DigitalCMH wrote:
Wouldn't surprise me if they are getting asked and/or photographers are not paying attention to age and just see a pretty face/body they want to see naked.

I am confused.  Are you telling me there are photographers here that want to see a pretty body naked?

I wonder if they are just not paying attention to the age of the models?  Interesting thought.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I am confused.  Are you telling me there are photographers here that want to see a pretty body naked?

I wonder if they are just not paying attention to the age of the models?  Interesting thought.

I would never suggest that

But now after what John said, I suppose they are seeing the age and just don't care.

DigitalCMH wrote:
But now after what John said, I suppose they are seeing the age and just don't care.

I find that a little bit disturbing.  Maybe some of the younger models who have that can tell us why they felt it was necessary.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I am seeing more and more models, under 18, adding the words "No Nudes" or other similar phrases to their profiles. 

My question is why would they need that?

Most of the ones I've noticed point out that they're under 18, and that this means no nudes--the note says both parts. (Or "age appropriate only", or similar.)

I've also a number of models who add this type of note after the initial portfolio has been made, perhaps a week or two later, which indicates to me that it's in response to [something] rather than an initial concern.

John Jebbia wrote:
CMH and Alan, check your mail.

John did you really intend to send me such a shocking e-mail?  Luckily, I have a strong heart.

John Jebbia wrote:
CMH and Alan, check your mail.

I want mail too! And then I will tell you my secret identity....

DigitalCMH wrote:
You know what though...this may touch on something else that has been discussed here on MM.  About how nudity of minors is not technically illegal.  I suppose it depends on the context of the photos.  Because shooting naked under 18 y.o.s is very European and all the top high end fashion models have done it, blah blah blah.

It all depends how much money you have for legal battles. I, frankly would rather spend my money on new lenses and stuff like that.

They may not beat you in the courtroom, but they'll beat you in the wallet.

Krista Muller wrote:
ummmm, after reading some of the threads here in the past few months, like why 14-17 y.o. girls SHOULD pose nude, are you really surprised that girls this age have to put that on their profile?

Yes, but that is what worries me.  I saw that thread about the craigslist post, then I keep running into 16 year olds that say no nudes and then there are threads trying to justify shooting minors in the nude.

I am not surprised to see the craigslist thread with all of this happening.  The problem is that I don't think there really is much, if any nude photography of minors going on here.  What concerns me is the perception that there might be and how that will affect the reputation of the community as a whole.

Krista Muller wrote:
ummmm, after reading some of the threads here in the past few months, like why 14-17 y.o. girls SHOULD pose nude, are you really surprised that girls this age have to put that on their profile?

i got a ??? what is the diff between a 14year old in a thong or other reviling clothing and nude to me there is NO difference and should be baned

DigitalCMH wrote:
You know what though...this may touch on something else that has been discussed here on MM.  About how nudity of minors is not technically illegal.  I suppose it depends on the context of the photos.  Because shooting naked under 18 y.o.s is very European and all the top high end fashion models have done it, blah blah blah.

About a year ago, England raised the age for shooting minors topless from 16 to 18 (although other countries are a lot more liberal about it).

You are right though, in fashion things are a little different.  But who among us Issac Mizrahi?  I think they cut him more slack.

nathan combs wrote:

i got a ??? what is the diff between a 14year old in a thong or other reviling clothing and nude to me there is NO difference and should be baned

I am not into underage people (girls or boys) put into sexual poses, whether they be nude, thonged, or fully clothed with suggestive body language. I know that people are sexual before 18, I know that it is an arbitraray age, but I respect that line.

I DO NOT think that todays teenagers need to grow up any faster. In the same sense, if a woman wants to celebrate her 18th birthday by doing a nude photoshoot (there was a thread on that a few months ago) I think that is fine. She is celebrating her legal adulthood the way she sees fit. So, it is not the 'nudity' that bothers me as much as minors being made into sexual objects for people that are attracted to such images.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
The problem is that I don't think there really is much, if any nude photography of minors going on here.

I think that we don't know, nor can we tell, the age of all the models. I would not be surprised if there was a lot more photos of nude minors on here than most of us want to know about.

