Karl Blessing wrote:

You gota wonder about them...

In all fairness, the Japanese are more open about sexual matters (in most cases) than we are in America.  They even have an annual "Penis Festival" with giant male organ floats in parades.  It's their culture.

In terms of what the limits are:

I know a photographer in Tasmania who does artistic nude photography, sometimes including children.  He had a devil of a time getting the first book of his photos published (I wrote the intro).  Besides the legal issues (none of his images were found to be illegal), most printers wouldn't touch the project. 

So, in terms of what's legal, Tony Ryan has, in my opinion, gone to the edge.  His images are beautiful, tasteful, gentle, sometimes humorous, and often thought-provoking. 

http://www.beauty-reality.com/

Anyway, I hope this helps put the OP's question in perspective.

SayCheeZ! wrote:
I don't know if the website in question is based in Florida, but seeing as the topic has gone that direction, here's a bit from the Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement website (http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FC3/childpornography.html) about the subject:

True Teen Babes was originally based out of Colorado.  The owner was arrested and charged but was acquitted at trial.  He still has a studio in Colorado.  After the trial he opened a second studio in Florida.  Technically, I don't know where the site is published from, but they were certainly producing content there.

I have no idea if he will still continue to produce there in that he has a Colorado studio and they aren't going after him having already lost at trial.  The ACLU suit has yet to be resolved as well.

Creative Works LLC wrote:
In all fairness, the Japanese are more open about sexual matters (in most cases) than we are in America.  They even have an annual "Penis Festival" with giant male organ floats in parades.  It's their culture.

Most countries are more open then America. Actually the US is probably one of the few countries that is both very high on the prudish scale, and very high on sexually exploitation. (my knowledge of japanese culture is that of an otaku, not a great deal but more than most americans would no. So don't base it off the picture above).

Ian Dragob wrote:
OMG...not this again. LOL

LOL!!!!

c_d_s wrote:
I can give you the absolutely correct answer to your question:

It depends.

Precisely - it all varies from case to case.

Photography by  Roy wrote:
I guess instead of trying to be expert on this subject we should listen to what the authorities have to say:

http://dsnead.com/content/en/age_issues.htm
http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/coppa1.htm
http://www.coppa.org/comply.htm

I kinda figured we already established the site wasn't illegal, but I guess everyone is basically voicing their opinion that the particular site in question should be illegal?

David Baxter wrote:
No, I don't believe everything I read.  Having an 18 year old pretend to be younger can also get you into legal trouble, or so I thought.

That's been my understanding also,depending on local whims,having an adult dressed as a child and posed in a sexual manner is also considered porn.

David Baxter wrote:
Having an 18 year old pretend to be younger can also get you into legal trouble, or so I thought.

NO. Most retail stores use 18+ models to pose for their teens lingerie/swimwear division.

Karl Blessing wrote:

I kinda figured we already established the site wasn't illegal, but I guess everyone is basically voicing their opinion that the particular site in question should be illegal?

I was just surprised that it wasn't illegal. I guess our laws are actually more lenient than I thought. But, I still don't agree with sites like this.

David Baxter wrote:
No, I don't believe everything I read.  Having an 18 year old pretend to be younger can also get you into legal trouble, or so I thought.

stan wigmore photograph wrote:
That's been my understanding also,depending on local whims,having an adult dressed as a child and posed in a sexual manner is also considered porn.

The Supreme Court decided a long time ago that it wasn't sufficient to have a person appear to be under eighteen, they had to be under eighteen.  Dressing up or suggesting that you are younger is not illegal.

David Baxter wrote:
I was just surprised that it wasn't illegal. I guess our laws are actually more lenient than I thought. But, I still don't agree with sites like this.

How so?

That you can't shoot with a minor at all unless they are wearing something that a nun would feel safe in?

Or that it's kind of ok to do some of the same things with them that we all do with older models?

God forbid JC Pennies getting sued over having minors in underwear on their catalogue! What is the world coming to!

