M2 Photography Studios wrote:
If the model has a parent at the shoot, which is law for under 17 in Georgia, then you are fine. If no parent/guardian is present, you are "contributing to the delinquency" no matter if she is nude or not.

Scott Aitken wrote:
Having a parent present at a shoot will not protect a photographer in any way. If you take a photo of a minor that is deemed to be illegal (for whatever reason), then the presence of a parent doesn't make it legal.

ei Total Productions wrote:
OK, but what makes you think that the photo he is suggesting would be illegal?

I don't know whether the photo would be legal or not. That's why I used the word "IF".

My objection was to M2's statement that if you had the parent present, you'd be fine.

I'm saying that having the parent there would make no difference as to the legality or illegality of any potential photo. If the photo was legal, then you're fine anyway. If the photo is illegal, then parental approval means nothing.

Andy Pearlman wrote:
Ask yourself if its really worth dealing with police investigators and lawyers just to find the answer to this question, and get on their radar? Avoid trouble, only use 18+ models for anything remotely sexy.

No need to ask, I know its now worth the hassle. The model I used for the water dress is well over 18. When it comes to photography laws I'm a blank canvas and the more I know about the controversial issues the less Ill need to worry about  it.

Teddy Tran wrote:

No need to ask, I know its now worth the hassle. The model I used for the water dress is well over 18. When it comes to photography laws I'm a blank canvas and the more I know about the controversial issues the less Ill need to worry about  it.

See but earlier you've also said:

Teddy Tran wrote:
This situation wasn't about me not being able to find an older model. The model I photographed is a friend, shes was covered and a guardian was present. I just didn't think about it being implied if I photoshopped a water dress on her until a friend brought it up.

Which to me implies that the model was under 18 otherwise why is a guardian present and why would a friend bring it up? Thinking on it more I believe in the UK and probably in the US (but I'm not a lawyer so don't quote me) that the police could seize your equipment if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that you could have child pornography. Could this image and a phone call from a concerned parent of that "friend" be reasonable suspicion? I don't know but maybe. If someone was to take your hard drive now how many pictures of young girls that are either nude or near nude are there and do you have documented proof to say that each of them are over 18? How long would they have your camera and computer gear until they're happy that there is nothing untoward going on?

This is why model releases are so important. I see a lot of photographers say they won't shoot minors period and I think it's the wise choice.

Michael Cantwell wrote:

Teddy Tran wrote:
No need to ask, I know its now worth the hassle. The model I used for the water dress is well over 18. When it comes to photography laws I'm a blank canvas and the more I know about the controversial issues the less Ill need to worry about  it.

See but earlier you've also said:

Teddy Tran wrote:
This situation wasn't about me not being able to find an older model. The model I photographed is a friend, shes was covered and a guardian was present. I just didn't think about it being implied if I photoshopped a water dress on her until a friend brought it up.

Which to me implies that the model was under 18 otherwise why is a guardian present and why would a friend bring it up?

Which to me implies that the model was under 18
-Second model was under 18. Didn't edit her photos just her beauty shots

Why is a guardian present?
- The guardian was her ride

Why would a friend bring it up?
-After editing the first model, the question came up....and here we are

Teddy Tran wrote:
...
The model I photographed is a friend, shes was covered and a guardian was present. I just didn't think about it being implied if I photoshopped a water dress on her until a friend brought it up. I wanted her to have a water dress image as the girl above received. It seems bit controversial so we decided not to edit her pictures.

So if you're concerned about the legalities of the edited image to the point of ''not editing her pictures'' why don't you instead give her a water dress with undergarments? Any reason why a water dress can't be worn with undergarments?...

Paul Grupp wrote:

So if you're concerned about the legalities of the edited image to the point of ''not editing her pictures'' why don't you instead give her a water dress with undergarments? Any reason why a water dress can't be worn with undergarments?...

Wouldn't be worth it, It would look odd to me. Shes a friend so she wont mind not getting those images.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Ask for trouble enough times . . . and eventually you'll get it.



