login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > underage nudes and the law Search   Reply
12345last
Photographer
Halcyon 7174 NYC
Posts: 20,109
New York, New York, US


I'm wondering who made this collage. It certainly paints a different picture of adolescent nudity in photos and the law than you hear around here most of the time.

http://www.charlesbeckwith.com/gagimage … enudes.jpg*

*I copied it to my own server because the link I was sent went to a page on an adult site, and we're not allowed to link to porn sites from MM.
Feb 07 09 10:27 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Leroy Dickson
Posts: 8,239
Mobile, Alabama, US


I don't know about anyone else here, but I have no desire to have my name immortalized in legal precedence. wink
Feb 07 09 10:33 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SonoraImages
Posts: 673
Phoenix, Arizona, US


Unfortunately the collage only points out the age of the models....nothing specific on each shot....like where published, and if there were specific court cases involving those photos.  There are cases listed in the bottom corner....but who knows what they involve.....I'm not going to try to seach for them and read any citiations, etc.....probably wouldn't understand them completely since I am not a lawyer.

To be worthwhile, this thread would need specific cases listed with a synopsis.....IMHO.

This thread will probably go to hell real quick, once someone comments on the "morals" aspect.....
Feb 07 09 10:37 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
PashaPhoto
Posts: 9,726
Brooklyn, New York, US


are you sure you want to host something that is no doubt considered illegal on your own server?
Feb 07 09 10:38 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
TheLeicaGuy
Posts: 469
Springfield, Massachusetts, US


PashaPhoto wrote:
are you sure you want to host something that is no doubt considered illegal on your own server?

Did you seriously just ask that? or was that sarcasm?

Feb 07 09 10:42 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
B Browder Photo
Posts: 14,635
Charleston, South Carolina, US


I remember that series of shots of Drew Barrymore in Interview magazine which is or was a news stand magazine.  I never knew she was only 17 when those were shot.
Feb 07 09 10:44 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Victoria Julison
Posts: 1,466
Atlanta, Georgia, US


I saw some pics in there that were pics taken from films. Are you sure they werent pics of young looking women portraying younger ones. IE the american beauty pic wasnt just a baby faced 19 yr old girl portraying a 16 yr old? This doesnt make a lot of sense to me, as I dont know of any film company that would hire an underage girl to do a topless shot...plus her bewbs are too big to be 16, lol. :-p
Feb 07 09 10:45 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
PashaPhoto
Posts: 9,726
Brooklyn, New York, US


Jack Silver wrote:

Did you seriously just ask that? or was that sarcasm?

no... i asked that question with all seriousness...

regardless of the debate of the legality of underage nudes in certain situtations, posting images of said underage nudes on your own website, especially one that carries your name is just not bright...

Feb 07 09 10:50 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Angie Borras
Posts: 1,898
Kissimmee, Florida, US


Victoria Julison wrote:
I saw some pics in there that were pics taken from films. Are you sure they werent pics of young looking women portraying younger ones. IE the american beauty pic wasnt just a baby faced 19 yr old girl portraying a 16 yr old? This doesnt make a lot of sense to me, as I dont know of any film company that would hire an underage girl to do a topless shot...plus her bewbs are too big to be 16, lol. :-p

Plenty of 16 yrs. old walking around with big boobies believe me.

Feb 07 09 10:52 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Sal W Hanna
Posts: 6,544
Huntington Beach, California, US


Those are beautiful shots. Being nude and underage is not a crime. Sexually explicit acts caught on film with minors is. People take things too far sometimes. They just look at the hype and mob mentality and everything that is done of anyone underage all the sudden becomes porn.
Feb 07 09 10:54 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
J T I
Posts: 6,051
Beverly Hills, California, US


Victoria Julison wrote:
I saw some pics in there that were pics taken from films. Are you sure they werent pics of young looking women portraying younger ones. IE the american beauty pic wasnt just a baby faced 19 yr old girl portraying a 16 yr old? This doesnt make a lot of sense to me, as I dont know of any film company that would hire an underage girl to do a topless shot...plus her bewbs are too big to be 16, lol. :-p

Yes, Thora Birch was under 18.  Also, Brooke Shield's was in a number of films.  I can't remember if Milla Jovovich was nude or not in RETURN TO THE BLUE LAGOON.

Feb 07 09 10:54 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Simon Gerzina
Posts: 2,288
Brooklyn, New York, US


Victoria Julison wrote:
IE the american beauty pic wasnt just a baby faced 19 yr old girl portraying a 16 yr old? This doesnt make a lot of sense to me, as I dont know of any film company that would hire an underage girl to do a topless shot...plus her bewbs are too big to be 16, lol. :-p

Per IMDB, Thora Birch was born in March 1982 and 'American Beauty' was released in 1999.  So yes, chances are she was really 16 when it was filmed.

