login info join!
Forums > General Industry > Censors clear topless teen model Search   Reply
12345last
Photographer
Digital Vinyl
Posts: 1,164
Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia


AUSTRALIA'S literature classification has given the green light for photographers to take pictures of naked under-age models after backing down on an investigation into a fashion magazine.

More here

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/s … 32,00.html

Fuck I love this country!
May 17 08 09:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
v2lab
Posts: 1,557
Orlando, Florida, US


Digital Vinyl wrote:
Fuck I love this country!

http://www.sifomg.net/rand/577px-Pedobear_17.jpg

May 17 08 10:01 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Muarw
Posts: 3,368
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


arent we great
May 17 08 10:04 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Atris Everson
Posts: 966
Mansfield, Ohio, US


Digital Vinyl wrote:
Fuck I love this country!

Why, because you can take pictures of topless underage girls? Thats pretty pathetic! Way to go Chester!

May 17 08 10:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
K E E L I N G
Posts: 39,773
Peoria, Illinois, US


Digital Vinyl wrote:
AUSTRALIA'S literature classification has given the green light for photographers to take pictures of naked under-age models after backing down on an investigation into a fashion magazine.

More here

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/s … 32,00.html

Fuck I love this country!

Do you mean to tell me you are an activist for the right to shoot underage girls nude?

Mr. Hansen will be paying you a visit soon.

May 17 08 10:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 34,135
San Diego, California, US


Atris Everson wrote:
Why, because you can take pictures of topless underage girls? Thats pretty pathetic! Way to go Chester!

I think there was some dripping sarcasm here.

May 17 08 10:08 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
c_d_s
Posts: 7,771
Lubbock, Texas, US


I read the article and didn't see where the board "has given the green light for photographers to take pictures of naked under-age models."

All I saw was that they closed that one investigation and took no further action.
May 17 08 10:08 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36,332
San Francisco, California, US


Can someone from Australia translate this:

After deliberating, Classification Board director Donald McDonald said: "The board has now considered the matter andis of the view that this publication is not a submittable publication and therefore does not need to be classified.''
May 17 08 10:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
KGToops Photography
Posts: 2,439
Treasure Island, Florida, US


hi im chris hanson with Dateline NBC and we are doing a story on...........
May 17 08 10:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Vinyl
Posts: 1,164
Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia


From our classification board

What is a "submittable" publication?

The only publications that need to be classified in Australia are "submittable" publications.

A submittable publication is one that is likely to be restricted to adults because it:

    * contains depictions or descriptions likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, or
    * is unsuitable for a minor to see or read, or
    * is likely to be refused classification.

Just to clarify I don't in anyway advocate photographing minors in the nude ok. It was sarcasm at work/Australian humor.
May 17 08 10:14 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Mistriss de morte
Posts: 620
Wilmington, Delaware, US


good.
it should be allowed. nuditys not wrong, so long as the images aren't pornongraphic.
May 17 08 10:14 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Vinyl
Posts: 1,164
Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia


May 17 08 10:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
c_d_s
Posts: 7,771
Lubbock, Texas, US


PYPI wrote:
Can someone from Australia translate this:

After deliberating, Classification Board director Donald McDonald said: "The board has now considered the matter andis of the view that this publication is not a submittable publication and therefore does not need to be classified.''

I'm not from Australia. Actually I've been there, so I guess when I came back I came from there.

But I'm guessing that a "submittable publication" is one that must be submitted to the Classification Board to be classified, in other words, something like Playboy or Hustler. Since the publication is not something like that, it's not submittable.

May 17 08 10:16 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Muarw
Posts: 3,368
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


PYPI wrote:
Can someone from Australia translate this:

After deliberating, Classification Board director Donald McDonald said: "The board has now considered the matter andis of the view that this publication is not a submittable publication and therefore does not need to be classified.''

yeah i didn't understand that part too

May 17 08 10:16 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
The Silencing Machine
Posts: 15,759
South Amboy, New Jersey, US


Oh well, at least the OP is honest.
May 17 08 10:19 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36,332
San Francisco, California, US


That's a cop out. Just as I suspected. It's a huge loophole. Kind of like saying underage nudity with a sexual context is OK because it is outside our jurisdiction.
May 17 08 10:19 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Muarw
Posts: 3,368
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


PYPI wrote:
That's a cop out. Just as I suspected. It's a huge loophole. Kind of like saying underage nudity with a sexual context is OK because it is outside our jurisdiction.

unfortunately australia's legal system is whacked that way. explains why I'm barely failing my law course =.=

May 17 08 10:21 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Atris Everson
Posts: 966
Mansfield, Ohio, US


Miz Sid wrote:
good.
it should be allowed. nuditys not wrong, so long as the images aren't pornongraphic.

