The Don Mon wrote:
i just dont understand why it should be a question for people with any dignity to not send offers to anyone under 18...you shouldnt be able to use these sites unless the adult is the one
managing the portfolio,and a phone call to the parent to verify.

If you were dealing with parents, you are right, there wouldn't be any issues.  How does a parent know if their teen has posted a profile of themself on a website?

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
Yea, in California if the cops are called and the woman wont press charges the cops can press them if they want.

It has always been that way.  There is nothing new about it.  In most states, and California is a good example, only the District Attorney (or city attorney, or state attorney general) is able to press charges.  The victim of a crime is nothing more than the complaining witness.

They can now, and have always been free, to press charges even if the victim refuses to participate.  Of course, they must have enough evidence if the victim is an unreliable witness.

A victim can file a police report but there is no such thing in most states as "pressing charges."  The state will or will not charge, based on the report and the evidence.   There is no way to force the District Attorney in California (and many states) to charge someone.

John Jebbia wrote:

Call me crazy, but that's just silly! They might have a hard time getting a conviction.. I mean how the hell can you violate yourself! I know if I was on that jurry, I wouldn't convict her.

In some states "pleasing one self manually" is considered self abuse. Perhaps the state she is in is one of those states. Therefor making her guilty of child abuse, although she is the child herself.

John Jebbia wrote:

Like the movie Simone... Fake. Computer generated..

yea, computer generated is included in what was considered not illegal. it falls under the illustration part of my reply.

Jessica L wrote:
I can honestly say that I have never, ever gotten any offer of nudes or implied's since I've been here and I don't have it posted on my profile either. I like to think that people do actually read my profile and my age.

On another site, I once got an offer to go to the Bahamas for a week, all expense paid, photo shoots and so forth but my Mom responded, telling the person "I'm sorry but Jessica's a junior in HIGH SCHOOL and can't possibly miss a week of school...LOL" AND to go back and read my age. We then got another e-mail that simply said.."I'm really sorry!".LOL

I hope this kind of makes this seem a little better. I don't think it's like a rampant thing. I think some people just see a pretty young woman and hit e-mail or send message without fully reading their profile.

I think here on MM it also has to do with the fact that you are so well respected and loved by so many of the members of this site that people know we would form a lynch mob if they contacted you on here about such things

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
I think here on MM it also has to do with the fact that you are so well respected and loved by so many of the members of this site that people know we would form a lynch mob if they contacted you on here about such things

It's been a while since I have been to a good lynching, but I think you are right.

When I was a kid, we had good eggs and bad eggs.  The best were "Grade A, Jumbo, Double Yokers."   I think Jessica is even better than that!

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

It's been a while since I have been to a good lynching, but I think you are right.

When I was a kid, we had good eggs and bad eggs.  The best were "Grade A, Jumbo, Double Yokers."   I think Jessica is even better than that!

Here Here. I have a feeling someone is blushing right about now,lol.But its true.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I am just curious about something.  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?  I understand why older models do, but are teen models getting that many offers for nude work that they need to make it clear they won't accept nude offers?  Does that also mean that some teen models on this site are doing nude work?

Alan

Because there are perverts out there that would ask to shoot them anyway. They are reinforcing their rights. I don't blame them. There are plenty of creeps out there.

Jessica L wrote:
I can honestly say that I have never, ever gotten any offer of nudes or implied's since I've been here and I don't have it posted on my profile either. I like to think that people do actually read my profile and my age.

On another site, I once got an offer to go to the Bahamas for a week, all expense paid, photo shoots and so forth but my Mom responded, telling the person "I'm sorry but Jessica's a junior in HIGH SCHOOL and can't possibly miss a week of school...LOL" AND to go back and read my age. We then got another e-mail that simply said.."I'm really sorry!".LOL

I hope this kind of makes this seem a little better. I don't think it's like a rampant thing. I think some people just see a pretty young woman and hit e-mail or send message without fully reading their profile.

Hey Jessica,

I'm glad to hear that,. It's good that you chimed in. I do see this that we speak of go on on the other site quite often though. I've shot quite a few teen models that somewhere after my dealing w/ them they quit because of this sort of thing & have dropped off the map...

