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 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.

And it's a discussion worth having, out in the open, and not being shouted down by Roger because it doesn't fit his agenda. Let people read the laws, read the cases, read the discussions, and make their own decision about what risks they're willing to take.

This incessant refrain that "It's perfectly legal to shoot under-18 nudes anywhere in the U.S." could easily have the effect of encouraging someone to go out and shoot whatever they want, because Roger said it's perfectly legal."

It could just as easily be argued that there are no laws in the U.S. making it illegal to drive drunk.

c_d_s wrote:
It could just as easily be argued that there are no laws in the U.S. making it illegal to drive drunk.

Or perhaps that there is no law against murder.  Hell, if you are going to ignore what laws actually say, I suppose you can claim anything you like.  But your constant claim that "there is a law" begs the requirement for you to demonstrate that there is one in fact . .  and you consistently fail at that.

c_d_s wrote:
And it's a discussion worth having, out in the open, and not being shouted down by Roger because it doesn't fit his agenda. Let people read the laws, read the cases, read the discussions, and make their own decision about what risks they're willing to take.

Nobody is hiding anything, and especially not hiding the fact that you simply ignore facts you do not like, even when they are readily apparent, and pointed out "out in the open".  This conversation, just like all the other conversations, has been very much out in the open.  You like to claim the existence of things which do not exist, and then complain about getting "shouted down" when people say so.

c_d_s wrote:
This incessant refrain that "It's perfectly legal to shoot under-18 nudes anywhere in the U.S." could easily have the effect of encouraging someone to go out and shoot whatever they want, because Roger said it's perfectly legal."

Or it could have the effect of causing them to learn what they can legally shoot and what they cannot within the law.  Drawing bright lines that do not exist, as you like to do, is not justified by a claim that people will be incited to act recklessly by being told the truth.

c_d_s wrote:
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.

No, that is not the point.  The question IS NOT, and never is, "can I do whatever I think is legal, no matter what the law says?"  People misunderstand (or ignore, or don't bother to check) what the law is all the time.  Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and ignorance of the law does not have anything to do with what the law actually is.  Your argument makes no sense at all.

c_d_s wrote:
Someone asked for a link. I provided it. As expected, the usual suspects turned out to say it isn't so.

No, you were asked to provide a link which showed that non-sexual nude photography of minors was illegal.  You provided a link that showed that lewd photography of minors is illegal, which nobody has ever argued with, and is not what you were asked to do.  And now you want to ignore the fact that the conviction was for lewd photographs and claim that people are ignoring what the law says.  That is a gross misstatement of the facts and the law, and completely unjustified.

Emeritus wrote:

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: 
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.

Again you read what I wrote and came to the wrong conclusion.  See how easy it is to misinterpret the written word? 

The question I am referring to is more along the lines of a cost/benefit analysis, as follows:

Are shooting nudes of an underage model worth the potential criminal or civil  problems that may result if said images are taken out of context or misconstrued?  (which can happen where minors are concerned)

Photographers need to answer that question for themselves.

Again, I am not debating weather such work is or is not legal.  You assume that because I don't just nod my head and agree with you.  I am speaking about the interpretation of the law.  Which is a different matter entirely, and a lot harder to predict.

This seems to be a common thread here in this posting, but it bears repeating:

Just because it may be legal, (or not specifically illegal) doesn't mean it is acceptable or even a good idea.

Shutterbug5269 wrote:
The question I am referring to is more along the lines of a cost/benefit analysis, as follows:

Are shooting nudes of an underage model worth the potential criminal or civil  problems that may result if said images are taken out of context or misconstrued?  (which can happen where minors are concerned)

Please tell us how "criminal problems" can arise without the behavior  being illegal.  Then tell us how "it is not illegal" is not the correct answer if, in fact, that is true.

Same with "civil problems".  Please tell us what laws give rise to those "civil problems".

And note that since you have been making (false) claims about what the law is, you are open to criticism for being wrong about it.

Shutterbug5269 wrote:
Again, I am not debating weather such work is or is not legal.  You assume that because I don't just nod my head and agree with you.

No, I conclude it because you made statements about the law.

Shutterbug5269 wrote:
I am speaking about the interpretation of the law.  Which is a different matter entirely, and a lot harder to predict.