Why should it be allowed. Just the other day I saw a story on the news where this lady took some racy photos hanging off a fire truck. the lady happened to be the mayor of this small town. Low and behold shes unemployed..

Sooo you want to take pictures of a 16 year old so that the pictures can someday ruin her hopes and dreams as well. Its the same reason we dont let 16 year olds drink, they are not of age to make their own decisions. What might seem like a great idea today can come back to bite them later in life. I agree nudity is not wrong but there are alot of people who will definitely judge you for taking nude shots. Look how they were ready to throw Hanna Montanna under the bus for showing her back.

May 17 08 10:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 34,135
San Diego, California, US


messy subject in that part of the world


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_co … nd_Oceania
May 17 08 10:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
JA Sanchez
Posts: 6,830
Miami, Florida, US


Miz Sid wrote:
good.
it should be allowed. nuditys not wrong, so long as the images aren't pornongraphic.

Agreed.

May 17 08 10:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 42,426
Salinas, California, US


It's not illegal to photographer minors in the nude in the United States either.  All the great photographers who shoot nudes of entire families of all ages have been chased out of this country by harassment.  Just ask Jock Sturges! 

You can buy art books full of nude pictures of minor aged people at your local Barnes and Noble. The images are not pornographic just because they are nude!
May 17 08 10:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
denisemc
Posts: 555
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


Some of the comments at the bottom of the article are pretty funny.
May 17 08 10:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Andrew C Photo
Posts: 509
Twentynine Palms, California, US


Cant you in FL as long as their isnt any sexual act taking place.  I think GGW gets away with it there.  Correct me if Im wrong tho.
May 17 08 10:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Atris Everson
Posts: 966
Mansfield, Ohio, US


Next we'll asking grandma to pose au natural to show off her "I like IKE" tattoo!

Although the image may not be pornographic in your eyes, theres probably someone out there getting their rocks off to those photos. How would you feel if your neighbor had a large collection of these underage nude art photos in his possession. Is one book okay but once you have 20 there might that be a problem?

Once again I state Nudity is okay its when you start publishing & photographing the underage nudity is where the problem lies.
May 17 08 10:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68,937
Orlando, Florida, US


v2lab wrote:
http://www.sifomg.net/rand/577px-Pedobear_17.jpg

OH NO!  It's PEDOBEAR!
http://photo.gangus.com/d/26788-2/ackbar.jpg

May 17 08 10:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
JA Sanchez
Posts: 6,830
Miami, Florida, US


Andrew C Photo wrote:
Cant you in FL as long as their isnt any sexual act taking place.  I think GGW gets away with it there.  Correct me if Im wrong tho.

You can legally photograph a person nude at any age, in every single state.

May 17 08 10:40 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Sliver Photography
Posts: 423
Decatur, Georgia, US


Atris Everson wrote:

Why should it be allowed. Just the other day I saw a story on the news where this lady took some racy photos hanging off a fire truck. the lady happened to be the mayor of this small town. Low and behold shes unemployed..

Sooo you want to take pictures of a 16 year old so that the pictures can someday ruin her hopes and dreams as well. Its the same reason we dont let 16 year olds drink, they are not of age to make their own decisions. What might seem like a great idea today can come back to bite them later in life. I agree nudity is not wrong but there are alot of people who will definitely judge you for taking nude shots. Look how they were ready to throw Hanna Montanna under the bus for showing her back.

I'm not Chester, but I see that you can't draw an absolute line without some fucked up logic.  How about these pictures of Jessica Biel when she was 17 in Gear magazine.  Don't think they destroyed her hopes and dreams.

http://celebshoots.blogspot.com/2007/06 … -biel.html

May 17 08 10:41 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
LeWhite
Posts: 1,941
Los Angeles, California, US


As long as he's not a priest
May 17 08 10:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
LeWhite
Posts: 1,941
Los Angeles, California, US


Error300DP
May 17 08 10:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,113
Tampa, Florida, US


Even more surprising is that she's 5' 3". Oh no the world is upside down!
May 17 08 10:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
PenelopieJones Prod
Posts: 306
Payson, Arizona, US


Atris Everson wrote:

Why, because you can take pictures of topless underage girls? Thats pretty pathetic! Way to go Chester!