People need to read though & it's not a good excuse. I mean, I want to know all the legalities of those whom I'm dealing w/. It's like when you have a list of objectives that say:

commercial, runway, editorial & headshots only - no swimsuit, lingerie or nude


Wouldn't you think someone was a creep if he emailed you saying:

"yeah, I am looking to do swimsuit, lingerie & nude, will you tfp w/ me?"

I want to shoot w/ someone who wants to shoot the same thing that I want to shoot. I don't want someone to feel coerced into it. The shoot will be lame, & so will the images be...

Anyway, I'm glad that you haven't had any real problems & hope that you never do...

Paul

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

If you were dealing with parents, you are right, there wouldn't be any issues.  How does a parent know if their teen has posted a profile of themself on a website?

they should every once in awhile check their email when they arent at home
or make them open their email while sitting with them / or take computer every so often
to " check it "

or dont give them a computer....let them use one that everyone uses that way the parent
can access the files/sites etc be an interent parent.

and im sure someone will say well parents cant be there all the time
i understand and i know you cant protect them from everything.just hope you raise your kids the best way you cant but when it comes to the internet and the home p.c. it the parents job.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

That is an interesting question.  It probably not be illegal to photograph yourself, although it is illegal to possess the images (although it creates an interesting caveat if the images are of yourself).

The problem with posting the images though is that they way the feds get pervs who view child porn is that your browser downloads to cache a copy of the image when it displays it. Possession of child porn is illegal.  So if someone goes to the site and views the images, they are committing a crime.  It gets complicated.

It would be interesting to see if they could charge the model for being in possession of images of herself which would otherwise be illegal to possess.

Actually, this is easy to deal with.  Owning the photos themselves would not be a legal issue.  It would be stupid as they can look in the mirror.  You might as well try to nail minors on masterbation.

However, posting those pics on the internet WOULD be a crime as you're providing illegal content to others.  You would be charged with providing nude photos of a minor.  You would NOT be charged with providing nude photos of YOURSELF.  Who is in the photo when it concerns the public is not relevent.

Just like you can stand in the shower and commit lewd acts upon yourself and not get into trouble.  But do the same thing out in the street during a rain and you'll be carted off to jail.

A. H A M I L T O N wrote:
In your hypothetical argument it's still illegal, child porn laws aren't about exploitation, in general.  The minor would be charged, as a minor assuming they decided to press the charges.  Many crimes are victimless, the very nature of how obscure child porn laws are dictates that many of those cases would be victimless as well. (What about the situation wher ethe girl turns 18 in 3 weeks...is her mindset really going to be any different?)

Nothing, and I don't know if the laws here in the U.S. and/or California has changed, but I do recall looking up the law concerning the age of consent.  Everyone knows it's 18 however, you are considered to be at age of consent 24 hours prior to your 18th birthday.

So you don't have to completely wait until they are 18   If you want to be kind of naughty and do it on the their last day of 17.  Er...as far as sex goes.  Photography, I dunno.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
A victim can file a police report but there is no such thing in most states as "pressing charges."  The state will or will not charge, based on the report and the evidence.   There is no way to force the District Attorney in California (and many states) to charge someone.

THis is true to my understanding.  And if the DA does not wish to press charges, you're screwed no matter how you feel about the issue.  Your only recourse is to then sue them in civil court.

DigitalCMH wrote:

Actually, this is easy to deal with.  Owning the photos themselves would not be a legal issue.  It would be stupid as they can look in the mirror.  You might as well try to nail minors on masterbation.

However, posting those pics on the internet WOULD be a crime as you're providing illegal content to others.  You would be charged with providing nude photos of a minor.  You would NOT be charged with providing nude photos of YOURSELF.  Who is in the photo when it concerns the public is not relevent.

Just like you can stand in the shower and commit lewd acts upon yourself and not get into trouble.  But do the same thing out in the street during a rain and you'll be carted off to jail.

I am frankly not sure as to the ramifications, on a state by state basis of taking sexcually explicit nude photos of yourself if you are a minor.  There may well be variations in the laws based on jurisdiction.  I am sure it is illegal to post and sell them as it is illegal to possess them.

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.