However, that Craigslist thing is a completely seperate issue, and I do not think that it really  had anything to do with mm at all. It was incoherent. Basically, it said that someone who was arrested for inappropriate behaviour with children had also been a member of mm at some point, but had been banned. Then, the article went on the claim that this site banned too many people....

Krista Muller wrote:

I am not into underage people (girls or boys) put into sexual poses, whether they be nude, thonged, or fully clothed with suggestive body language. I know that people are sexual before 18, I know that it is an arbitraray age, but I respect that line.

I DO NOT think that todays teenagers need to grow up any faster. In the same sense, if a woman wants to celebrate her 18th birthday by doing a nude photoshoot (there was a thread on that a few months ago) I think that is fine. She is celebrating her legal adulthood the way she sees fit. So, it is not the 'nudity' that bothers me as much as minors being made into sexual objects for people that are attracted to such images.

i hear that i have a 13year old sister i would have to do some butt kicking if any one photoed my sis that way and i keep in mind that all females are some ones sister

Krista Muller wrote:
However, that Craigslist thing is a completely seperate issue, and I do not think that it really  had anything to do with mm at all. It was incoherent. Basically, it said that someone who was arrested for inappropriate behaviour with children had also been a member of mm at some point, but had been banned. Then, the article went on the claim that this site banned too many people....

I understand the incoherent part, however, there were also comments in the post about MMers condoning underage nudes.  The person was obviously a member and had seen threads on the forums.

What bothered me about that craigslist post was that it was incoherent and ineffective, but what if it had been coherent and well written.

Everyone of us has a vested interest in the public's perception of glamour photography.  Do they see us as artists or GWC with our fly's open preying on women, underage or not?

I will tell you that it is a concern for me and the direction that some of the threads have gone on these forums lately, to me, will fuel the perception of those that are looking for an excuse to label us perverts.

Anyhow, this is not supposed to be a rant.  I started this thread to see if I could find out the reason under age models have to say "No Nudes."

nathan combs wrote:
it is DECUSTING to wont to photo some one under age nude i ALLWAS look at the age and RESPET it

R U a PRODUK of the PUBLIK SKOOL SYSTUM?

GWC!

GWC wrote:

R U a PRODUK of the PUBLIK SKOOL SYSTUM?

GWC!

Thank you GWC for the holiday greeting and thank you also for your important contribution to this thread!

GWC wrote:

R U a PRODUK of the PUBLIK SKOOL SYSTUM?

GWC!

yep,grad of Broadway High,  but i do not lark at them that is nasty

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
About a year ago, England raised the age for shooting minors topless from 16 to 18 (although other countries are a lot more liberal about it).

You are right though, in fashion things are a little different.  But who among us Issac Mizrahi?  I think they cut him more slack.

Not exactly the fact of the matter there Alan. The Sex Offences Act 2003 that came into force in 2004 raised the age for "indecent" images but in English law mere nudity does NOT = indecency.

I get calls, rarely but it happens, from a naturist [nudist] family offering a commission to shoot things like a family portrait with both the parents and children nude. I will still do it BUT only if I can both manage the shoot and direct. They don't want to agree to that I won't take the work. The issue of photographs of nude minors in the UK context can be managed with care, and an eye to the limits that the statute and case law imposes. - no spreads; no inappropriate touching; nudity or partial nudity in context; no hint of distress; no overt erotic behaviours or clothing... ect ect.

I still, even today, would have no qualms about OVERTLY shooting naturists / nudists in private; on a public nude beach; or in a naturist / nudist club setting.

That kind of social nudity in Britain is considered, maybe, a bit eccentric but it is not criminal. Nor is it criminal in France, Germany, Spain or the Netherlands to name four more countries where I have worked.

Studio36

John Jebbia wrote:
I once set up a fake profile on OtherModelPlace posing as a 15 yr old just to see for myself. And literally everyday something inapropriate would be proposed. Some of them from very popular photographers.

I help a couple of younger girls on the other site with their modeling referrals and such that they recieve, so they all go into my email box. About once a week or more I have to report someone to OMP, once to the police.