KM

Amen to that, any photographer who shoots a underage model in any way close to age inappropriate poses is sooner or later going to get one hell of a smack-down from some bluenose do good-er. Once the charges are leveled at you, it's you against everyone.

on use studio wrote:
every-thing's legal.  till you get caught.

then it's still legal.  till you're convicted.

then it's still legal.  till your appeal is denied.

Photographers you should have the above printed on your tush, because if you don't, someone is going to hand it too you.

Isaiah Brink wrote:
Well, with the new 2257 laws out, it would be legal when she is old enough to enter into a legally binding contract or agreement

Have you attended a legal seminar on the effects and implications of the new §2257 Amendments?  Was it taught by a law professor or an Assistant United States Attorney?

If not, please limit your advice to telling the OP what you would do and not attempt to bolster it by authoritative citations to a statute which may or may not be controlling and which you may or may not fully understand.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

I disagree.  And based on the style of the shoot, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that she COULD have been nude and our justice system wouldn't care.

Hi Chris, here we go again huh? lol.

Ken Doo Photo wrote:
But doesn't mean others might not be comfortable---being so based in puritan ethics.

I agree with your view, but uncomfortable and poor taste arent always the same as illegal.

Simple, what IS illegal is shooting PORNOGRAPHIC material with a minor.  And FYI the level of clothing, even none has nothing really to do with what the law considers to be pornographic.

I personally think the legal line on what is "pornographic" is very clear, however others will debate the line in the sand.

Personally, in my own view I see nothing about the OP's image example that would be considered porn.  I would shoot a 17yr old model in the style of your example.

CGI Images wrote:
I personally think the legal line on what is "pornographic" is very clear, however others will debate the line in the sand.

Really?? If I recall, the U.S. Supreme Court case  Jacobellis v. Ohio correctly, Justice Potter famously wrote about "hardcore pornography", that he couldn't define it, but "I know it when I see it"

Community standards also change from state to state.  U.S. Attorneys' offices may also be more or less aggressive about what may or may not be perceived as improper. 

I believe the OP asked a generral question (as opposed to stating that he intended to do a shoot in this fashion), so I would think the answer is: no one here knows.  No one here is qualified to give you an Answer. 

The best advice I've heard is that you should probably avoid anything that might even conceivably appear improper with a minor, since no one knows what the law is and it's not worth the cost and headache of finding out.

Stephen Markman wrote:
The best advice I've heard is that you should probably avoid anything that might even conceivably appear improper with a minor, since no one knows what the law is and it's not worth the cost and headache of finding out.

CYA is always a good thing, your right and I agree.  The point I was trying to make is so many things are clearly legal, way on the right side of the line and many people, here in particular, say they fall into the illegal catagory.

And I offered my personal opinion, which is I dont see anything in my experience that makes the op's image example anywhere near illegal.  I dont see it being any differen than the miley shoot.  Which is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, alot of people thought it was improper but clearly no where near illegal.

PYPI FASHION wrote:
No need. There are no laws against implied minor nudity. There no laws against minor nudity. There are laws against depicting minors in a lewd and sexual manner regardless of nudity.

I know that, yet I run from underage models.

And the OP is in Texas.   *hint hint

UnoMundo wrote:

I know that, yet I run from underage models.

And the OP is in Texas.   *hint hint

Which MAY mean that it's legal, as long as the model is "kin", but may be BIG trouble if she ain't!

Seriously though, Community Standards may have a huge impact on how much trouble the "MAN" wants to give you!

Stephen Markman wrote:

Which MAY mean that it's legal, as long as the model is "kin", but may be BIG trouble if she ain't!

Seriously though, Community Standards may have a huge impact on how much trouble the "MAN" wants to give you!

amen to that...and community standards can vary county to county..just ask anyone in Oakland County MI why they don't have one single strip club anymore, where all the other surrounding counties do.

Stephen Markman wrote:
Really?? If I recall, the U.S. Supreme Court case  Jacobellis v. Ohio correctly, Justice Potter famously wrote about "hardcore pornography", that he couldn't define it, but "I know it when I see it"

Community standards also change from state to state.  U.S. Attorneys' offices may also be more or less aggressive about what may or may not be perceived as improper. 