Also via IMDB:
"Was actually only 16 years old at the time she was filmed nude for a scene in American Beauty (1999). She told TV talk show host Craig Kilborn when she appeared on his show in 2002 that her parents didn't have a problem with her doing a nude scene, despite her being under age, and they encouraged her to go ahead and do it. They agreed that her character's nude scene was so important to the development of her character that they gave their approval."

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000301/bio

Feb 07 09 10:56 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,438
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


For those interested in the case law. The last case listed:

United States v. Various Articles of Merchandise Schedule No. 287 (2000)

Was a customs case heard on appeal in the 3rd US Ct. Court of Appeals that may be searchable by the name "Alessandra Smiles" or possibly "Alessandra's Smile" I have a copy of it around somewhere. Alternatively you might find a list of 3rd Ct. cases for that year [e.g. on FindLaw] and it should be coupled with the name.

The subject of the case was the importation of a quantity of out-of-print European nudist magazines containing predominantly images of children in a nudist context.

The court found in favor of the importer.

Studio36
Feb 07 09 11:01 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Halcyon 7174 NYC
Posts: 20,109
New York, New York, US


PashaPhoto wrote:
are you sure you want to host something that is no doubt considered illegal on your own server?

I hope you mean because of possible copyright issues.

Feb 07 09 11:05 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Halcyon 7174 NYC
Posts: 20,109
New York, New York, US


Jason Todd Ipson wrote:
Yes, Thora Birch was under 18.  Also, Brooke Shield's was in a number of films.  I can't remember if Milla Jovovich was nude or not in RETURN TO THE BLUE LAGOON.

Yes, she was.

Feb 07 09 11:07 am  Link  Quote 
Model
JoJo
Contest Queen
Posts: 23,326
Clearwater, Florida, US


The rest of the world treats what Americans call underage nudity quite differently. While most of the world celebrates the human form the US would much rather legislate against it.

Is it right or wrong? Well, in the USA it’s illegal.
Feb 07 09 11:09 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Halcyon 7174 NYC
Posts: 20,109
New York, New York, US


As a storyteller and a believer in defending the 1st Amendment before your own life, the idea that something which happens in life cannot be portrayed even staged in an image because of some prior legal restraint is appalling to me.
Feb 07 09 11:11 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SunArcher Photography
Posts: 7,669
Washington, District of Columbia, US


JoJo Suicide wrote:
Is it right or wrong? Well, in the USA it’s illegal.

For the umpteen millionth time: NO. IT. IS. NOT.

JoJo, you know I love you. You know I respect you. But nudes of people under 18 are not inherently illegal. Heck, even 18 USC 2256 defines when it is. And it's not "all of the time."

Let the fearmongering continue. Me, I'd rather educate myself than give in to the utter paranoia that is pervasive in these forums when it comes to the nekkidness. And until we ALL educate ourselves and not become sheep following the crowd, such fearmongering, ignorance, and misinformation will continue, and we as a country will continue to live in the Stone Age when it comes to being naked and being photographed.

Feb 07 09 11:12 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Halcyon 7174 NYC
Posts: 20,109
New York, New York, US


JoJo Suicide wrote:
Is it right or wrong? Well, in the USA it’s illegal.

Not according to the claims of the image I posted, which appear to be legitimate.

Feb 07 09 11:14 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SunArcher Photography
Posts: 7,669
Washington, District of Columbia, US


PashaPhoto wrote:
are you sure you want to host something that is no doubt considered illegal on your own server?

You made the claim. Back it up. How is the OP's pic "no doubt" illegal?

I have a link to a federal law that "no doubt" says that it's not. And it's the same one that was referenced in said photo collage.

Feb 07 09 11:16 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SonoraImages
Posts: 673
Phoenix, Arizona, US


JoJo Suicide wrote:
Is it right or wrong? Well, in the USA it’s illegal.

While I'll agree that as a nation, we can't seem to come to an agreement as to what constitutes obscenity or pornography, can you cite specifics on your comment that portrayal of underage nudes is illegal (at least that's what I interpreted from your comment)?  I've read several of the threads on here relative to 2257 documentation requirements, but don't recall any cites that talk to the illegality of shooting underage nudes.....

BTW....JoJo....I'm not looking to get into a pissin' contest....just am looking for "specifics"....

