Photographer
Han Koehle
Posts: 4100
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
If you feel like a pervert talking to teenage girls, you may want to reassess how you're approaching models or what your motivations are. There shouldn't be any kind of guilt associated with casting.
In the US a model can pose nude at any age with parental consent provided images are tasteful, artistic, and nonsexual in nature. Under-18 models CANNOT be photographed in poses explicitly or implicitly containing sex toys, masturbation, bondage, licentious poses (yeah, I know... Vogue doesn't seem to care about that one), penetration, etc. There was a photo book featured by American Photo this year which featured a single model, nude, from young childhood, through adolescence and into adulthood. Anne Geddes takes naked pictures of toddlers for god's sake. Shooting nudes with models under 18 is not recommended because of the "artistic" and "licentious" bits of the above. These are highly interpretable and even a suggestion that you may have taken photos that didn't comply can result in a painful and expensive investigation.
In all US states, 18 is permissible without parental permission.
Photographer
Swank Photography
Posts: 19020
Key West, Florida, US
Christ I swore I would steer clear from this because I seem to get bashed for my views...but here is something: What are some of the differences between lawful and unlawful images? A California court offered some insight into the differences between lawful nudism and unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors. An instructive set of guidelines for determining the differences was provided in the case of United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828, 830-32 (S.D. Cal. 1986). The Dost factors give a more defined test for determining whether a visual depiction of a minor is a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area". The Dost factors include the following guidelines: 1. whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area; 2. whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity; 3. whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child; 4. whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude; 5. whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity; 6. whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer. Now..for those who are willing to read the full link is it this: http://kardasz.org/Unlawful_Images_are_ … rimes.html And for those snipping because I was a previous victims advocate and stated my opinions on here...maybe you should take the time to read this and see where I am coming from before you go snipping at me and making unjust remarks. Now I will go back to my editing....thanks guys 
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Gee I didn't see anyone say sexually explicit images (such as dost describes) were legal. But you still have yet to cite where nudity in and of itself makes it illegal.
Photographer
Swank Photography
Posts: 19020
Key West, Florida, US
CGI Images wrote:
Gee I didn't see anyone say sexually explicit images (such as dost describes) were legal. But you still have yet to cite where nudity in and of itself makes it illegal. 4. whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude
Photographer
Shutterbug5269
Posts: 16084
Herkimer, New York, US
TXPhotog wrote:
But his question is not about "sexually explicit material", and community standards tests do not apply to questions of child pornography. They are used to determine "obscenity", which is an entirely different issue. No it wasn't. But what is, and what isn't considered "sexually explicit" or "obscene material" vary from state to state and even from city to city. Just because something is narrowly defined as "legal" doesn't mean it is "appropriate" or even a good idea.
A photographer can be absolutely diligent about staying within the legal bounds of nudity of a minor for their state and still run afoul of local or regional statutes and wind up in legal or criminal trouble. Simply because a local municipality defines what is "explicit" or "obscene" differently (even shooting nudes with someone above the age of majority can get a photographer into trouble here)
I'm not trying to argue the legality with you. The only real point I'm trying to make here is to ask if the potential for misunderstanding is really worth shooting nudes of a minor, when there are plenty of models above the age of majority to work with that don't entail nearly as many potential hassles.
Model
Summyre
Posts: 1046
Chicago, Illinois, US
I feel like if you have an 18yo or else extremely young person on your hands, you might just want to ... walk away. Or give them a little talking to xD I don't feel like people that young should be doing nudes, anyway. They don't know what they'll have going for them in the future, and the repercussions of that sort of stuff.
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
Swank Photography wrote:
4. whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude That's ONE out of six criteria in the Dost standard, and multiple following legal decisions stress that no single factor in & of itself is determinant.
Going back to what I said on page one a month or so ago when the thread started, it's not illegal but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
SLE Photography wrote:
That's ONE out of six criteria in the Dost standard, and multiple following legal decisions stress that no single factor in & of itself is determinant.
Going back to what I said on page one a month or so ago when the thread started, it's not illegal but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Beat me too it.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Swank Photography wrote:
Let me rephrase this...it may not be illegal for a minor to pose nude...but it sure as all hell is ILLEGAL for an adult to be in possession of them. And your still not willing to admit this is SOOOO wrong its funny.