No, it's not a different matter at all.  "Interpretation" is at the heart of what is legal or illegal, and it is based on the statutes.  Ultimately, if the statute does not support a view, "interpretation" cannot make a legal penalty come into existence.

Shutterbug5269 wrote:
Just because it may be legal, (or not specifically illegal) doesn't mean it is acceptable or even a good idea.

While this is true, it isn't an excuse for making false statements about the law, or "interpretation of the law".

c_d_s wrote:
Someone asked for a link. I provided it. As expected, the usual suspects turned out to say it isn't so.

Emeritus wrote:
No, you were asked to provide a link which showed that non-sexual nude photography of minors was illegal.  You provided a link that showed that lewd photography of minors is illegal, which nobody has ever argued with, and is not what you were asked to do.  And now you want to ignore the fact that the conviction was for lewd photographs and claim that people are ignoring what the law says.  That is a gross misstatement of the facts and the law, and completely unjustified.

Where exactly was I asked to provide a link which showed that non-sexual nude photography of minors was illegal?

You keep making up shit to try and bolster your foolish, irresponsible argument. No one is buying it but your drooling sycophants.

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

Felicia Sun wrote:
Is this about me? lol

I think your avatar is sexier than any of the images in my port, even though they are all nudes.  Which is fine, since "sexy" isn't what I aim for.

matthew turner images wrote:
What is the legal age for a model to pose nude, or better yet, what is the appropriate age that a photographer can ask a model to pose nude?

matthew turner images wrote:
What is the legal age for a model to pose nude, or better yet, what is the appropriate age that a photographer can ask a model to pose nude?

Big A-Larger Than Life wrote:

But that's just "implied!"

Emeritus wrote:

Shutterbug5269 wrote:
The question I am referring to is more along the lines of a cost/benefit analysis, as follows:

Are shooting nudes of an underage model worth the potential criminal or civil  problems that may result if said images are taken out of context or misconstrued?  (which can happen where minors are concerned)

Please tell us how "criminal problems" can arise without the behavior  being illegal.  Then tell us how "it is not illegal" is not the correct answer if, in fact, that is true.

Same with "civil problems".  Please tell us what laws give rise to those "civil problems".

And note that since you have been making (false) claims about what the law is, you are open to criticism for being wrong about it.

Shutterbug5269 wrote:
Again, I am not debating weather such work is or is not legal.  You assume that because I don't just nod my head and agree with you.

No, I conclude it because you made statements about the law.

No, it's not a different matter at all.  "Interpretation" is at the heart of what is legal or illegal, and it is based on the statutes.  Ultimately, if the statute does not support a view, "interpretation" cannot make a legal penalty come into existence.

While this is true, it isn't an excuse for making false statements about the law, or "interpretation of the law".

I respectfully ask you.

Are you intimately familiar with every single law, statute or ordinance in every county and municipality of every state in the United States regarding minors?  Not just the ones that specifically mention photography or art, as they also apply to this issue weather you like or accept that or not.

If you are not, then you should not be giving blanket advice about what is or is not legal or actionable outside of the state or jurisdiction you live in. 

If I were shooting in your region I would be more than willing to consider your legal advice in this matter (as I assume you've done your homework) but I do not reside in your region.  I don't pretend to know all that either, I can't even be 100% sure of all the laws or statutes in my own area, much less outside of it. 

Which is why I advise caution in this endeavor. Not fear, not paranoia, but CAUTION.

Especially when even unfounded allegations of improper dealings with a minor can damage or even ruin a photographer's reputation (or anyone else's, for that matter) even if said allegations are subsequently proven to be without substance or legal merit.

c_d_s wrote:
Someone asked for a link. I provided it. As expected, the usual suspects turned out to say it isn't so.

Emeritus wrote:
No, you were asked to provide a link which showed that non-sexual nude photography of minors was illegal.  You provided a link that showed that lewd photography of minors is illegal, which nobody has ever argued with, and is not what you were asked to do.  And now you want to ignore the fact that the conviction was for lewd photographs and claim that people are ignoring what the law says.  That is a gross misstatement of the facts and the law, and completely unjustified.

c_d_s wrote:
Where exactly was I asked to provide a link which showed that non-sexual nude photography of minors was illegal?