I believe the OP asked a generral question (as opposed to stating that he intended to do a shoot in this fashion), so I would think the answer is: no one here knows.  No one here is qualified to give you an Answer. 

The best advice I've heard is that you should probably avoid anything that might even conceivably appear improper with a minor, since no one knows what the law is and it's not worth the cost and headache of finding out.

Jacobellis v. Ohio was in 1964 and tried by the Ohio State Supreme Court.  It was actually reversed by the US Supreme court.  Potter did make the statement that you quoted.  However, US CODE title 18 SS 2257 was updated in 1990 by the US Supreme Court.  It CLEARLY states what is viewed as inappropriate or more importantly illegal.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2257.html
Here's the link again.  Read.  It's pretty clear.  Please let me know what I might be missing that isn't clear.  It seems like many have a different view on what the law says.

pullins photography wrote:

amen to that...and community standards can vary county to county..just ask anyone in Oakland County MI why they don't have one single strip club anymore, where all the other surrounding counties do.

This is so true and riduculous, how is anyone supposed to know these sublte differences.

But I would challenge anyone to show me one case where someone is serving time for taking a simple, non sexual implied image of a minor similar to the one the OP posted.

While I agree with the erroring on the side of safety and CYA,  I thing some things are so clearly in the realm of legal its beyond the need.

pullins photography wrote:
But I would challenge anyone to show me one case where someone is serving time for taking a simple, non sexual implied image of a minor similar to the one the OP posted.

I looked high and low for a case like this (after 1990 USC 18 SS 2257) but couldn't find one.  I did find cases where someone was arrested but a conviction couldn't be made.  The reason someone would be arrested is 1. Ignorance of the Law (your average police officer is not educated in law), 2.  Someone was so offended they thought that surely it must be a law (I guess that sort of ties in with 1).

So here's the next question, is it worth the trouble of potentially being arrested.  For some it might not be.  I know one thing, edit and print your own photos if they are going to be questionable to some.  It saves you a whole lotta mess.

Koriana wrote:
Jacobellis v. Ohio was in 1964 and tried by the Ohio State Supreme Court.  It was actually reversed by the US Supreme court.  Potter did make the statement that you quoted.  However, US CODE title 18 SS 2257 was updated in 1990 by the US Supreme Court.  It CLEARLY states what is viewed as inappropriate or more importantly illegal.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2257.html
Here's the link again.  Read.  It's pretty clear.  Please let me know what I might be missing that isn't clear.  It seems like many have a different view on what the law says.

I like your more and more.

Koriana wrote:
I looked high and low for a case like this (after 1990 USC 18 SS 2257) but couldn't find one.  I did find cases where someone was arrested but a conviction couldn't be made.  The reason someone would be arrested is 1. Ignorance of the Law (your average police officer is not educated in law), 2.  Someone was so offended they thought that surely it must be a law (I guess that sort of ties in with 1).

So here's the next question, is it worth the trouble of potentially being arrested.  For some it might not be.  I know one thing, edit and print your own photos if they are going to be questionable to some.  It saves you a whole lotta mess.

Good points, you can find arrests happening on all kinds of silling things.  Officers have enough vague laws they can arrest virtually anyone at anytime.  But when its all said and done, it doesnt really dictate what is legal or not just because an arrest was made or a charge was filed.

And again, you can find all kinds of exception to the rule arrests out there.  Does that mean its likely or what happens in the overwhelming majority of those circumstances.  No.

CGI Images wrote:
I like your more and more.

Your not too bad yourself.

Hey, I've done my homework.  I was really concerned about this myself at one point.  I didn't think what I was doing was wrong of course but when I got pregnant I wanted to make sure I wasn't doing anything that could jeopardize my family.  Even if it was just because of narrow minds.  Unfortunately narrow minds have an impact on the legal system.

PYPI FASHION wrote:

No need. There are no laws against implied minor nudity. There no laws against minor nudity. There are laws against depicting minors in a lewd and sexual manner regardless of nudity.

