|
Forums >
General Industry >
Under-age models & "implied"
I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I'm confused when I see models under the age of 18 who are doing implied nude photos. Obviously, they are nude to a point (completely, topless, whatever) and in the presence of an adult photographer. (I'm talking 16-17 year olds.) Is this not illegal? I think it's certainly a large risk. Someone please fill me in on that because it's bothered me a bit. Thanks. Nov 25 07 12:47 am Link C J S Photography wrote: In the UK this would not be against the law, [not that I would take the risk] but in the US you need a lawyer from your own state Nov 25 07 03:38 am Link In the US, it's not illegal unless someone decides to think she's nude and that you must be a scumbag. For example, is she "looks" nude and her grandmother is offended and manages to convince her parents that you are a pervert, and the police get involved, you end up telling your story to the judge. You also get to pay your attorney. You might win, but if the judge feels you are a scumbag, it could get ugly. So, that's what there is to lose, and what's to gain exactly? Nov 25 07 03:41 am Link I wouldnt even shoot with a minor period. Its more trouble than its worth implied or not. There is just too much red tape to make it worth it. Nov 25 07 03:43 am Link Bryce Productions wrote: This is the typical kind of knee-jerk reaction you get in threads like this. It doesn't answer the question, it doesn't have anything much to do with reality, it just shows exaggerated paranoia and lack of understanding of what the law is. Nov 25 07 10:21 am Link Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote: So if we follow Mike's Advise (which I would) we stay away from the under 18's and if we do work with an under 18 there is no skin showing..just been way too many down the road problems over the years where one parent was ok with swimwear and the other has a meltdown as soon as something appears on-line. So again, my simple yet non-complex rule that works for me. NO Under 18 models allowed. Nov 25 07 10:25 am Link The theory was that moving the search button to the top would reduce the number of posts like these. There goes that theory. Nov 25 07 10:29 am Link PYPI wrote: It's much more fun to type rather than search,,,that sounds like work even! Nov 25 07 10:31 am Link As far as I'm aware of, in the UK a girl can do a nude shoot from the age of 16. They do sweet sixteen birthday shoots for some of the page three models in the sleasy news papers. Nov 25 07 10:34 am Link TXPhotog wrote: QFT Nov 25 07 10:35 am Link Candyfloss wrote: They changed the law. It's 18 now. Nov 25 07 10:41 am Link I have to point this out as I feel it's missed continuosly on postings and also in the minds of too many photographers and models. The fashion industry is the main place you will see young models, and when I say young, I mean YOUNG! 12-13 years and up! Most of these girls may work till they're 20, maybe a little more, but as often as not, they may peak and move on by 18. Please believe that this happens everywhere, US, UK, France, Italy - all the main fashion capitals of the world. And you may not see nudity, but you will see a lot of swimwear and once they hit 16, it get a little more open to situation. Look at fashion shows and high end shoots. There is little that is not seen backstage and on a shoot...and clothes tend to go from a full cover to no real thought required as to what's underneath. Me, I have a rule that I won't shoot anyone under 16, even when a client may have chosen a model, I'm still against it. But the industry, that's another story. And this thing with chaparones??? You will never see that in fashion bar the most unusual situations. For teen models, and I mean 14 and under, almost all the time, but 15 and up - rarely happens and I've been totaly thrown by girls turning up for castings who are 15 on their own, or with another model of the same age. It's more about the part of industry you shoot in than a general rule. In fashion, the main rule is get the picture! Do I think it's right, no. Do I think it's a good thing for the industry (fashion), no. Do I think it will eventually cause problems, yes. Guarantee when that happens, there will be a new trend and within 6 moths we'll be discussing that! Such is the perpetuation of photography and the fashion industry. Luckily, in advertising it's a little different, same with glamour, though in the UK, most of europe and Japan, it's a different story as 16 and over is legal for topless. The industry that you photograph in is the dictation of what is acceptable and it's that simple. Fashion is a multi billion dollar industry and it's that. Most girls dream is to be a fashion model, make a lot of money and be a name. Not all girls want this, but it's a hight percentage that do. Then ask their parents if they mind their 15 year old working for a major agency, making it big and earning $1000 for an editorial shoot and maybe $5,000-25,000 for a campaign - big campaigns will pay more than $50,000 at times to a major named model. There are things in imagery that are acceptable, things that are not and things that very much float on the line. It's the only truth on fashion, advertising, beauty, glamour and art imagery, and very much open to interpretation depending on the country you are in, and the industry you shoot for........ To add, the law in the UK as far as I know, means that a 16 year old can shoot Glamour with consent from a parent. If it has changed from that, great. Nov 25 07 10:43 am Link Candyfloss wrote: yeah i thought that but i thought it was illegal for a minor to get naked in front of anyone for photography even if it is implied? Nov 25 07 10:44 am Link Bryce Productions wrote: agreed!!! Nov 25 07 10:48 am Link lisa bostock wrote: A lot of people think that. They are wrong. Nov 25 07 10:48 am Link PYPI wrote: no one does searches anymore lol Nov 25 07 10:50 am Link but to the op i have no clue your going to hear both sides who is right no one knows Nov 25 07 10:50 am Link Bryce Productions wrote: Not everyone is a professial, there are possers who own cameras that call them self photographers. Guys who are only in the game to meet women. I know you models have all met some one like this. They have no talent but they own some nice camera equipment. Nov 25 07 10:58 am Link Some really great points made above and a lot of them seem rational and sensible. The fact is, however, that we in the US live in an EXTREMELY litigious society. The sad thing is that it has little to do with the model, her morals, etc. and a LOT to to with the REAL scumbag - the LAWYER!! That's not to say that there are no scumbag photographers, there are plenty... Anyway, lawyers will approach their "prospects" and convince them that there are millions to be made from a lawsuit. Some of these "people" will actually find a way to get a judge and/or jury to think that there is something untoward on the go, irrespective of the facts. I agree with Mike insofar as the costs of legal representation for defense and especially the upside. There really is WAY more to lose than there is to gain. Generally, I always try to contractually distance myself from the model. We prefer to have the production company recruit and hire the model and we work as nothing more than a sub-contractor to the production company. Mind you, this would still not offer complete insulation and protection but you can then use the production company's insurance for liability coverage. Talking about that, as a photographer I think it is smart to have insurance for your equipment, studio and general liability. Yes, TXPhotog, this IS exaggerated paranoia, but in California that's just how it works! Nov 25 07 11:02 am Link TXPhotog wrote: Ohhhhh ok, my bad Nov 25 07 11:04 am Link Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote: Could not have been better said. Nov 25 07 11:05 am Link yeah ive come accross a few strange photographers who seem to be after photos for a more personall collection........... someone asked me to pose in a barely legal shoot with a nother female in school uniform as im young. he wanted to add to his porfolio apparantly. it screamed dodgy so i declined you know the type bad pictures no refrences ect Nov 25 07 11:05 am Link TXPhotog wrote: I thought you were an Urban Legend but then again, I must be sub-urban, haha, but you are right. We hear the same thing over and over and over again, yet nobody has ever been able to produce a statute anywhere within the U.S. which makes implied nudity with a minor illegal. Indeed, nobody has produced a statute that makes it illegal to shoot a minor nude if it is non-sexual. Nov 25 07 11:06 am Link rp_photo wrote: This is why you not only need insurance but also membership in professional organizations that have good legal resources to assist you like PPA. Nov 25 07 11:11 am Link As TXPhotog said, there is no law that prohibits taking pictures of a minor without clothes on. Its done all the time. Doctors do it to document various diseases, skin conditions, etc. Sometimes these pictures are put on the internet for web reference and/or medical journals. There are both Federal and State laws that prohibit "child pornography," which is the visual depiction of a person under the age of 18 engaged in sexually explicit conduct. (18 USC §§ 2256(1) and (8). (See, http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html) The federal rule is not the only one, each of the various states may have their own laws. For example, California has Penal Codes §§ 288 (Lewd or lascivious action involving children); and, 311.3 (Sexual exploitation of children - including "(5) exhibition of the genitals or the pubic or rectal area of any person for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer"). The key to pictures of minors in the nude is the purpose and intent of the photo. Is it a Normal Rockwell'esq photo to two 12 year old boys skinny dipping with one of the boys flying through the air into the pond from a tire swing vs. a glamour shot of a 16 year old girl topless and looking seductive. One gets you an award at an art show the other a 12x12 cell. My advice is whenever shooting minors, have their parent or guardian on the set, have the parent or guardian sign the release (minors (except emancipated minors) can't sign releases) and don't take pictures of a minor in sexually provocative poses or dress or state of undress. Mike P.S. - See a media/criminal lawyer in your own jurisdiction to receive an answer that is appropriate