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st10182183

You were asked to show a link to a conviction for a simple (that is, non-sexual) nude of a minor.  Note:  conviction = what he did was against the law. 

You claimed you did that.  You did not.  Instead, you showed a conviction for a lewd image of a minor.  That is not what you were asked to do, and you cannot do what you were asked to do.

c_d_s wrote:
You keep making up shit to try and bolster your foolish, irresponsible argument. No one is buying it but your drooling sycophants.

Nobody is making anything up but you.

You claim it is illegal to take simple, non-sexual nudes . . . somewhere . . . and throw up Texas as your example.  You even cite the statutes . . . which do not say that.  You use as evidence a conviction which is not for simple, non-sexual nudes.  You are incapable of showing either a law or a conviction which supports your stance . . . and yet you claim other people are "making shit up".

The person making things up here is you.  Your claims are completely without foundation.

Shutterbug5269 wrote:
I respectfully ask you.

Are you intimately familiar with every single law, statute or ordinance in every county and municipality of every state in the United States regarding minors?  Not just the ones that specifically mention photography or art, as they also apply to this issue weather you like or accept that or not.

No, of course not, although I have done a great deal of reading of laws and court cases on the subject.  None of them - not one - supports your view.

Shutterbug5269 wrote:
If you are not, then you should not be giving blanket advice about what is or is not legal or actionable outside of the state or jurisdiction you live in.

Why not?

If someone claims something is illegal, it is incumbent on them to show the law which makes it illegal.  I do not make that claim.  You do.  The burden of proof is on you.  You have failed.

I have no obligation to show the non-existence of something when there is no evidence (other than your fervent desire) that it is true.

You made a false statement about the legal way that these matters were adjudicated.  I challenge you to support your statement.

Shutterbug5269 wrote:

I respectfully ask you.

Are you intimately familiar with every single law, statute or ordinance in every county and municipality of every state in the United States regarding minors?  Not just the ones that specifically mention photography or art, as they also apply to this issue weather you like or accept that or not.

If you are not, then you should not be giving blanket advice about what is or is not legal or actionable outside of the state or jurisdiction you live in. 

If I were shooting in your region I would be more than willing to consider your legal advice in this matter (as I assume you've done your homework) but I do not reside in your region.  I don't pretend to know all that either, I can't even be 100% sure of all the laws or statutes in my own area, much less outside of it. 

Which is why I advise caution in this endeavor. Not fear, not paranoia, but CAUTION.

Especially when even unfounded allegations of improper dealings with a minor can damage or even ruin a photographer's reputation (or anyone else's, for that matter) even if said allegations are subsequently proven to be without substance or legal merit.

Although Roger and Doug Swinskey are correct in this thread about existing laws about this subject (or, in this case, non-existing laws), I agree with the portion of your post that I bolded.

Sure, there are probably many photographers that are unaware of the law...

And there are some that know the law, and do not necessarily fear criminal prosecution, but fear the potential damage to their reputations that unsubstantiated allegations could produce, as well as the monetary cost that would result in defending against such allegations.

In many occasions, the law is not "black and white", but full of "gray areas".

Since we seem to live in a very litigious society, if some photographers prefer to "play it safe", I personally wouldn't hold it against him.

Emeritus wrote:
No, you were asked to provide a link which showed that non-sexual nude photography of minors was illegal.

One more time. I'll try to speak more slowly this time, so maybe even you can understand. Where, exactly, was I asked to provide a link which showed that non-sexual nude photography of minors was illegal?

You have once again failed to answer that simple question. Instead, as usual, you make shit up to support your failed position.

It's not a difficult question.

Emeritus wrote:
You claim it is illegal to take simple, non-sexual nudes . . . somewhere . . . and throw up Texas as your example.

Where did I make such a claim? Either show where I claimed that or shut the fuck up.

c_d_s wrote:
One more time. I'll try to speak more slowly this time, so maybe even you can understand. Where, exactly, was I asked to provide a link which showed that non-sexual nude photography of minors was illegal?

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 238&page=6

Emeritus wrote:
You claim it is illegal to take simple, non-sexual nudes . . . somewhere . . . and throw up Texas as your example.

c_d_s wrote:
Where did I make such a claim? Either show where I claimed that or shut the fuck up.