In this photo there is no "depiction of sexual activity, actual or simulated" and no "lascivious display of genitals", and the photo doesn't show "evidence of abuse"

Koriana wrote:

Jacobellis v. Ohio was in 1964 and tried by the Ohio State Supreme Court.  It was actually reversed by the US Supreme court.  Potter did make the statement that you quoted.  However, US CODE title 18 SS 2257 was updated in 1990 by the US Supreme Court.  It CLEARLY states what is viewed as inappropriate or more importantly illegal.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2257.html
Here's the link again.  Read.  It's pretty clear.  Please let me know what I might be missing that isn't clear.  It seems like many have a different view on what the law says.

I'm actually very well aware of the procedural history of the Jacobellis case (and, in fact, regardless of the enactment of §2257, the Stewart quote was actually only part of a concurring opinion.)  The reason I raised the famous quote is to point out that so much is subjective.  Even within the OBJECTIVE definitions in §2257, there are subjective aspects to those definitions.  I mentioned the Stewart quote to illustrate how difficult and "grey" an area this is. 
As I said earlier, community standards vary from State to State (and often from City to City within a State.) 

If a photographer is not fully-versed in the intricacies of all of the Federal Statutes AND all of the controlling State & Municipal Statutes/Regulations, it is probably not wise to wade into these waters. 
Even sillier than that, though, would be to take legal advice from people over the internet!

(I really don't have any desire to see any MM photographer on an episdode of Dateline NBC, with Chris Hanson lecturing about obscenity!)

Stephen Markman wrote:

Have you attended a legal seminar on the effects and implications of the new §2257 Amendments?  Was it taught by a law professor or an Assistant United States Attorney?

If not, please limit your advice to telling the OP what you would do and not attempt to bolster it by authoritative citations to a statute which may or may not be controlling and which you may or may not fully understand.

And I suppose you are just a photographer in your spare time, your main job is teaching law at either Harvard or Yale, only after starting a very sucsessful law practice and decide to give back to the law community by teaching, only after turning down a nomination to the US Supreme Court right?  I really don't think any of those are remotely true, except for being a photographer.  Stop stirring the damn pot and get a life.  Take it from those who have checked things out and understand things like the law.  When we say "better safe than sorry" we mean it, and it's coming from people who have never been placed on any sexual predator list and do not have any criminal records, and for good reason, we have the common sense along with the smarts to read and understand the law of our land.  Funny thing is, one of the replies is from somebody who can run circles around me, and has been doing this for quite some time, and what's really funny is that both of us gave the same advice.  Go stir the pot on myspace.

Luminos wrote:
Why, oh why, with all the young women over the age of 18 out there who are more than willing to pose nude, free or for fee, would anyone want to run the risk of looking like a child abuser by shooting an underage model nude, or making an underage model look like she is nude?

It may indeed be legal (or maybe not.)  But, why?

Use someone over the age of 18.

Ditto!  The same advice I recieved from a lawyer when I brought this subject up.

Stephen Markman wrote:
(I really don't have any desire to see any MM photographer on an episdode of Dateline NBC, with Chris Hanson lecturing about obscenity!)

Again, if its such a big risk, if its such a close call the need to CYA and error on the side of safety is so great.  Just link one single conviction of a photographer for taking an image similar to the OP's example.

Isaiah Brink wrote:

Ditto!  The same advice I recieved from a lawyer when I brought this subject up.

Agreed again, but in my opinion and I said MY opinion.

This example is so far into legal territory its a mute point.  IF I am wrong, show me an example of a guy in prison solely for a non sexual image similar.

Its like telling someone not to drive because they could be pulled over and have drugs planted on them by a rougue officer.  Fine, its probably happened, its within the physical realm of possibility it could happen, but really what are the odds?

Isaiah Brink wrote:
And I suppose you are just a photographer in your spare time, your main job is teaching law at either Harvard or Yale, only after starting a very sucsessful law practice and decide to give back to the law community by teaching, only after turning down a nomination to the US Supreme Court right?  I really don't think any of those are remotely true, except for being a photographer.  Stop stirring the damn pot and get a life.  Take it from those who have checked things out and understand things like the law.

LOL!