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.
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).
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.
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).
The "barely legal" and/or teen cuties feature models of legal age.. the sites place casting calls for girls that look way under than their actual age so that they appear "illegal" and/or like "jailbait"... the sites are typically careful to adhere to 2257 obscenity laws, and usually require two forms of id and a model release stating their real age...
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).
and "should" depicting underage looking girls (who are of course, legal age) be illegal? That is a good question. Some might argue it promotes the exploitation of child porn. On the other, some might say this is fantasy fulfillment of legal girls "roleplaying" younger ages... and that it is safe, sane and consensual for all involved... and 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...
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.
Youve also got to consider the fact that the whole country if not a huge part of the world promotes much worse things than this in our department stores
You can buy thongs for children as young as 11-12 years old with a picture of a strawberry on the front and the wording just ad cream
Now if that isnt blatently pornographic i dont know what is
But yet it is still sold to younge children and parents buy the shit
So having achild pose with a slightly unbuttoned shirt or some high cut shroty shorts isnt too bad in my oppinion as alot of these girls wear less when they are in their bikinis at the beach than they are wearing on this guys site
Personally i am very against child porn and alot of the 4-11 yo sites there are out thee with girls in sexually provocative poses just bordering on legal but this site doesnt seem to be that bad, very glamourous but not too sexy, i have come accross way worse in the past most of which does get shut down after a while
And what with there being so many different laws all over the world and different withing each area of a country its so hard to monitor and police everything of this nature and make a difinitive ruling as to what is acceptable and what isnt
If you ask me there should be a country wide law and no individual state laws that gives everyone a clear ruling on whats legal and illegal that way the bad people can get prosecuted quicker and easier and the good people can know the bounderies to stay within
But people probably would find something wrong with what no matter how it was done so what can you do eh?
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.
QUESTION: Which State/s are the most restrictive and which are least restrictive with regard to this (and yes, I'm too lazy to look it up)???
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.
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.
I havnt read through the whole thread and Im not going to get into debating the law(a minefield at best!) what I will say is that I just had a look at True Teen babes site and it is pretty disturbing...and very little shocks me!
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.
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???
Firstly - to disclaim myself - I don't work with minors at all. In this sue-happy world where the girl's word is always Gospel (guilty until proven innocent) it's just not worth putting myself in a situation where someone could tarnish my life or reputation forever. I don't have a lawyer now, and hope to never need one.
With that said, I took a look at True Teen Babes. Besides being a tasteful and beautiful site, it seems to be about 99% morally and ethically sound, in my opinion.
There are a few photos - namely the implied nude of the blonde linked a few posts up (where she's holding her bare breasts) - that are probably borderline inappropriate. And perhaps the semi-transparent bras. But who's to say what's inappropriate? If these girls really are under 18, and their parents really did consent to the photography, then who are we to say whether the work is inappropriate, immoral or unethical?
They're not having sex. They're not spreading their legs. They're not showing any defined nudity. Aside from a few exceptions, you can't see anything in those photographs that you can't see at a public pool or beach.
The way I see it, child porn is ONE thing, and tasteful photography of females is another. Whether they're 14 or 17 or 18 - what's the difference? If they're mature, and possess a beauty that people can enjoy and respect, and their parents are OK with the levels of exposure of their children for the sake of art - so be it.
At the same time, I sincerely frown on the sites that use over 18 models to pretend to be minors. Those sites are blatantly catering to those perverts who have a fetish for minors. You can say the same thing about TTB, but at least they post the age and aren't misleading. They're merely displaying beautiful girls that are under the age of 18 - and are doing it legally at that.