I confess I have no idea what it is you are now  claiming about the law.  You back away from all specifics when you are called on them.  Every time one of these threads comes up you say I am wrong in my statements that it is not illegal to take simple nudes.  You throw up laws to prove I am wrong, you throw up cases to prove I am wrong . . . and they do not prove I am wrong.  Then you hide behind the lame claim that you don't make any claim yourself except that I am wrong.

So . . . if I am wrong in my statments about the law, exactly what is it I am wrong about?  What specific fact is it that you object to?

Do you have any substantive claims at all?  Or are you just objecting because you don't like me, and feel the need to object?

Either you have some specific claim about the law to make, or your presence in these threads is nothing but a sustained personal attack.  So which is it?

Emeritus wrote:

Shutterbug5269 wrote:
I respectfully ask you.

Are you intimately familiar with every single law, statute or ordinance in every county and municipality of every state in the United States regarding minors?  Not just the ones that specifically mention photography or art, as they also apply to this issue weather you like or accept that or not.

No, of course not, although I have done a great deal of reading of laws and court cases on the subject.  None of them - not one - supports your view.


Why not?

If someone claims something is illegal, it is incumbent on them to show the law which makes it illegal.  I do not make that claim.  You do.  The burden of proof is on you.  You have failed.

I have no obligation to show the non-existence of something when there is no evidence (other than your fervent desire) that it is true.

You made a false statement about the legal way that these matters were adjudicated.  I challenge you to support your statement.

I have no more obligation to prove the veracity of my position than you do, since I was speaking hypothetically.  Especially since you have been consistently misinterpreting my statements this entire time. 

Since the only opinion you give any weight to is your own, and the only facts you care to hear are the ones you agree with, any attempt to do so would be an exercise in futility.

I again ask what your QUALIFICATIONS are to give legal advice outside of the state or jurisdiction you live in.  If you don't have any then you should not be dispensing said advice.  Until you can provide said qualifications your legal opinions are just that.

Opinions.

Shutterbug5269 wrote:
I have no more obligation to prove the veracity of my position than you do, since I was speaking hypothetically.

You made a specific claim about how these issues are adjudicated.  It is false.

Shutterbug5269 wrote:
Since the only opinion you give any weight to is your own, and the only facts you care to hear are the ones you agree with, any attempt to do so would be an exercise in futility.

You have presented no facts.  None.  Zero.  Nothing to hear except, as you say, your opinions, which you do not support with any facts.

Shutterbug5269 wrote:
I again ask what your QUALIFICATIONS are to give legal advice outside of the state or jurisdiction you live in.

Simple:  I have looked - hard - and noted an absence of the very laws and "interpretations" that you claim we should all beware of.  I have asked you and everyone else to provide actual facts, actual laws, actual cases . . . and none have been provided.  I look about and see no elephant in the room, despite all the claims.

Shutterbug5269 wrote:
If you don't have any then you should not be dispensing said advice.  Until you can provide said qualifications your legal opinions are just that.

Opinions.

It is my opinion that until you or CDS or anyone else can provide actual facts, and not hand wringing and paranoia, that we should not pay attention to all the unsupported nonsense that is said on this subject.

c_d_s wrote:
One more time. I'll try to speak more slowly this time, so maybe even you can understand. Where, exactly, was I asked to provide a link which showed that non-sexual nude photography of minors was illegal?

Emeritus wrote:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=429238&page=6

You have still failed to show where I was asked to provide a link which showed that non-sexual nude photography of minors was illegal.

Show it or shut the fuck up.

Emeritus wrote:
You claim it is illegal to take simple, non-sexual nudes . . . somewhere . . . and throw up Texas as your example.

c_d_s wrote:
Where did I make such a claim? Either show where I claimed that or shut the fuck up.

Emeritus wrote:
I confess I have no idea what it is you are now  claiming about the law.  You back away from all specifics when you are called on them.  Every time one of these threads comes up you say I am wrong in my statements that it is not illegal to take simple nudes.  You throw up laws to prove I am wrong, you throw up cases to prove I am wrong . . . and they do not prove I am wrong.  Then you hide behind the lame claim that you don't make any claim yourself except that I am wrong.

One more time, blowhard, where exactly did I claim that it is illegal to take simple, non-sexual nudes? Where? Show it or shut the fuck up.

