Digital Vinyl wrote:
Fuck I love this country!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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 =.=

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.

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

Agreed.

v2lab wrote:

OH NO!  It's PEDOBEAR!

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.

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

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!

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!

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!

catherine Lynn Everhart wrote:

LOL!!!
You called it sister!

LOL Im a guy!

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?

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.

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*

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.