Did Santa fill your stocking with nips this year?

As I remember, you were in dire need of nips some months ago?

Jordan wrote:
Because there are perverts out there that would ask to shoot them anyway. They are reinforcing their rights. I don't blame them. There are plenty of creeps out there.

I didn't realize that there were any perverts out there that posed as photographers.  I thought everyone was striaght-up.

Yours is one of the obviousl answers.  Thanks for the comments.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
I think here on MM it also has to do with the fact that you are so well respected and loved by so many of the members of this site that people know we would form a lynch mob if they contacted you on here about such things

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
It's been a while since I have been to a good lynching, but I think you are right.

When I was a kid, we had good eggs and bad eggs.  The best were "Grade A, Jumbo, Double Yokers."   I think Jessica is even better than that!

Awww! You guys are so cool. Man...I think I'm blushing!
Now come to Baltimore this year and shoot me! LOL

Jessica L wrote:

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
I think here on MM it also has to do with the fact that you are so well respected and loved by so many of the members of this site that people know we would form a lynch mob if they contacted you on here about such things

Awww! You guys are so cool. Man...I think I'm blushing!
Now come to Baltimore this year and shoot me! LOL

wha........ you dont like cali? hrmph

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
wha........ you dont like cali? hrmph

Really Jess, you should come out to CA for a week...  Oh wait a minute, that's already been discussed...  Nevermind...  ...

Paul

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
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?

Hey, they can expose themselves to the photosensitive equipment all they want...it is the gaze of the PERSON watching them and taking the picture that is more corrupting. Would you want a middle aged man watching your 15 y.o. daughter taking a shower?

the addition of another individual changes the context. The photograph itself really has nothing to do with it, except that legally, the person who had their picture taken cannot sign off on it.

John Jebbia wrote:
I have a couple of questions.

1. Would it be illegal for a teenager to take sexually explicit photos of herself and post them on the web?

2. Would it be illegal for a teenager to take sexually explicit photos of herself and post them on the web after she turns 18?

a) There would be no victim. I believe there has to be a victim in a crime.
b) Who would they charge?
c) What would the charge be? Sexual exploitation of a minor?

This should be interesting.

I believe that there was a case recently of a boy who started selling sexually explicit pictures of himself when he was 13 on the web. I can't find the link right now, but it was a big enough case I am sure that googling it will come up with something. Anyhow, that escalated to a variety of other things, but he was charged and convicted of child porn along with everybody who he was closely associated with.

Paul Brecht wrote:
Really Jess, you should come out to CA for a week...  Oh wait a minute, that's already been discussed...  Nevermind...  ...

Paul

Well..there is a chance we may be coming out in early summer to visit my aunt Diana...I haven't been to cali since I was 3! Here's a shot from my shoot back then..lol My aunt's ex-husband is a photographer and FORCED ME (can't you tell) to pose for his book! Not fair either 'cause they paid me in cookies!
I still love pink too!LOL

Jessica L wrote:

aww, shes playin peekaboo
when you come to cali which part would it be? I seem to recall talking with your mother about this.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

aww, shes playin peekaboo
when you come to cali which part would it be? I seem to recall talking with your mother about this.

Real fast..past my bedtime..lol

Northern, near San Fran!

TTYL!

Jessica L wrote:
Here's a shot from my shoot back then..lol My aunt's ex-husband is a photographer and FORCED ME (can't you tell) to pose for his book! Not fair either 'cause they paid me in cookies!

I don't see anywhere in your profile where it says you have been modeling for 13 years?????

I hope you come to California.  I like working with good eggs.

Jessica L wrote:

Real fast..past my bedtime..lol

Northern, near San Fran!

TTYL!

Oh dear me, you will be by me! yippee!!!

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.

Yep...there's a guy here in Fla who's on the Other ModelPlaza who routinely posts 15-17 yr old girls in wet t's, Maxim "arm-overs," etc.
I reported a girl here on MM the other day who posted several shots like that right at the edge who said "As soon as I am 18 I am going full nude" and the mods had her pull some.  On that OTHER site, I sent a similar notice & nothing was done.

John Jebbia wrote:
I have a couple of questions.