I suppose that we could go on forever, you making an absurd claim about what I said, I challenge you to show where I said it, and you fly off on some other tangent, desperately trying to cover your blatant lies, hoping, as usual, that your pontificating will impress your sycophants and other morons.

It's like arguing with a five-year-old.

So I'll end it here and let you have the last half dozen posts, further showing your ass.

c_d_s wrote:
You have still failed to show where I was asked to provide a link which showed that non-sexual nude photography of minors was illegal.

Show it or shut the fuck up.

You were asked to show convictions for nonsexual nudes.  You failed.  I gave you the link, twice.

In this thread you cited the law which you claimed made the photography illegal, in response to a request to show convictions.  That law does no such thing.

You can play all the word games you want.  You were asked to provide links to something specific, you did not do it.

c_d_s wrote:
One more time, blowhard, where exactly did I claim that it is illegal to take simple, non-sexual nudes? Where? Show it or shut the fuck up.

Here are two more:

www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=40 … ost8851082

www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=10 … ost1495697
This is what you said:

c_d_s wrote:
State laws vary. In some states it is illegal to photograph a minor nude. It's not a matter of whether it's obscene, or porn, but clearly spelled out. This is why I suggested to the OP that he should consult a local lawyer. It's one thing to debate whether a nude photo is obscene, but if the law says it's illegal to photograph a female under the age of 18 if the breast is exposed below the top of the areola, then that's an entirely different matter.

And one more time: if it is not illegal, why do you keep objecting when people like me say it is not illegal?  What is the nature of your objection?

c_d_s wrote:
I suppose that we could go on forever, you making an absurd claim about what I said, I challenge you to show where I said it, and you fly off on some other tangent, desperately trying to cover your blatant lies,

Blatant lies?  See the links and quotation above.  Your words.

c_d_s wrote:
hoping, as usual, that your pontificating will impress your sycophants and other morons.

It's like arguing with a five-year-old.

So I'll end it here and let you have the last half dozen posts, further showing your ass.

I tire of your personal insults.  And that is all they are.  You have nothing of substance to add to this discussion, you back away from any specific claims of any facts, while claiming to respond to a request for them, and use your vague objections as reasons to insult me and people who agree with me. 

In my view you have nothing at all to add, and are simply trolling.

Justin Foto wrote:
I think this is what is known as a can of worms. Legal or not, it's just asking for trouble to shoot nudes under 18.

With this:

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.

I'll pause now, so you can read these carefully and ponder these points:

a) The challenge was directed at Justin Foto, not me.

b) The challenge was to link several cites where people were convicted of taking simple nudes of minors.

I posted one such link. Again, plese note that the original challenge said "simple nudes of minors." You changed it to "non-sexual nude photography of minors." Here's your direct quote:

Emeritus wrote:
No, you were asked to provide a link which showed that non-sexual nude photography of minors was illegal.  You provided a link that showed that lewd photography of minors is illegal, which nobody has ever argued with, and is not what you were asked to do.  And now you want to ignore the fact that the conviction was for lewd photographs and claim that people are ignoring what the law says.  That is a gross misstatement of the facts and the law, and completely unjustified.

Since you are so utterly lacking in logic, I'll do it for you:

a) Your statement that I was asked to provide a link is false. Someone else was asked to provide a link, not me.

b) Your statement that I was asked to provide a link "which showed that non-sexual nude photography of minors was illegal" is false. That is not what anyone was asked. You made that shit up.

Both parts of your statement are patently false, therefore, you are a liar.


2.

Emeritus wrote:
You claim it is illegal to take simple, non-sexual nudes . . . somewhere . . . and throw up Texas as your example.  You even cite the statutes . . . which do not say that.

No, you claimed that I claimed that. I never said it. You did. I gave you ample opportunity to show where I said it, but, since it never happened, you couldn't show it.

Your statement is patently false, therefore, you are a liar.

c_d_s wrote:
a) The challenge was directed at Justin Foto, not me.

But you took credit for it: 

c_d_s wrote:
Someone asked for a link. I provided it.

Whether you specifically were asked or not, the question was on the table, and you chose to take up the challenge, take credit for it, and failed at it.

c_d_s wrote:
b) The challenge was to link several cites where people were convicted of taking simple nudes of minors.

I posted one such link.