Or should we raid Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Immediate-Family- … 963&sr=8-1
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Swank Photography wrote:
4. whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude so then by using that standard, its illegal to shoot minors at all...clothed or unclothed...
geeze... were all in a heap of trouble...
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Doug Swinskey wrote:
so then by using that standard, its illegal to shoot minors at all...clothed or unclothed...
geeze... were all in a heap of trouble... I just did an 8th grade graduation shoot. 47 kids it went pret.... wait.. what??.. oh shit Chris Hansen is at the door...gotta go.
Photographer
mendesm
Posts: 1792
Boston, Massachusetts, US
CGI Images wrote:
I just did an 8th grade graduation shoot. 47 kids it went pret.... wait.. what??.. oh shit Chris Hansen is at the door...gotta go. oh no, another fear mongering thread! 
I can't stick around for this one tonight, but given it's been active for at least a month now, I will check back in here tomorrow morning when my buzz is gone.
Photographer
Ray Holyer
Posts: 2000
Swank Photography wrote:
4. whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude Actually, that one post shows that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You should read and understand Dost, and then you would know what it does and doesn't apply to.
Photographer
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 13322
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
In 1987 I opened a photo finishing lab that catered to both professional and amateur photographers. One question I had before I opened pertained to the laws and regulations pertaining to child pornography and my role and obligations pertaining to that, as a lab owner. I looked into the matter fairly deeply then and have tried to keep myself informed since.
Like SLE said, it's not illegal to photograph a nude person of any age. It's also not necessarily illegal to possess images of underage nude models. It is illegal in some states to ask a person under 18 to pose nude. Any such requests should be made to the parents or guardians. Parents and guardians are the ones who would sign releases and enter contracts.....a minor can't.
Where the problem comes in is if someone thinks the images are pornographic. Pornography has yet to be defined by the Supreme Court...so it's a "gray area". Nudity isn't necessarily "porn", but, if someone thinks you shoot child porn, or possess images of child porn, the resulting headaches can be severe and expensive.
Public opinion varies widely. If you take a shot of your own baby in the bathtub, and take it to your local photo lab for an 8x10, some places won't do it. If you took the file to enough places, I have no doubt that sooner or later someone will report you to some authority.
The situation could be clearer....right now it's about as clear as mud, for that reason, most avoid the potential for problems....which is wise.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Swank Photography wrote:
The Dost factors give a more defined test for determining whether a visual depiction of a minor is a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area". . . . Swank Photography wrote:
You truly don't want to go into this do you?
Let me rephrase this...it may not be illegal for a minor to pose nude...but it sure as all hell is ILLEGAL for an adult to be in possession of them. Please note: those two statements are not consistent with each other.
Yes, the Dost test is used to determine if something is child pornography. However, a great deal of "minors posing nude" does not meet the Dost test factors, and is not illegal either to produce or to be in possession of. Your own test (which I agree is the correct one) does not support your earlier claim.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Swank Photography wrote:
4. whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude Ray Holyer wrote:
Actually, that one post shows that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You should read and understand Dost, and then you would know what it does and doesn't apply to. Well put Ray, she missed the whole point to her "#4" gotcha, which is basically saying an image can be lewd with or without clothes.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Shutterbug5269 wrote:
No it wasn't. But what is, and what isn't considered "sexually explicit" or "obscene material" vary from state to state and even from city to city. Please find for me any state in the Union in which "community standards" is the appropriate test for "child pornography", or for a violation of state laws on nude images of minors. If you make the claim you should be able to back it up.
Shutterbug5269 wrote:
Just because something is narrowly defined as "legal" doesn't mean it is "appropriate" or even a good idea. And, in that sense, the discussion is wholly subjective, with no objective standards at all. It is only the legal question which has even some semblance of objectivity about it.
Shutterbug5269 wrote:
A photographer can be absolutely diligent about staying within the legal bounds of nudity of a minor for their state and still run afoul of local or regional statutes and wind up in legal or criminal trouble. Simply because a local municipality defines what is "explicit" or "obscene" differently (even shooting nudes with someone above the age of majority can get a photographer into trouble here) Again, please find me the state in which "community standards" is the appropriate test.
