensive magazines can survive without it or with little of it ......

Billy Pegram wrote:
Check out the beutiful books by David Hamilton...I have seen them in many books stores with a fine art photography section.

Oh yeh, I forgot david hamilton......not  completely disimilar to Sturges, but more color, and more commercial, less "purely artistic" look, to the work, if that makes any sense in work which essentially non-commercial......

Garry k wrote:

So it is more than being none sexual , the work has to have "artistic "merit and be tasteful .....

Regarding the concept of aritistic merit , historically arent some of the greatest artists also the ones who shocked people the most ( at the time ) ?

Agreed advertising is needed to keep the cost of magazines down -but some more expensive magazines can survive without it or with little of it ......

the artistry makes it more acceptable, but really should have no legal weight one way or another, it just suggests that the photographer was interested at least in-part in the process/technique rather than just looking at nude kids all day.......

Garry k wrote:
Should underage fashion models ( ie 15- 19 yrs ) be posing topless or nude for European Fashion Magazines such as Vogue ....( Italian , French etc )

If so - then is is hypocritical for such magazines to be sold in N America -when our own laws prohibit such ?

firstly, i dont think youl find 19 years old to be 'underage'....well not in any 'free' society i know of anyway.

what's hypocritical is that young 19 yr old girls can give blow-jobs to [drunk] complete strangers live on stage in front of hundreds of cheering guys at parties during spring break (not that theres anything wrong with that ofcourse), and yet any person, regardless of age, apparently cant be free to take part in a creative and beautiful, non-sexual image - in this case created for probably one of the top magazines in the world by one of the top photographers in the world, just incase credibitly comes into it - as they choose when they choose, and with the permission of their guardian or parent.

i think the main problem is people with nothing better to do making up laws in their head just coz they think it should be that way, and then trying to force them on other people. u have enough stupid, out-dated and overly conservative laws in your country already. pls dont encourage any more.

Tiffany Alonzo wrote:
non-sexual/suggestive/partial nudity/whatever u want to call it, i dont think it's right. i dont find it offensive, i just think under aged girls should keep their bits to themselves til they are adults. artistic or not ppl should respect that its a child/teen. would u want ur daughter/sister/neice to appear nude in a fashion magazine for the world to see?

The problem is that AMERICA is sexually repressed!  Europe's underage is different than ours!  Most of the European Nations Underage is UNDER 16.  Some countries 14. 

My aunt was married when she was 14 here in the USA.  Does that make her husband a pedofile?  They've been happily married for 40 years.

Just because someone is under the age of 18 does NOT mean they are not adult.  There are many people over the age of 18 that are still children.

Age is but a number, when are people going to realize that?

Brian Diaz wrote:
Nudity does not equal sex.

Why can't people understand that?

Because they are American and are sexually REPRESSED!

Tiffany Alonzo wrote:
non-sexual/suggestive/partial nudity/whatever u want to call it, i dont think it's right. i dont find it offensive, i just think under aged girls should keep their bits to themselves til they are adults. artistic or not ppl should respect that its a child/teen. would u want ur daughter/sister/neice to appear nude in a fashion magazine for the world to see?

How come moralists can make beautiful things sound perverse?

KM von Seidl wrote:
How come moralists can make beautiful things sound perverse?

lol, usually coz they are trying to make themselves NOT look like the type of people they are worried about others being. if any idiots passed any law agaisnt these kind of non-sexual art pictures being published in the US, it would only be because the law-makers themselves couldnt look at young kids without being turned on......

oldguysrule wrote:
what laws prohibit this?

TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 110, § 2257

§ 2257. Record keeping requirements

(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which—
     (1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
     (2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.

(b) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall, with respect to every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct—
     (1) ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer’s name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations;
     (2) ascertain any name, other than the performer’s present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name; and
     (3) record in the records required by subsection (a) the information required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection and such other identifying information as may be prescribed by regulation.

(c) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall maintain the records required by this section at his business premises, or at such other place as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe and shall make such records available to the Attorney General for inspection at all reasonable times.

(d)
     (1) No information or evidence obtained from records required to be created or maintained by this section shall, except as provided in this section, directly or indirectly, be used as evidence against any person with respect to any violation of law.
     (2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not preclude the use of such information or evidence in a prosecution or other action for a violation of this chapter or chapter 71, or for a violation of any applicable provision of law with respect to the furnishing of false information.