No, you did not.  You posted a link to a conviction for lewd pictures of minors.  You wanted us to believe it was a conviction for simple nudity, but that is false.

c_d_s wrote:
b) Your statement that I was asked to provide a link "which showed that non-sexual nude photography of minors was illegal" is false. That is not what anyone was asked. You made that shit up.

This is pure sophistry.  The meaning of "simple nudes" was very clear, and very clearly did not include "lewd" nudes.  You simply misconstrued the case, and asked us to believe that it was responsive to the request.  You now hide behind word games to try to salvage that error.

Emeritus wrote:
You claim it is illegal to take simple, non-sexual nudes . . . somewhere . . . and throw up Texas as your example.  You even cite the statutes . . . which do not say that.

c_d_s wrote:
No, you claimed that I claimed that. I never said it.

c_d_s wrote:
You did. I gave you ample opportunity to show where I said it, but, since it never happened, you couldn't show it.

I did show it.  Here it is again (one of several)

www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=10 … ost1495697

c_d_s wrote:
Your statement is patently false, therefore, you are a liar.

And the personal attacks continue.  Devoid of anything of substance to say, you try weaseling out of the clear meaning of the issue and the request, and deny saying things you have in fact said.  Lame.  Pathetic, as a matter of fact.

Emeritus wrote:
Whether you specifically were asked or not, the question was on the table, and you chose to take up the challenge, take credit for it, and failed at it.

c_d_s wrote:
b) The challenge was to link several cites where people were convicted of taking simple nudes of minors.

I posted one such link.

Emeritus wrote:
No, you did not.  You posted a link to a conviction for lewd pictures of minors.

Perhaps he doesn't understand the difference.  He and I have had this discussion before.  He has very strong feelings on this issue, so I am suspecting that the distinction between "nude" and "lewd" may simply not be apparent to him.

I think he is an honest and honorable guy.  He is quite passionate, so my guess is that, to him, they are the same thing.

So let's make this simple:

c_d_s wrote:
b) The challenge was to link several cites where people were convicted of taking simple nudes of minors.

c_d_s, what is your definition of a "simple nude?'  Can you distinguish a simple nude from one which is lewd?  Perhaps if we can understand your mindset on this we can figure out why so many are disagreeing with your position.

BlueDancer Digital wrote:
It's 18, and don't let anyone tell you that there are circumstances when it's okay to work with a nude model younger than that. As for how you'll feel asking her to undress for the shoot - that's something that should be discussed between the two of you long before she arrives on the set, so, when the time comes, it won't be any surprise.

Good luck!

- Dan

Tell that to Annie Lebowitz.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
I can think of only ONE reason someone would want a minor to pose nude.  And it has NOTHING to do with art.

::Sigh:: and I thought it died.

So, by minor I imagine you mean "under 18" right? Do you think its ok if people (for whatever reason) want an 18yr old to pose nude?

ei Total Productions wrote:

Emeritus wrote:
Whether you specifically were asked or not, the question was on the table, and you chose to take up the challenge, take credit for it, and failed at it.

c_d_s wrote:
b) The challenge was to link several cites where people were convicted of taking simple nudes of minors.

I posted one such link.

Emeritus wrote:
No, you did not.  You posted a link to a conviction for lewd pictures of minors.

Perhaps he doesn't understand the difference.  He and I have had this discussion before.  He has very strong feelings on this issue, so I am suspecting that the distinction between "nude" and "lewd" may simply not be apparent to him.

I think he is an honest and honorable guy.  He is quite passionate, so my guess is that, to him, they are the same thing.

So let's make this simple:


c_d_s, what is your definition of a "simple nude?'  Can you distinguish a simple nude from one which is lewd?  Perhaps if we can understand your mindset on this we can figure out why so many are disagreeing with your position.

Lewdness is in the eye of the beholder and the sheriff/DA out to make a name for themselves.

Trimester Images wrote:
Lewdness is in the eye of the beholder and the sheriff/DA out to make a name for themselves.

Yep, very true and they could do the same with a bikini shot for that matter, or even a 20yr old.  You could also get pulled over today by that one cop that doesnt like you and decides to plant heroin in your car.   