Shutterbug5269 wrote:
I'm not trying to argue the legality with you. The only real point I'm trying to make here is to ask if the potential for misunderstanding is really worth shooting nudes of a minor, when there are plenty of models above the age of majority to work with that don't entail nearly as many potential hassles. That is a question that is fundamentally unanswerable, although you have apparently decided you know the answer and want us to believe your answer is the correct one.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Felicia Sun wrote:
I feel like if you have an 18yo or else extremely young person on your hands, you might just want to ... walk away. Or give them a little talking to xD I don't feel like people that young should be doing nudes, anyway. They don't know what they'll have going for them in the future, and the repercussions of that sort of stuff. At what age do they know . . . and how do we determine it when considering hiring a model?
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
If you guys are going by the "not worth the risk" "Just because its legal", "People might think its porn" views.
Then you shouldnt even shoot anyone under 18 in anyway, just as the "dost" example thown out, that completely backfired, points out the level of clothing is pretty much irrelevant to whether something can be considered "child porn" or not.
For example a 17yr old posted in this thread, her avatar is her at 17 (possibly younger) in a bikini (nice image by the way). By your "better safe than sorry" view the photographer that took that shot shouldnt have done it either, because according to "dost" someone could "interpret" that shot as "porn".
This is why I'm always talking about perspective and fear mongering, while I understand the CYA in this area and the making sure your i's are dotted and teh T's crossed. If done properly and well within the guides of the law the probability of trouble is very unlikely, I'd say about as likely as trouble for the photographer that took the aformentioned avatar image.
And to prove my point, once again I'll ask. IF its such a risky minefield start laying out the links to the convictions where photographers have been convicted of taking simple nudes of "under 18" if its such a virtual minefield to be avoided there would be dozens and dozens of easily found examples of photographers sitting in jail right now regretting ever buying a camera.
Model
Summyre
Posts: 1046
Chicago, Illinois, US
TXPhotog wrote:
At what age do they know . . . and how do we determine it when considering hiring a model? I suppose if you look at it existentially people might never know what it is exactly that they've set out to do and where it will take them, let alone by some given age. But I mean, if they aren't even in college yet, how do they have a chance at knowing what they're future will be like? What occupation they will pursue? Whether they'll start a family, etc? Having nude photos of themselves out there means they can't run for public office, can't... umm... other stuff. Heh.
Model
Summyre
Posts: 1046
Chicago, Illinois, US
CGI Images wrote:
For example a 17yr old posted in this thread, her avatar is her at 17 (possibly younger) in a bikini (nice image by the way). By your "better safe than sorry" view the photographer that took that shot shouldnt Is this about me? lol
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Felicia Sun wrote:
Is this about me? lol Sort of, I just used it as a general example. But the compliment was for you.
Be sure you knew what I meant though. I wasnt saying anything was wrong with your image at all, quite the contrary. I was saying if you were worried anyone could claim or interprit something is "porn", they could say it about anything clothed or not because the "dost" test clearly says "clothed or unclothed".
The argument you often hear is "well people could interpret it as porn", well yeah someone could try that and they'd have equall ground to stand on whether the person is nude or not.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Felicia Sun wrote:
I suppose if you look at it existentially people might never know what it is exactly that they've set out to do and where it will take them, let alone by some given age. But I mean, if they aren't even in college yet, how do they have a chance at knowing what they're future will be like? I agree with your first sentence. But look at the policy prescription it yields, and the practical impossibility of making decisions.
If they aren't capable of making mature decisions when they aren't even in college yet, are they able to when they are in college? Like, the first week of their freshman year? When they are a sophomore? A senior? Have a masters degree? When, and how do we tell that's the right answer and not some other answer?
At some point people have to make decisions based on uncertainty, and accept a degree of risk. Waiting until there is no risk has the practical effect of putting off decisions until they can no longer be made because they are moot.
Photographer
Shutterbug5269
Posts: 16084
Herkimer, New York, US
TXPhotog wrote:
That is a question that is fundamentally unanswerable, although you have apparently decided you know the answer and want us to believe your answer is the correct one. No, I don't think my answer is the only correct one. Though I don't think asking the question or erring on the side of caution is such a bad idea either. (especially if said photographer is in a jurisdiction with which they are unfamiliar)
No, I don't know the wording of every law or statute of every state or municipality in the United States, or how they might be interpreted by every police department, county sheriff, district attourney, or judge in those jurisdictions Neither do you.
There are other child protective laws on the books in nearly every state or municipality in the U.S. (which have little or nothing to do with art or photography) that a photographer could find themselves running afoul of. (no I don't pretend to know them all) They should not be ignored or taken lightly because they don't mention photography specifically.