Feb 07 09 11:17 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Khaos Productions
Posts: 531
North Las Vegas, Nevada, US


There is nothing wrong with taking nudes of people under the age of 18 as long as there is nothing erotic or suggestive in the photograph or their posing. I learned these rules when i went to take pictures of a nudist family with a 14 y.o daughter
Feb 07 09 11:19 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36,332
San Francisco, California, US


Is that the same Andrew Slater that has an account here? Maybe you can ask him about it.
Feb 07 09 11:20 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Shuttercraft
Posts: 38
Lakeland, Florida, US


My 2c is there are far too many people over the age of 18 willing to pose in the buff to ever shoot a minor nude!

Danger! Danger Will Robinson!! smile
Feb 07 09 11:22 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
PashaPhoto
Posts: 9,726
Brooklyn, New York, US


SunArcher - Shreveport wrote:

You made the claim. Back it up. How is the OP's pic "no doubt" illegal?

I have a link to a federal law that "no doubt" says that it's not. And it's the same one that was referenced in said photo collage.

there is nothing to back up... i said it's considered illegal...

again, i'm not arguing legality here... i'm talking about perception...

the perception among "general populace" is that any underage nudity is illegal, not to mention immoral etc... i'm not arguing that it's right, i'm saying that that's the prevailing view...

with that view in mind, i question how smart it is to host the said image on a server whose url contains both the first and the last name of the photographer...

why not just dump it on photobucket?

Feb 07 09 11:24 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Halcyon 7174 NYC
Posts: 20,109
New York, New York, US


PashaPhoto wrote:
there is nothing to back up... i said it's considered illegal...

again, i'm not arguing legality here... i'm talking about perception...

the perception among "general populace" is that any underage nudity is illegal, not to mention immoral etc... i'm not arguing that it's right, i'm saying that that's the prevailing view...

with that view in mind, i question how smart it is to host the said image on a server whose url contains both the first and the last name of the photographer...

why not just dump it on photobucket?

Well, as I said, I'm one of those people who believes in defending the 1st Amendment before your own life, and I'm not going to hide from non-existent laws or the misconceived perceptions of the ignorant masses. Anyone I actually want to work with will most likely understand that image.

Feb 07 09 11:28 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Leroy Dickson
Posts: 8,239
Mobile, Alabama, US


PashaPhoto wrote:
why not just dump it on photobucket?

Photobucket doesn't allow nudity, underage or no.

Feb 07 09 11:30 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SonoraImages
Posts: 673
Phoenix, Arizona, US


We have "perceptions" of the law, "opinions" of the law, etc., etc., etc....versus "the law"....and I think that was the point of the OP.
Feb 07 09 11:32 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Halcyon 7174 NYC
Posts: 20,109
New York, New York, US


We need an organization like the NRA, but for photography and filmmaking.

"From my cold dead hands!"

I wish the PPA would stand up a bit more, but I think they have a wedding to go to. big_smile
Feb 07 09 11:35 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SunArcher Photography
Posts: 7,669
Washington, District of Columbia, US


PashaPhoto wrote:
again, i'm not arguing legality here... i'm talking about perception...

Riiiiiiiight..."no doubt illegal" is referring to perception? Sorry, I'm calling BS.

PashaPhoto wrote:
with that view in mind, i question how smart it is to host the said image on a server whose url contains both the first and the last name of the photographer...

That may be the whole point of the OP: lack of fear. What does it matter? If it's not illegal, so what?

I'm completely lost by your post. First you say "no doubt illegal," then you change your tune talking about perceived illegalities. Then based on that perception, you question why someone is doing something legal on their own Web site. Sorry, my head hurts.

Feb 07 09 11:37 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
steelprism
Posts: 296
Fayetteville, North Carolina, US


I'm going to have to agree that photographing nude minors is not inherently illegal, although it may be in certain specific situations.  That being said (and no fear mongering intended), we still have to deal with the attitudes of our communities which means that the technical legal aspects are not the end-all, be-all for a business.  If your viewers, or community, is more restrictive than the law . . . that's the audience I think you should cater to.

Just my $0.02

Mike
Feb 07 09 11:44 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SunArcher Photography
Posts: 7,669
Washington, District of Columbia, US


steelprism wrote:
If your viewers, or community, is more restrictive than the law . . . that's the audience I think you should cater to.

I cater to those who keep my lights on and my refrigerator full. Replace "viewers or community" with that and I'd half agree with you.