(e)
     (1) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall cause to be affixed to every copy of any matter described in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section, in such manner and in such form as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe, a statement describing where the records required by this section with respect to all performers depicted in that copy of the matter may be located.
     (2) If the person to whom subsection (a) of this section applies is an organization the statement required by this subsection shall include the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization responsible for maintaining the records required by this section.

(f) It shall be unlawful—
     (1) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies to fail to create or maintain the records as required by subsections (a) and (c) or by any regulation promulgated under this section;
     (2) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies knowingly to make any false entry in or knowingly to fail to make an appropriate entry in, any record required by subsection (b) of this section or any regulation promulgated under this section;
     (3) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies knowingly to fail to comply with the provisions of subsection (e) or any regulation promulgated pursuant to that subsection; and
     (4) for any person knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer, or offer for sale or transfer, any book, magazine, periodical, film, video, or other matter, produce in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce or which is intended for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, which—
          (A) contains one or more visual depictions made after the effective date of this subsection of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
          (B) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
which does not have affixed thereto, in a manner prescribed as set forth in subsection (e)(1), a statement describing where the records required by this section may be located, but such person shall have no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of the statement or the records required to be kept.

(g) The Attorney General shall issue appropriate regulations to carry out this section.

(h) As used in this section—
     (1) the term “actual sexually explicit conduct” means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;
     (2) “identification document” has the meaning given that term in section 1028 (d) of this title;
     (3) the term “produces” means to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer generated image, digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted; and
     (4) the term “performer” includes any person portrayed in a visual depiction engaging in, or assisting another person to engage in, actual sexually explicit conduct.

(i) Whoever violates this section shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both. Whoever violates this section after having been convicted of a violation punishable under this section shall be imprisoned for any period of years not more than 10 years but not less than 2 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both.

[Poster's comments]

You get a US Attorney who's having a bad day, or under local pressure, and you could find yourself defending your photos against the 2257 requirements, it's easiser and safer to just keep the documentation.  To give you an idea a community group in Salt Lake City, UT filed a under age complaint about a photo currently in my profile and the legal fees to defend it cost $1500.  I won a civil judgement against the group, but you can't get blood from a stone.

Care to guess which one?

Garry k wrote:
Should underage fashion models ( ie 15- 19 yrs ) be posing topless or nude for European Fashion Magazines such as Vogue ....( Italian , French etc )

If so - then is is hypocritical for such magazines to be sold in N America -when our own laws prohibit such ?

First off, 18-19 isn't underage in the US.  Second, as for the rest they're not underage unless you apply US standards to the rest of the world, which we have NO right to do.  Thirdly, as pointed out by several people here, it's NOT illegal ro show "simple nudity" of a minor here, tho as some others have pointed out it's not always a good idea.  But as a for-instance, before the Brit tabloids started upping their age rules the "Page 3" girls were often 16 or 17 and those tabs were widely available in the US.
So no, there's no hypocrisy.  It just serves to underline how ridiculous some feelings & opinions are in this country.

Dean Solo wrote:
Kiddie Porn...not to be confused with Kitty Porn.

AAhhh Yes! Kitty Porn...It's those nekkid pussy shots that will get you into trouble, everytime!

LOL

Garry k wrote:
Agreed advertising is needed to keep the cost of magazines down -but some more expensive magazines can survive without it or with little of it ......

not even close to true

Brian Diaz wrote:
Nudity does not equal sex.

Why can't people understand that?

Well maybe not currently,

But I've heard that laws currently under consideration,
will make all nudity illegal except for the express purpose of having sex,
and will limit said sex to your lawfully wedded partner,
and will stipulate that said partner must be of the opposite sex
and the female partner of said couple must be certified to in the acceptable child bearing range of 25-40 years of age.

An exception to nudity statute under 2735.57 sec.c will apply if the individual needs to bath,
but this exception will only be granted if the proper form 2735.75 sec.a is first filed (in triplicate) with the designated nudity police 3 days prior to the expected bath date. 
It is further note the said bath must occur in a darkened room, alone, no exceptions will be granted.

Brian Diaz wrote:
Nudity does not equal sex.

Why can't people understand that?

Thank you!!!!! 

Again people, the US has no laws prohibiting implied or actual nudity of a minor as long as it is not showing them in a sex act or imitating a sexual act...or shown in a sexual manner.

PPRO Analyst wrote:

TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 110, § 2257

§ 2257. Record keeping requirements

Nowhere in that statute does it say that it is illegal to take a nude photo of a minor.  Actually, Section 2256 is the more applicable one, but what it prohibits is taking or posessing photos of a minor that involve real or simulated sex or a lacivious display of the genitals.

European Vogue does neither.