This does boil down to the fact that just because something is "legal" doesn't make it "appropriate" I don't pretend to speak for everyone on the latter either.
Model
Summyre
Posts: 1046
Chicago, Illinois, US
CGI Images wrote:
Sort of, I just used it as a general example. But the compliment was for you.
Be sure you knew what I meant though. I wasnt saying anything was wrong with your image at all, quite the contrary. I was saying if you were worried anyone could claim or interprit something is "porn", they could say it about anything clothed or not because the "dost" test clearly says "clothed or unclothed".
The argument you often hear is "well people could interpret it as porn", well yeah someone could try that and they'd have equall ground to stand on whether the person is nude or not. Oh. Thanks =]
Yeap, that's understandable. I took some pictures out of my portfolio because although I was clothed (same bikini), it was suggestive, my aunt told my parents I was a prostitute or something and they had me remove it. Yep.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Shutterbug5269 wrote:
No, I don't think my answer is the only correct one. Though I don't think asking the question or erring on the side of caution is such a bad idea either. (especially if said photographer is in a jurisdiction with which they are unfamiliar)
No, I don't know the wording of every law or statute of every state or municipality in the United States, or how they might be interpreted by every police department, county sheriff, district attourney, or judge in those jurisdictions Neither do you. There is no question here, just a claim of something you want us to believe is factual. It is not: Shutterbug5269 wrote:
Most of the laws that apply to sexually explicit material, (regardless of the age of the participants) are determined by community standards not the people involved in the production of the image. That is a claim specifically about laws - not a question - which you acknowledge you do not know much about. (By the way, I have actually read the state laws of every single state on these issues . . . it's not wise to tell me what I do and don't know.) Until and unless you can justify your claim about "most laws" (hint: your claim is false) you would be well advised not to make such claims.
Photographer
c_d_s
Posts: 7771
Lubbock, Texas, US
CGI Images wrote:
really? Then it should be no problem for you to link several cites where people were convicted of taking simple nudes of minors. If it's the virtual minefield you describe I'm sure there are dozens to choose from. Here's one:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11669
The photographer was charged under 43.25 of the Texas Penal Code:
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do … 043.00.htm
Now wait a few minutes for our resident know-it-all to give us his "legal" opinion on how this didn't happen, or why the law doesn't say what it says.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
c_d_s wrote:
I'm sure there are dozens to choose from.
Here's one:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11669 There is that "lewd" word again. c_d_s and I have been having this discussion for a long time. For the record, he is a nice guy and he is allowed to disagree, but alas, so am I.
Reading the article, the defendant wasn't convicted of taking simple nudes of a minor, he was convicted of taking images that were both lewd and nude.
Quoting from the article and the prosecutor: "Bexar County prosecutors contended that some of the photos Tovar took were lewd in nature, and thus satisfied the legal definition of sexual performance."
So it goes right back to what is being argued here. There are not statutes that make it illegal to simply photograph a minor in the nude. There are, however, many statutes that make it illegal to photograph a minor in the nude if it is lewd, sexual, not for artistic purpose.
Remember, I think it is a bad idea photographing minors in the nude. I am opposed to it in most situations. However, the law is the law, even if many disagree.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
ei Total Productions wrote:
There is that "lewd" word again. c_d_s and I have been having this discussion for a long time. For the record, he is a nice guy and we are allowed to disagree, but alas, so am I.
Reading the article, the defendant wasn't convicted of taking simple nudes of a minor, he was convicted of taking images that were both lewd and nude.
Quoting from the article and the prosecutor: "Bexar County prosecutors contended that some of the photos Tovar took were lewd in nature, and thus satisfied the legal definition of sexual performance."
So it goes right back to what is being argued here. There are not statutes that make it illegal to simply photograph a minor in the nude. There are, however, many statutes that make it illegal to photograph a minor in the nude if it is lewd, sexual, not for artistic purpose.
Remember, I think it is a bad idea photographing minors in the nude. I am opposed to it in most situations. However, the law is the law, even if many disagree. You and I think along the very same lines EI, and its the "For certain, 18 is a fact, there is no grey area, this IS the law, nude=illegal" mindsets that I speak out against as well as the "Your just asking for trouble, its russian roulette, you'll go to jail" fearmongering.