David Baxter wrote:
But, I still don't agree with sites like this.

I don't agree with MM much either, too much BS in the forums sometimes.

mplsFASHION wrote:
God forbid JC Pennies getting sued over having minors in underwear on their catalogue! What is the world coming to!

I don't agree with MM much either, too much BS in the forums sometimes.

I agree. That's why JC Penney is now using 18+ models who look younger for the "teens" lingerie/swimsuit merchandise. I am saying this from practical experience not just another BS.

mplsFASHION wrote:
God forbid JC Pennies getting sued over having minors in underwear on their catalogue! What is the world coming to!

JC Penny catalogues aren't at all sexual in nature...

BW SMITH wrote:
Hahaha, I had to see what the site was before I posted my opinion about it. The one girls supposedly a 14 yr old and looks more like a 30 some year old mother, which i'm sure she is.

They're not young teens.

OMG! Why Why why, why did you revive the thread... it was just about to die!

Hehe, just messing with you. But I dunno man, I think some of them might actually be the age posted (just maybe they throw in a few fakers for content space). Cuz I'm sure if they were taken to court for investigation, they would have to furnish the paperwork on the model to verify the age and such. If the paperwork was falsified then they could have gone after them on those, in the even they weren't able to go after them on the grand prize.

BW SMITH wrote:
JC Penny catalogues aren't at all sexual in nature...

Unless of course you're either a pedophile, or someone who sexalizes images (ie: the People who go "OMG, how can they dare show that, they're exploiting those poor children"... and its like something out of sears). That of course is the problem, even if the photographer doesn't shoot something with the intent of it being sexalized, it won't prevent the intent of how the viewe perceives the image. (though it doesn't help to post them on a site called True Teen Babes... cuz intent is kind of obvious there just not legally prosecutable).

David Baxter wrote:
No, I don't believe everything I read.  Having an 18 year old pretend to be younger can also get you into legal trouble, or so I thought.

Yeah, and my 80 year old grandma has been telling everyone she's 60...she should be arrested, right?

BW SMITH wrote:
Yeah, and my 80 year old grandma has been telling everyone she's 60...she should be arrested, right?

Erm... could you maybe read all three pages before immediately hitting the reply button?

( ANT ) Mgaphoto wrote:

way off..

Doesn't make sense..otherwise there wouldn't be so many "teen" porn sites n that stupid school girl look thing around.

Wednesday Harrington wrote:
you can be 18 and still be considered a "true teen babe"... you are a teenager of legal age to shoot adult content... like it or not...

However it's one thing to have in a disclaimer on the legal page that all the models are 18 years of age and can reach such and such lawyers for record keeping. It's a totally different thing to say they're actually the posted age. (its' on their legal page, they actually claim they are the age posted).

If they claim they're actually the posted age, and they're not, well I think that violates least one consumer law. (misrepresentation of product).

Karl Blessing wrote:

Erm... could you maybe read all three pages before immediately hitting the reply button?

Erm...read through all 3 pages, then quoted something from the first page. Not too sure why you said that...so I read through all 3 pages again, thinking I missed something, but I don't believe I did.

There was a hint of sarcasm in my original post, by the way...

BW SMITH wrote:
Erm...read through all 3 pages, then quoted something from the first page. Not too sure why you said that...so I read through all 3 pages again, thinking I missed something, but I don't believe I did.

There was a hint of sarcasm in my original post, by the way...

It looked like you were about to address every issue on the first page that had already been addressed 4 times over.

Wednesday Harrington wrote:
and "should" depicting underage looking girls (who are of course, legal age) be illegal?  That is a good question.  Some might argue.  On the other, these adult women have a free will to choose whether or not to pose for these sites... my body,  my choice isn't a mantra that ends with the abortion debate...

According to Florida law (on florida's website for child pornography and related legal information, also listed near the top of this page) "Child Erotica" is not illegal, as it does not fit the criteria to be considered "pornographic". they could even go as far as being nude (provided they still do not blatantly show the genitalia or simulated or real masturbation or penetration), but my guess is the reason they don't is because they're far less likely to get a parent's approval to shoot the same kind of set in the nude.