for the state you live in. Nov 25 07 11:17 am Link proimageteam wrote: I do Nov 25 07 11:21 am Link C J S Photography wrote: There's no law that says someone under 18 can't be naked in front of an adult. Doctors would never allow that kind of law. Nov 25 07 11:22 am Link TXPhotog wrote: Except in states that, in the time line of history, never progressed past the dark ages of religious zealotry. Ala-fucking-bama, for one. TXPhotog wrote: Yep. It draws us psycho cases out of the woodwork like so many termites. ;-) Nov 25 07 11:29 am Link In these threads there is a lot of focus on what the law says or doesn't say, and that is important. The issue however goes beyond what's legal. Mom or Dad or Grandma can be very upset over a perfect legal photo if it's just a bit to seductive, this is a very gray area and a lot of opinion here. So you can end up defending yourself and maybe win, but meantime you may be in all the local papers and on the TV news and your reputation can be shot. Nobody ever sees what happens six months or a year later when you are judged OK. In deciding what to do think about all the implications, not just understanding and arguing the law in your state. Nov 25 07 11:32 am Link ellen von unwerth did a whole book with adrianna lima that had nudes in it and everything i believe...when she was 16 Nov 25 07 11:32 am Link TXPhotog wrote: Anyone that knows our legal system knows that there are no clear cut answers and in some cases paranoia and exaggerated prudence may indeed be the best course of action. Nov 25 07 11:37 am Link ten N wrote: Jock Sturges did nudes of under age girls and had his SF offices raided by the Feds and his stuff confiscated and damaged just to have it all returned (well, at least the stuff the cops didn't steal). On the other hand, Barnes & Noble was prosecuted in Ala-fuckin'-bama for selling his books. Eventually the charges were dropped, but the laws are still on the books and can be enforced. Nov 25 07 11:38 am Link DVP Photography wrote: So true. One should always avoid situations that might lead to a hard kick to the nuts. It doesn't make any difference who's right. The jury (when the photographer sues them for the attack) will always view the child as having been victimized, and the photographer will always be characterized as a pervert. Hell, they're often characterized as perverts on MM and one would expect people on here to be somewhat sympathetic to photographers. Nov 25 07 11:44 am Link Not worth the grief at all. Way to many legal girls to shoot. bs Nov 25 07 11:44 am Link Dave Krueger wrote: well i guess she won cuz she didn't get in trouble for it...i'm pretty sure that was her book Wicked that i'm speaking of Nov 25 07 11:49 am Link TXPhotog wrote: There's one of the best answers you'll find on this subject. Period. Nov 25 07 11:55 am Link Farenell Photography wrote: Not period. I must say again that some subjects require more thought put to them than "what are the rules and am I obeying them". There are unwritten norms that can get you in plenty of trouble. There are laws that can be applied to almost any situation. As stated earlier a prosecutor can make your life hell while you are proving you didn't break a law. And in the process they'll scare the crap out of you until you plea to a lesser charge so you can end the hell you are going through. Much of this non-legal advice has been worthy of consideration. This is an area where there are a lot of politics involved, a lot of morals and a lot of strong feelings...in general it is best to be very cautious...or at least to realize that you are gambling with very high stakes in some situations. To think that a knowledge of the law will protect you implicitly is naive and to think that there is no wisdom in some of these "common sense" comments is naive. Nov 25 07 12:22 pm Link i've researched this topic, and as far as i can tell, there isn't any law against implied nudity in photographs, not federally, and most state law definitions are taken from the federal law. there also doesn't seem to be a law against taking non-sexual photographs of minors - but interpretation of sexuality varies, hence why Jock Sturges had problems with the fed. his problems fell under pornography law. federal pornography and obscenity law considers anyone under 18 to be a minor, a non-adult. age of sexual consent varies state-to-state and does not have a bearing on the federal laws. for explicit or sexual display of genitalia the model must be 18 or over. a photographer in the fashion industry will likely have no problems with the law and shooting minors, sports illustrated bikini shots with palm fronds over the breasts are ok. just be careful when you shoot and overwrite any "peeks" as soon as you spot them. photographers like myself that commonly shoot nude and erotic obviously need to be even more cautious in that respect. Nov 25 07 12:23 pm Link Underage + Implied = Trouble KM Nov 25 07 12:26 pm Link I think the way the laws are written and being so loose, all it would take is a pissed off politicians's wife or some clueless, jobless lady sitting at home to take someone to court. There is a lot of risk and I do agree with checking local laws, but I'd check federal laws too to see which takes precedence in the matter. Nov 25 07 12:35 pm Link |