If you take pictures of minor people nude there is a risk, if you take pictures of non-nude minors there can be a risk, if you take pictures of adults there can be a risk.
But I would say if you take appropriate nude images of minors for the right reasons in the right way in the right circumstances there risk is at the very least exponetially lower than what most like to make it out to be.
When I asked for examples I assumed you could find a few, should be able to find a plethora of them. How many people were hit by lightning last year, how many people slipped and killed themselves in bathtubs, how many people were electrocuted at home, how many innocents went to jail, how many innocents were brought up on false charges because someone in authority had it in for them?
Point being we all take risks, all the time, every day, but when it comes to this subject the risk perspective goes out the window.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
c_d_s wrote:
Now wait a few minutes for our resident know-it-all to give us his "legal" opinion on how this didn't happen, or why the law doesn't say what it says. The law says exactly what it says . . . it just doesn't say what you want it to say. This is not the first time you have dragged out that case to try to make your point. You were wrong then, and remain wrong. This is not, and the prosecutor's comments make clear that it is not, a case of a photographer being convicted for simple, non-lewd photography of a minor. Your zeal for your agenda seems to have blinded you to the clear wording of the case and the law.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Lynn Helms Photography wrote:
Simple nudes, I believe is what was being argued. It is, but we have some people who are willing to ignore the facts of a case to try to advance their personal agenda. It's a continuing problem.
Model
Poses
Posts: 8139
Kansas City, Missouri, US
Sally Mann: child pornographer. Those pictures would have had the same affect if she had waited ten years to photograph her children, and we all know it!
Photographer
JStone
Posts: 645
Chicago, Illinois, US
Photographer
JStone
Posts: 645
Chicago, Illinois, US
Photographer
Justin Foto
Posts: 3622
Alberschwende, Vorarlberg, Austria
SLE Photography wrote:
That's ONE out of six criteria in the Dost standard, and multiple following legal decisions stress that no single factor in & of itself is determinant.
Going back to what I said on page one a month or so ago when the thread started, it's not illegal but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. And indeed it can't be in a modern, western society. Points 1 through 4 could all add up to a medical photo. If we ban those, we should all up and move to Afghanistan.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Poses wrote:
Sally Mann: child pornographer. Those pictures would have had the same affect if she had waited ten years to photograph her children, and we all know it! nudity does not equal pornography....
i have serious concerns for any one that sees a nude child and think of pornography...
Photographer
c_d_s
Posts: 7771
Lubbock, Texas, US
Lynn Helms Photography wrote:
From the same site
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=3745
One where the photos were NOT deemed pornography.
Simple nudes, I believe is what was being argued. Define "simple nudes." Define "art." Define "sexual." Define "lewd."
The point is that neither the photographer nor model thought they were doing anything illegal. A prosecutor found a law and used it. The jury agreed with the prosecutor.
Someone asked for a link. I provided it. As expected, the usual suspects turned out to say it isn't so.
Model
Poses
Posts: 8139
Kansas City, Missouri, US
Poses wrote:
Sally Mann: child pornographer. Those pictures would have had the same affect if she had waited ten years to photograph her children, and we all know it! Doug Swinskey wrote:
nudity does not equal pornography....
i have serious concerns for any one that sees a nude child and think of pornography... I have serious concerns for someone who can't take a joke.
Photographer
c_d_s
Posts: 7771
Lubbock, Texas, US
Emeritus wrote:
The law says exactly what it says . . . it just doesn't say what you want it to say. This is not the first time you have dragged out that case to try to make your point. You were wrong then, and remain wrong. This is not, and the prosecutor's comments make clear that it is not, a case of a photographer being convicted for simple, non-lewd photography of a minor. Your zeal for your agenda seems to have blinded you to the clear wording of the case and the law. No, you try to make the law say what you want, that it's perfectly legal to photograph someone under 18, anywhere, [b]no matter what.[b] Texas law says differently. Ohio law says differently. You refuse to accept it.
My only agenda is to counter yours, which is to spew false information on this site, demanding links, citations, then when provided, you launch into your spiel about how you know more about it than the legislators who wrote the laws and the prosecutors who prosecuted.
I'm sure you have no concept of how this works, Roger, but there are people who can look at laws and cases and have a discussion about them. You can't. You simply tell everyone that they're wrong and you're right. You say no law exists. It does exist, so you go to your backup plan of, "that's not what it says."
|