But come one, be realistic, how likely is it your going to run into that one DA thats willing to bring a case that has NO basis in legal merit and just throw the dice.  You've got a better chance being hit by lightning.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
I can think of only ONE reason someone would want a minor to pose nude.  And it has NOTHING to do with art.

then you must have limited reasoning ability...

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
I can think of only ONE reason someone would want a minor to pose nude.  And it has NOTHING to do with art.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
then you have limited reasoning ability...

I dont know about you Doug, but that is the mentality that would make me look at someone twice in this topic.  The "I can only think of one reason in my head why someone would take a picture of an 8yr old naked"

Ummmm... Stay away from my 8yr old please, comes to mind.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
I can think of only ONE reason someone would want a minor to pose nude.  And it has NOTHING to do with art.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
then you have limited reasoning ability...

CGI Images wrote:
dont know about you Doug, but that is the mentality that would make me look at someone twice in this topic.  The "I can only think of one reason in my head why someone would take a picture of an 8yr old naked"

Ummmm... Stay away from my 8yr old please, comes to mind.

a thief always thinks someone is trying to steal from them...

and the quote from my page:

"We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are." Anais Nin

when i see a nude child, it reminds me that there is innocence in the world..the one time in our lives that we aren't concerned with anything other, then being who we are...

CGI Images wrote:

::Sigh:: and I thought it died.

So, by minor I imagine you mean "under 18" right? Do you think its ok if people (for whatever reason) want an 18yr old to pose nude?

To vague a question.  "For what ever reason".   "is it Ok."   Are you asking if there is something magical about the day one is no longer a minor?   Are you asking if one's intention of shooting nudes changes on that day too?    Is the model who asked me to shoot nudes of her BEFORE that day any different on the day after when we did? 

I need not, nor am I qualified to, go into the cultural, religious and psychosocial differences that exist world wide. And the taboos associated with this all.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

To vague a question.  "For what ever reason".   "is it Ok."   Are you asking if there is something magical about the day one is no longer a minor?   Are you asking if one's intention of shooting nudes changes on that day too?    Is the model who asked me to shoot nudes of her BEFORE that day any different on the day after when we did? 

I need not, nor am I qualified to, go into the cultural, religious and psychosocial differences that exist world wide. And the taboos associated with this all.

So your saying you have no logical basis to back up what you said in the first place, got it.

CGI Images wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
I can think of only ONE reason someone would want a minor to pose nude.  And it has NOTHING to do with art.

I dont know about you Doug, but that is the mentality that would make me look at someone twice in this topic.  The "I can only think of one reason in my head why someone would take a picture of an 8yr old naked"

Ummmm... Stay away from my 8yr old please, comes to mind.

The point was, this question has been ask numerous times before.  WHY?  What is the interest in shooting minors without clothes?   It just strikes me as strange that there is ALWAYS someone seeking validation in doing something that some societies say is taboo.  When someone asks "when can I"  "why can't I". I begin to think the worst of their intentions.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

The point was, this question has been ask numerous times before.  WHY?  What is the interest in shooting minors without clothes?   It just strikes me as strange that there is ALWAYS someone seeking validation in doing something that some societies say is taboo.  When someone asks "when can I"  "why can't I". I begin to think the worst of their intentions.

mmmhmmm.. And I think Doug said it best.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
a thief always thinks someone is trying to steal from them...

and the quote from my page:

"We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are." Anais Nin

when i see a nude child, it reminds me that there is innocence in the world..the one time in our lives that we aren't concerned with anything other, then being who we are...

Mull that over and then read this.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

CGI Images wrote:

So your saying you have no logical basis to back up what you said in the first place, got it.

I was asked if I thought it OK for whatever reason to shoot nudes of minors.  That like asking you CGI if you still beat your wife.  LOL     Do You???

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

I was asked if I thought it OK for whatever reason to shoot nudes of minors.  That like asking you CGI if you still beat your wife.  LOL     Do You???

Now your not even making sense. That would be like asking me if I EVER thought it was ok to beat your wife.  So now your comparing violence to nude "minor" photography, again deomonstrating you feel its always a negative thing.

So I'll be simple.  The question I posed to you was first this.  When you say "minor" you mean under 18? Correct?

Assuming your answer is yes.  Then the question was.  Do you think its ok for a photographer to want to shoot a nude of an 18yr old girl for ANY reason?