Sara Lund wrote:
its a waaaay different situation

No it isn't  And I agree with you by the way, but the new regulations, as written, actually does touch on this.  Hollywood was up in arms about it, but congress assured the studios they would only use it to fight child porn, real or implied...

Now, having said that, until prosecutions start happening it will be business as usual, which means getting appropriate id.  Even if prosecuted I don't think it would ever fly.  I think (and hope) that enough intelligent precedent has been set.

Joe Tomasone wrote:
In the US, you have two laws to consider - Federal and State.   

Federal law considers depictions of "sexually explicit conduct" to be child pornography.  Mere nudity does not meet the definition, the subject must be engaged in intercourse or masturbation, or the like.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/u … 0_110.html


However, the various States have laws that can vary quite a bit.   Florida, for example, mirrors Federal law in most respects but also considers sexually-oriented contact with the genital area or female breasts of a minor to be child pornography as well. 


So under Federal Law, a minor posing nude (and even suggestively so) is not child pornography, but it might be in your State, and you also might run afoul of charges along the line of corrupting the morals of the minor, etc.    Plus, there's also the Court of Public Opinion to consider - what's legal may not always be what's in your best interests.

David Baxter wrote:
I was just surprised that it wasn't illegal. I guess our laws are actually more lenient than I thought. But, I still don't agree with sites like this.

Why, then, did you visit the site...?



.

Karl Blessing wrote:

Actually its not illegal as long as the site has a disclaimer describing their "lolitas", as actors portraying to be younger than they are, and also have 2257 record keeping regulation in check, so that if asked they can prove the girls ages.

Stop, go read Title 18, section 2257 of the USC.

Read the part that mentions describing, or portraying a model as underage, is the same as if she actually is. Having said that, you probably won't get prosecuted, but technically, according to the law, if you say she is underage, it's the same, (in the eyes of the law) as if she actually is.

Go read the law,

Conversely, if it is simulated, or actual sexual behavior, it does not matter if the model is actually over 40, if you don't have the models ID, and dated release on file.

That's the facts

Apfel Photography wrote:
As for the site in question, regardless of the site owners, the biggest creeps are the mothers and fathers that would agree to let their 13 year old daughter pose for these images to appear on a paysite like that one.

QF Mutha F'n T!!

Everyone always talks about the people who run these sites and how bad they are. What they fail to realize is that there is normally a mother or father standing behind the photog giving direction to a 13 year old to act "sexier"..  pathetic!!

Re6ecca  wrote:
If these girls are the age the site says they are I believe it should be illegal and classed as child porn. It's horrifying seeing girls younger then me posing in thongs like that, I wouldn't even dream of doing so! I've just turned 18 and think it's terrible, how can their parents let them do this?!

you're pulling our legs - right? The laws in the UK allows topless for 16+ models. how indignant we have become over non-sense.

The laws vary by local jurisdiction and it's always popular for ambitious DA's to pursue cases that are emotionally charged - but it seems that juries are able to sort it out most of the time. Who would risk shoot suggestive poses or nudes of underage girls in the first place? You take a huge risk of legal battles and public humiliation EVEN IF you are not found guilty.

And for Victoria's Secret - many of the girls are probably 18 but I see nothing suggestive fo the VS catalog images posted in this thread anyway. The ariguments about that being "pornographic" is ludicrous.

The OP was talking about teen sites - and as I best recall, there were two Colorado businessmen who did those sites - I believe they spent some time in jail over that. Is there some info to the contrary? I'd have to say that that site probably would have raised eyebrows for sure - but apparently the parents signed releases for the girls - so what ever hap[pened to those guys - and is that site still up???

Bang  Bang wrote:
also...how would a parent sign for their daughter to do this?

http://www.trueteenbabes.com/images/10107/xlarge_01.jpg

Creepy?
or is it just me..?

she looks 18 or 19 to me