How about this girl from the AP site put up yesterday? I guess in big corporation commerce it is a different story than some grimey GWC group shooter starting a site. Is that a double standard or just bad taste?
She's pretty young, but that makes little difference, I have seen girls that look 15 in ads for Italian lingerie companies in trade publications like Intima. Their bodies fit the wardrobe perfectly, but I guess that people don't use models like this often mainly because that age produces very few girls that have that kind of body.
Apfel Photography wrote: As for teens and glamour....., it is more about a suggested sexual act. Otherwise Victoria Secret would have been in trouble long ago seeing they have hired 17 year old models before.
you have two questions here. one is, can you photograph a girl under 18 in a way which is nude or suggestive. yes, if it is not pornographic. HOWEVER. she is a minor, and you are risking a hassle about sexual overtures or assault or whatever with an underage girl, so if you're working with one, bring her mother. Otherwise, do not work with her without all her clothes on. the other question is, can you use the pictures? if she is under 18, she cannot legally sign a release or a contract, so you cannot legal make use of whatever images you make which show who she is. for this, you need a release signed by a parent or guardian, so, bring her mother. If her mother isn't there, then make nice snapshots, then send her home to her mommy.
warning. i have worked a great deal with girls damaged by sexual abuse as children, and it is common for them to be out on their own at 16 or 17. they are smart enough to have fake ids, which allows them to work. the risk of working with an underage girl with fake id is far greater than with a girl of age who pretends to be younger. I have run into three of these. norm
If teen glamour is illegal then the majority of teen girls at local high school dances should be arrested for pornographic behavior on the dancefloor at high school dances. The things they do on the dancefloors are often soooo sexually suggestive I sometimes think they learned it at strip clubs.
The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) 18 USC 2256, says:
(8) "child pornography" means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where--
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct
...(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct
What D) says is that a person 18 or over, but pretending to be under 18 is illegal.
I remember when this law passed. I am not sure, but I think it mkay have been overturned since then, or replaced by a newer law.
The newer law, Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act (COPPA), pertains to anything "virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
So, the wording changed but, to me, it sounds like the same thing.
TestShoot wrote: I guess in big corporation commerce it is a different story than some grimey GWC group shooter starting a site. Is that a double standard or just bad taste?
Definite double standard. If you're a hired by J.C. Penny to shoot a 12 year old girl in her underwear for their catalog, that's completely respectable and you're a pillar of the community and an upstanding businessman.
If you're just some guy shooting a 12 year old girl in her underwear for her / your portfolio (or *gasp* a website on the evil internet), that's child porn and you're an evil dirty pervert who needs to be locked up for 20 years and branded for life as a pedophile.
Even if it's the exact same photographer taking the exact same picture of the exact same model.
ATLFigures wrote: My understanding is that if the model is underage and the photos can reasonably be interpreted as sexually suggestive then they could be considered child porn. A position I agree with by the way.
Would you still agree if your images were somehow seen as suggestive in the opinion of the local oppressed "church lady"?