1. Would it be illegal for a teenager to take sexually explicit photos of herself and post them on the web?

2. Would it be illegal for a teenager to take sexually explicit photos of herself and post them on the web after she turns 18?

a) There would be no victim. I believe there has to be a victim in a crime.
b) Who would they charge?
c) What would the charge be? Sexual exploitation of a minor?

This should be interesting.

I've kept up with a few cases where teens (16 & 17 usually) have taken pictures of themselves & then posted them.  They've been charged with DISTRIBUTING child pornography, but nto creating or posessing.

I am not saying this's always the case BTW, that was just in a few news stories I read.

A. H A M I L T O N wrote:
In your hypothetical argument it's still illegal, child porn laws aren't about exploitation, in general.  The minor would be charged, as a minor assuming they decided to press the charges.  Many crimes are victimless, the very nature of how obscure child porn laws are dictates that many of those cases would be victimless as well. (What about the situation wher ethe girl turns 18 in 3 weeks...is her mindset really going to be any different?)

Anyway, to further complicate the matter, it's illegal as well to photograph an 18 year old who happens to look 14 in a sexually explicit manner and in any way, shape, or form try and convince the viewer that she's 14.  Even less victimless, it's about socioligical control of what a majority of people think is wrong, in many cases, not protecting a specific victim.

Andy

It was my understanding that the law you're refering to was recently struck down as unconstitutional and too vague to properly enforce.
I could be mistaken, but I believe I am correct.

Richard Beebe wrote:

On OMP, I have brought to the moderator's attention "more than one" minor female 'model' with questionable imagery among the four on their profile. I actually like that the contact email text box on there will have the open line "to the parents of ..." and have a bold note about minor legal issues.

Here? I will hope it's just a reminder to those who don't read profiles. I've seen tags by some photographers to 17 year old female models about wanting to work with them after they turn 18. It bothers me.

I've placed tags like that with some models regardless of any intention of doing nude work.  I don't like to work with minors unless approached by the parents & even then I am leery of potential issues unless it's for family portraits.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

The surpreme court did strike it down. Virtual child porn, such as an adult pretending to be  under age in photos and/or videos, drawings/illustrations of what is supposed to be an underage girl involved in sexual activities,etc is not illegal, or at least at one time it was not when struck down by the supreme court about 3-4 years ago. It may have changed. I do not think it has , though. Considering some of the adult videos that have been made, even within recent months by such companies as hustler, with young looking adult girls in little school girl outfits, doing things on little girl beds with stuffed animals allover, coloring books,dollies, using little girl voices, and most scenerios portraying the male in the scene as daddy, grandpa, uncle,etc.

*smacks self in head*
*makes note to catch up with thread before posting*

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

Yea, in California if the cops are called and the woman wont press charges the cops can press them if they want.

That's common in domestic violence laws since the victims often recant for fear or other reasons.

SLE Photography wrote:

Yep...there's a guy here in Fla who's on the Other ModelPlaza who routinely posts 15-17 yr old girls in wet t's, Maxim "arm-overs," etc.
I reported a girl here on MM the other day who posted several shots like that right at the edge who said "As soon as I am 18 I am going full nude" and the mods had her pull some.  On that OTHER site, I sent a similar notice & nothing was done.

How old was the girl you reported? If she was within the age range ok for MM then there really isn`t anything she did wrong. How many girls saw daddys playboy collection when they were little girls and said" when I grow up I wanna  do that.....". Lots.I get emails from young girls all the time interested in posing for me and they mention wanting to do art nudes and such once they are legal.

Allen Coefield wrote:
All this confuses me also.  At the same time you have alot of models under 18 saying they will do glamour work.  Sure glamour does not always include nude, but alot of times it does...so why are these minors saying they will do glamour?  When a photographer looks at a model who looks over 18 due to makeup and over looks, looks at a profile that says glamour work is accepted it is assumed the model is over 18....sounds like alot of minors and parents need to learn the terminology of the industry.
   Of course photographers get blamed for it

Exactly. Even in my MM profile I explain that sometimes Glamour can involve partial or implied or full on nudity. But I also mention that to me and many others, there is a definite difference between nudity in fashion and , say, maxim/playboy style nudity.