Feb 07 09 11:47 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
BTHPhoto
Posts: 6,721
Fairbanks, Alaska, US


Underage nudity is clearly not inherently illegal, and that's actually a good, informative poster.  That said, something can be legal and still be socially unacceptable enough that it can destroy your business or reputation and create a hell of a lot of misery for you.  The sad fact is that in most of the US, a photographer could produce a nude photo of a 16 year old that was perfectly legal and had enormous artistic merit, be arrested and prosecuted and win in court, but still be tagged as a sex offender, fired from his day job, blacklisted by the business community, harassed by the police, and essentially run out of business.  I certainly wouldn't want to go to jail, but that is not the fear that underlies my policy of no underage nudes.
Feb 07 09 11:47 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
steelprism
Posts: 296
Fayetteville, North Carolina, US


SunArcher - Shreveport wrote:

I cater to those who keep my lights on and my refrigerator full. Replace "viewers or community" with that and I'd half agree with you.

Good point - how about I meet you halfway and just add clients/customers to the list.  Some communities have very noisy inhabitants when they discover something they don't agree with.

Mike

Feb 07 09 11:50 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Halcyon 7174 NYC
Posts: 20,109
New York, New York, US


Tim Hammond wrote:
Underage nudity is clearly not inherently illegal, and that's actually a good, informative poster.  That said, something can be legal and still be socially unacceptable enough that it can destroy your business or reputation and create a hell of a lot of misery for you.  The sad fact is that in most of the US, a photographer could produce a nude photo of a 16 year old that was perfectly legal and had enormous artistic merit, be arrested and prosecuted and win in court, but still be tagged as a sex offender, fired from his day job, blacklisted by the business community, harassed by the police, and essentially run out of business.  I certainly wouldn't want to go to jail, but that is not the fear that underlies my policy of no underage nudes.

I'm sorry, but you lost me. Either you're really an artist or you're not. If that image is the story you need to tell, you tell it, and damn the consequences. If you're just taking pictures of 16 year-olds in the nude because it turns you on, you probably should be in jail.

Feb 07 09 11:53 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SunArcher Photography
Posts: 7,669
Washington, District of Columbia, US


steelprism wrote:
Good point - how about I meet you halfway and just add clients/customers to the list.  Some communities have very noisy inhabitants when they discover something they don't agree with.

Deal. And some communities just have noisy inhabitants. lol

Feb 07 09 11:54 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
PashaPhoto
Posts: 9,726
Brooklyn, New York, US


SunArcher - Shreveport wrote:

PashaPhoto wrote:
again, i'm not arguing legality here... i'm talking about perception...

Riiiiiiiight..."no doubt illegal" is referring to perception? Sorry, I'm calling BS.


That may be the whole point of the OP: lack of fear. What does it matter? If it's not illegal, so what?

I'm completely lost by your post. First you say "no doubt illegal," then you change your tune talking about perceived illegalities. Then based on that perception, you question why someone is doing something legal on their own Web site. Sorry, my head hurts.

PashaPhoto wrote:
are you sure you want to host something that is no doubt considered illegal on your own server?

it's strange how not reading a word changes the whole perception of what was said...

Feb 07 09 12:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
BTHPhoto
Posts: 6,721
Fairbanks, Alaska, US


Have Pentax Will Travel wrote:
I'm sorry, but you lost me. Either you're really an artist or you're not. If that image is the story you need to tell, you tell it, and damn the consequences. If you're just taking pictures of 16 year-olds in the nude because it turns you on, you probably should be in jail.

WTF!  So if you're "really an artist" you can't have a day job?  If you're "really an artist" your reputation in the community and ability to earn a living means nothing?  And if it does, your only motivation for photographing nudes must be for a turn on?  What a load of crap.

Feb 07 09 12:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Halcyon 7174 NYC
Posts: 20,109
New York, New York, US


Tim Hammond wrote:
WTF!  So if you're "really an artist" you can't have a day job?  If you're "really an artist" your reputation in the community and ability to earn a living means nothing?  And if it does, your only motivation for photographing nudes must be for a turn on?  What a load of crap.

No. I'm saying if you're dedicated to your art, it comes before anything else.

Feb 07 09 12:01 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
BTHPhoto
Posts: 6,721
Fairbanks, Alaska, US


Have Pentax Will Travel wrote:

No. I'm saying if you're dedicated to your art, it comes before anything else.

And I'm saying that's a load of crap.  It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where artists could put art above all else, but that's not the case.  We have to earn a living. We have to function in our communities.  We have to watch out for the welfare of our families.  There are other things just as important as art and, although it's an ugly shame, there are people - probably a majority of people in the US - who will destroy those things for artists who put art above them.

Feb 07 09 12:05 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