Krista Muller wrote:
ummmm, after reading some of the threads here in the past few months, like why 14-17 y.o. girls SHOULD pose nude, are you really surprised that girls this age have to put that on their profile?

Actually, this whole site is geared toward nudity, or getting those to explore that genre.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

About a year ago, England raised the age for shooting minors topless from 16 to 18 (although other countries are a lot more liberal about it).

You are right though, in fashion things are a little different.  But who among us Issac Mizrahi?  I think they cut him more slack.

I think he gets slack cut to him for working with underage female models doing nudity of various degrees because he is admittedly homosexual. Unless that is a very clever game he is playing.lol

Krista Muller wrote:

I am not into underage people (girls or boys) put into sexual poses, whether they be nude, thonged, or fully clothed with suggestive body language. I know that people are sexual before 18, I know that it is an arbitraray age, but I respect that line.

I DO NOT think that todays teenagers need to grow up any faster. In the same sense, if a woman wants to celebrate her 18th birthday by doing a nude photoshoot (there was a thread on that a few months ago) I think that is fine. She is celebrating her legal adulthood the way she sees fit. So, it is not the 'nudity' that bothers me as much as minors being made into sexual objects for people that are attracted to such images.

I have a devils advocate question that your reply brings to mind. You mention that teenagers do not need to grow up any faster..... How does doing a photograph of one nude make them grow up any faster than the teenager taking a shower naked? The fact that there is some light sensitive equipment before her?

Krista Muller wrote:

I think that we don't know, nor can we tell, the age of all the models. I would not be surprised if there was a lot more photos of nude minors on here than most of us want to know about.

I myself have seen several profiles on here and the other sites where the girl says she is, say, 16, 15 or so and has a very obvious topless or mostly nude shot.

nathan combs wrote:
and i keep in mind that all females are some ones sister

Really?How so?

Nico Coer wrote:
Wee little kids (Under 5) Are sometimes okay as long as it isn't sexual- like the sun lotion little girl with the bare bum.
~N~

That was Jodie Foster.. A little bit of trivia.

GWC wrote:
R U a PRODUK of the PUBLIK SKOOL SYSTUM?

GWC!

I am, as well. What of it? I graduated in the top 10 percent in my home state. Thank goodness I got out of school before things really went to hell.

Cynthia Leigh wrote:
And I don't think a lack of "reading their profile" is an issue.

Actually that is a lot of the problem. Even I get emails from guys sayin I am hot and such. They do not seem to read my profile to understand I am the photographer and those women are models I have worked with. I have dealt with that for years. A lot of us do read profiles, but many also do not. It is a case of "read? why? pretty face, pretty body.........must shoot girl, ugh ugh...will girl pose naked ugh ugh grunt"
However, there is a thing on the other site which I do like. When you are about to contact a model through the websites email system,,,if the model is under 18 you will know so by the under 18 warning in bold red letters right on top of the email box you are about to type in. And the default opening sentence they automatically place into the email for you is" Hello parents of(models name here)". That would be something I would love to see here.That leaves no excuse for" I didnt know she was under 18"

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
I myself have seen several profiles on here and the other sites where the girl says she is, say, 16, 15 or so and has a very obvious topless or mostly nude shot.

I will say this, there are a lot of 16 and 17 year olds doing implied these days.  I don't shoot it, but I certainly see it.

Perhaps some shooter are seeing the implied shots and presume that the girls might do more.

In any event, I am surprised this thread is still going on.

studio36uk wrote:
Not exactly the fact of the matter there Alan. The Sex Offences Act 2003 that came into force in 2004 raised the age for "indecent" images but in English law mere nudity does NOT = indecency.

Actually, you are right and I should have been more specific.  The Sun Times no longer uses 16 year olds because of the change and you are correct that it deals more with glamour than mere nudity.

Of course you can still shoot a naturist and I do not, disagree that in most other parts of Europe it is fine.  Heck, when Europe was banning Child porn, Sweden didn't want to make it illegal but only did so under pressure from the other countries.

Thanks for the clarification.  You are absolutely correct.