LOL!!!
You called it sister!

May 17 08 10:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Miami Glamour
Posts: 1,378
Miami Beach, Florida, US


Patrick Walberg wrote:
It's not illegal to photographer minors in the nude in the United States either.  All the great photographers who shoot nudes of entire families of all ages have been chased out of this country by harassment.  Just ask Jock Sturges! 

You can buy art books full of nude pictures of minor aged people at your local Barnes and Noble. The images are not pornographic just because they are nude!

^^^^^
||||||||
What he said!

May 17 08 10:50 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Atris Everson
Posts: 966
Mansfield, Ohio, US


J Allen Gomez wrote:
[I'm not Chester, but I see that you can't draw an absolute line without some fucked up logic.  How about these pictures of Jessica Biel when she was 17 in Gear magazine.  Don't think they destroyed her hopes and dreams.

http://celebshoots.blogspot.com/2007/06 … -biel.html

Why cant you just wait until the model in question turns eighteen? Why do you have to get the early start? Today its 17 next year its 16... Jessica has had a great career but what if she would have wanted to be a lawyer or a judge someday? Its probably not going to happen. It just so happens that Jessica's pictures work for what she does today but lets think further to tomorrow!

May 17 08 10:50 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Atris Everson
Posts: 966
Mansfield, Ohio, US


catherine Lynn Everhart wrote:

LOL!!!
You called it sister!

LOL Im a guy!

May 17 08 10:53 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Paul Brecht
Posts: 12,209
Colton, California, US


The Irony:

the headline:
Censors clear topless teen model


the picture:
http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6044266,00.jpg

eh! whatever...

(edit) I guess the censor missed that copy...

Paul
May 17 08 10:53 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
JM LA NYC
Posts: 481
Los Angeles, California, US


it's sick how some girls whom are 15 and 16 can pose topless but Miley gets her ass jumped all over because she did a "provocative" shot.. Makes me sick..


Where the hell are the mothers of these girls.. they remind me of Brooke Shields' momager.. Or how about Dina Lohan "It doesn't matter if you believe in it, It's money" just sing the song..


wth are with people these days ? no values sheesh..
May 17 08 10:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,113
Tampa, Florida, US


Chris Keeling wrote:

Do you mean to tell me you are an activist for the right to shoot underage girls nude?

Mr. Hansen will be paying you a visit soon.

I don't think applauding the decision necessarily would make him an activist. Perhaps not being outraged by a place that doesn't see nudity as evil is considered "activism" in Illinois?

Is there the remote possibility that his applauding the decision doesn't mean he is brushing the puppet to photos of underage girls?

May 17 08 11:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,113
Tampa, Florida, US


Atris Everson wrote:

Why cant you just wait until the model in question turns eighteen? Why do you have to get the early start? Today its 17 next year its 16... Jessica has had a great career but what if she would have wanted to be a lawyer or a judge someday? Its probably not going to happen. It just so happens that Jessica's pictures work for what she does today but lets think further to tomorrow!

Yes we should all be as fearful of our decisions as you suggest. Certainly that will eliminate any possibility for regret in our lives. Well, except the regret for having never done anything.

May 17 08 11:01 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Tom Linkens
Posts: 6,412
Lititz, Pennsylvania, US


KGToops Photography wrote:
hi im chris hanson with Dateline NBC and we are doing a story on...........

Kryckey! (sp) Chris Hanson?! *Pedo-Aussie shoots himself*

May 17 08 11:02 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Sliver Photography
Posts: 423
Decatur, Georgia, US


Atris Everson wrote:
Why cant you just wait until the model in question turns eighteen? Why do you have to get the early start? Today its 17 next year its 16... Jessica has had a great career but what if she would have wanted to be a lawyer or a judge someday? Its probably not going to happen. It just so happens that Jessica's pictures work for what she does today but lets think further to tomorrow!

Before we go further, I'll have to ask you why 18 is your absolute.  In other words, let's say she turnes 18 on January 11th, but I shoot her on January 10th.  Here comes the aforementioned fucked -up logic.

May 17 08 11:03 pm  Link  Quote 
12345last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers