This thread was locked on 2012-01-03 14:06:57
Photographer
StrawberryImages
Posts: 7
San Francisco, California, US
What is the LEGAL AGE requirement for a model to pose NUDES for a photographer or act NUDE In a video.
Photographer
G Reese
Posts: 913
Marion, Indiana, US
18 same as the rest of the country
GaryR
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
EDIT: I was on at 4AM TRYING to answer the OP. I am NOT the one who wants to shoot little kids naked! I posted links and everything in an ATTEMPT to give good information and avoid a trainwreck. Serves me right for trying to help.  StrawberryImages wrote:
What is the LEGAL AGE requirement for a model to pose NUDES for a photographer or act NUDE In a video. Nudity is NOT the determining factor in legality. The determining factor is sexual imagery. There is no bright-line, only factors which determine if the image is impermissibly sexually explicit.
This is a complex and controversial topic. I suggest using the PlasticPuppet search feature to look for similar threads, there have been MANY. EDIT: READ THIS POST: https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … ost9357622
Come back if you still have questions.
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
G Reese wrote:
18 same as the rest of the country
GaryR Wrong. Please do not post incorrect answers here if you don't know the actual facts. Thanks.
Model
Kymberly Jane
Posts: 2251
Los Angeles, California, US
18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
any younger and you are in JAIL for child porn. No sexual Exploiting of kids!
ANd.. No Sexual Implications in Video OR still images of or with Minors.. the legal age is 18.
EXAMPLE: if the minor is NAKED but nothing showing but suggestively posed.. ILLEGAL.
Model
Rachel Haywire
Posts: 969
San Francisco, California, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
Nudity is NOT the determining factor in legality. The determining factor is sexual imagery. There is no bright-line, only factors which determine if the image is impermissibly sexually explicit.
This is a complex and controversial topic. I suggest using the PlasticPuppet search feature to look for similar threads, there have been MANY. Do some reading and come back if you still have questions. If you know so much about the subject why don't you share some information with the curious as opposed to posting condescending replies? This is the newbie forum and newbie's aren't expected to know what PlasticPuppet is. I'd suggest getting off your high horse.
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
Kymberly Jane wrote:
18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
any younger and you are in JAIL for child porn. No sexual Exploiting of kids!
ANd.. No Sexual Implications in Video OR still images of or with Minors.. the legal age is 18.
EXAMPLE: if the minor is NAKED but nothing showing but suggestively posed.. ILLEGAL. :sigh:
THIS IS WRONG INFORMATION.
Google the following to see just how wrong:
Sally Mann
David Hamilton
Jock Sturgis
Dost Test
18USC2256
Alessandra's Smile
Note that I am not endorsing the idea of shooting minors nude. It is still legally risky and nude images of models under 18 are not allowed on MM, regardless of legality.
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
Rachel Haywire wrote:
If you know so much about the subject why don't you share some information with the curious as opposed to posting condescending replies? Well gee..use the damned search tool as I suggested...or read my last post....
Model
Rachel Haywire
Posts: 969
San Francisco, California, US
What are you so angry about? LOL.
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
Photographer
Jonathan Hawkins Photo
Posts: 563
Seattle, Washington, US
true, images of minors nude is not inherently illegal, but I really don't want to deal with the hassles that can come along with it. You'll find many photographers agree and just stay away.
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
Jonathan Hawkins Photo wrote:
true, images of minors nude is not inherently illegal, but I really don't want to deal with the hassles that can come along with it. You'll find many photographers agree and just stay away. As I said
Lumigraphics wrote:
Note that I am not endorsing the idea of shooting minors nude. It is still legally risky and nude images of models under 18 are not allowed on MM, regardless of legality. I personally would not except possibly in a large-scale commercial venture where the client had a good legal department to cover everyone's ass.
If Mario Testino shoots a 17yo model topless for Vogue, nobody is going to get arrested. Here on MM? Not so much.
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
Model
Kymberly Jane
Posts: 2251
Los Angeles, California, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
Even better post, by one of our site moderators:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … ost9357622
This should keep everyone busy for hours  ok.. haha You shoot some underage girls doing suggestive things.. and post them on MM..see how far it gets you..
a guy in San diego was Jsut arrested and charged with 44counts of child porn/molestation.. he was a Photographer on MM..who had nothing but kids on his page.. some of them in bra panties.. Now those are evidence..
sooo GO ahead.. do it.. we will sit back and watch the trial on tv~
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
Kymberly Jane wrote:
ok.. haha You shoot some underage girls doing suggestive things.. and post them on MM..see how far it gets you..
a guy in San diego was Jsut arrested and charged with 44counts of child porn/molestation.. he was a Photographer on MM..who had nothing but kids on his page.. some of them in bra panties.. Now those are evidence..
sooo GO ahead.. do it.. we will sit back and watch the trial on tv~ There is a reason I have you blocked...and drivel like this is part of it.
Read my post right up the page where I said I would not shoot nudes of a subject under 18. DUH.
Model
Kymberly Jane
Posts: 2251
Los Angeles, California, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
There is a reason I have you blocked...and drivel like this is part of it.
Read my post right up the page where I said I would not shoot nudes of a subject under 18. DUH. you are harsh and bitter and I blocked you for your uninteresting and humorless way of life..
you are coming across as abrasive and mean.. and matter of factly.. when frankly you have No reason to have interest in shooting nudes.. Or minors.. unless you have some sort of "special interest" in the matter~
soo frankly.. I am done with this Gross topic of photographers wanting to shoot nude pictures or video of little girls or boys
edit: you were blocked by me for rude comments made on my page a YEAR ago because you have a problem with my nude pictures
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
Kymberly Jane wrote:
you are harsh and bitter and I blocked you for your uninteresting and humorless way of life..
you are coming across as abrasive and mean.. and matter of factly.. when frankly you have No reason to have interest in shooting nudes.. Or minors.. unless you have some sort of "special interest" in the matter~
soo frankly.. I am done with this Gross topic of photographers wanting to shoot nude pictures or video of little girls or boys
edit: you were blocked by me for rude comments made on my page a YEAR ago because you have a problem with my nude pictures You obviously didn't bother doing ANY reading. I'm not the one who asked. I'm answering the question. And trying to correct grossly inaccurate information that YOU posted.
I'd say YOU are coming across as the one who is abrasive and mean. And I blocked you when you were traveling in my area and couldn't be even reasonably polite when contacted.
You aren't worth being brigged for a personal attack so I'd like to keep this on topic and stick to CORRECT information. If you can't add a helpful post, please don't add anything, especially ad hominem attacks.
Photographer
Left Bank Foto and Art
Posts: 206
Los Angeles, California, US
Well StrawberryImages, I hope you read how controversial your question can be. I would ask you what is the theme of your shoot and what are you going to do with the photos? Even if a model is of legal age, site like MM and others have their own regulations governing the posting of certain photos.
My advise to you is to stick with models who are over 21 years old and make sure you get the right paperwork signed by them.
Model
Kymberly Jane
Posts: 2251
Los Angeles, California, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
You obviously didn't bother doing ANY reading. I'm not the one who asked. I'm answering the question. And trying to correct grossly inaccurate information that YOU posted.
I'd say YOU are coming across as the one who is abrasive and mean. And I blocked you when you were traveling in my area and couldn't be even reasonably polite when contacted.
You aren't worth being brigged for a personal attack so I'd like to keep this on topic and stick to CORRECT information. If you can't add a helpful post, please don't add anything, especially ad hominem attacks. Bold faced Lie sir.. haha..Anyone who knows me knows when i travel i Dont go near the midwest~ soo..please understand.. that last year you were against nudes.. and therefore i noted you on that~ so i Do know EXACTLY when and where i blocked you.
and furthermore.. this night you seem to be on alot of threads saying things like you force models to do things they dont want to~ and yu are FOR shooting nude teenagers.. (not obbosed AT ALL to it)
there in lays the poblem sir, it is utterly illegal to shoot models under 18 in ANY suggestive manner..be it fully clothes but grabbing genitals. or completely Implied naked suggestively.
that is the law in CALIFORNIA.. and as you DO NOT LIVE HERE IN CALIFORNIA..you seem to try to know alot about our laws..
reporting you to a moderator Now and showing all threads you are starting riots in~
Model
Steph Clare
Posts: 3447
Argyle, Florida, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
I'm not angry. There is just usually so much bad information put out, and itâs a subject that has been covered before...plus don't you think it looks just a BIT iffy for someone new to the site to ask?
Read this thread, itâs a recent one on the topic.
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=429238
Pay special attention to this post...its enlightening
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … ost9355424 dude if you're saying everyone whos saying 18 is so wrong, how come you haven't stated another age on here? you just keep posting links which i dont have the time to look at
Model
Steph Clare
Posts: 3447
Argyle, Florida, US
oh my godd hahah this is a fucking full on train wreck.
grow up! its a frickin forum on mm! WHO CARES!!!!!!!!
well if you're not guna give a straight answer, i can tell you its 18 in the UK.
Photographer
Yan Tan Tethera
Posts: 4185
Biggleswade, England, United Kingdom
jo rich UK wrote:
oh my godd hahah this is a fucking full on train wreck.
grow up! its a frickin forum on mm! WHO CARES!!!!!!!!
well if you're not guna give a straight answer, i can tell you its 18 in the UK. Sorry you're wrong. I challenge you to state the law.
Model
Steph Clare
Posts: 3447
Argyle, Florida, US
Aoxomedia wrote:
Sorry you're wrong. I challenge you to state the law. tbh i don't really care, i just know you can't shoot explicit photos of children under 18. it's just added comments like this that cause huge arguments. pointless.
Photographer
Jay Pegg
Posts: 6374
Kansas City, Missouri, US
Nude pictures don't necessarily equal explicit pictures.
Lumigraphics is, technically, correct. Kymberly is making the same error that a lot of people do.
Here's one example, a photo-reportage story about a nudist colony.
Photographer
DragonFire Production 2
Posts: 6
Milpitas, California, US
Sally Mann is fcuked up in her head ... !!
And very honestly, the only reason why she got famous is becuz of shooting her kids naked. NO OTHER REASON..
... same like that female photographer shooting kids cry in her studio...
Do something controversial, and you're famous!!
Photographer
Monsignor Photographic
Posts: 175
Guildford, England, United Kingdom
Lumigraphics wrote:
Nudity is NOT the determining factor in legality. The determining factor is sexual imagery. There is no bright-line, only factors which determine if the image is impermissibly sexually explicit. Correct!!
Unwritten rule,IF YOU DONT WANNA BECOME A TEST CASE .......DONT do it!!
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36332
San Francisco, California, US
Whatever you do, make sure you shoot it with a Canon and not a Nikon and process it on a PC instead of a Mac. And don't forget the escort or you might get raped and murdered. Or was that the model who will get raped? I can never get that straight.
Photographer
Jay Pegg
Posts: 6374
Kansas City, Missouri, US
You fool, Pat. Always, always, always use a Holga.
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36332
San Francisco, California, US
Jay Cain wrote:
You fool, Pat. Always, always, always use a Holga. That's true, when the police raid your house, they are spoiled will only look in your hard drive for those nudes. They will never think to look in a Holga for those strange things called film.
Photographer
Ein zwei drei vier funf
Posts: 779
Biggleswade, England, United Kingdom
jo rich UK wrote:
tbh i don't really care, i just know you can't shoot explicit photos of children under 18. it's just added comments like this that cause huge arguments. pointless. Sums it all up really. You said it was against the law. I challenged you to state the law. You couldn't. Not only couldn't you, you say you don't care.
Good to see the legal brains on MM out in force.
A word of advice - nude and explicit are not synonymous.
Photographer
Kings Media Photos
Posts: 1939
Victorville, California, US
Kymberly Jane wrote:
18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
any younger and you are in JAIL for child porn. No sexual Exploiting of kids!
ANd.. No Sexual Implications in Video OR still images of or with Minors.. the legal age is 18.
EXAMPLE: if the minor is NAKED but nothing showing but suggestively posed.. ILLEGAL. uhmm wrong
Photographer
Harold Rose
Posts: 2925
Calhoun, Georgia, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
:sigh:
THIS IS WRONG INFORMATION.
Google the following to see just how wrong:
Sally Mann
David Hamilton
Jock Sturgis
Dost Test
18USC2256
Alessandra's Smile
Note that I am not endorsing the idea of shooting minors nude. It is still legally risky and nude images of models under 18 are not allowed on MM, regardless of legality. The names you quote have no meaning to me.. If you are so educated on this subject, please quote to us law, and regulations, not other peoples ideas or uneducated opinions..
Photographer
Hugh Jorgen
Posts: 2850
Ashland, Oregon, US
I am sure you can find all the underage nudes you want legaly at the local magazine shop..they would be in the catagory of nudists magazines..
Its not illigal to shoot nudes of minors.just hand them a vollyball.its illigale to shoot any sexual image wether clothed or not of a minor..
sex and nudes are two diff things
Hj
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36332
San Francisco, California, US
Harold Rose wrote:
The names you quote have no meaning to me.. If you are so educated on this subject, please quote to us law, and regulations, not other peoples ideas or uneducated opinions.. It's impossible to quote a law that does not exist. The absence of a law prohibiting an activity makes that activity legal. There is no such thing as a law affirming legality.
Photographer
Malloch
Posts: 2566
Hastings, England, United Kingdom
Legally there is no age stated in the law in the UK or I believe in the USA regarding the matter of nudity in images. What there is, is a law prohibiting the sexual exploitation in whatever form that may take of persons under the age of 18. These can be two entirely different things. However, I would hate to be one who came under investigation no matter what the outcome would be. In a case like that even being found totally innocent one would still be looked upon as being guilty by the vast majority of the population. Stick to 18 and over no matter what the law states.
Photographer
Hugh Jorgen
Posts: 2850
Ashland, Oregon, US
ReinerSchutzBeauty wrote:
Sums it all up really. You said it was against the law. I challenged you to state the law. You couldn't. Not only couldn't you, you say you don't care.
Good to see the legal brains on MM out in force.
A word of advice - nude and explicit are not synonymous.
Photographer
Vamp Boudoir
Posts: 11446
Florence, South Carolina, US
Harold Rose wrote:
The names you quote have no meaning to me.. If you are so educated on this subject, please quote to us law, and regulations, not other peoples ideas or uneducated opinions.. Dang..I'm just an amateur, and I know most of those names. I can also comprehend the difference between nudity and sexuality.. Must be 'cause I'm an old fart. 
There aren't laws specifying what IS legal (in most parts).
Photographer
Kings Media Photos
Posts: 1939
Victorville, California, US
Kymberly Jane wrote:
there in lays the poblem sir, it is utterly illegal to shoot models under 18 in ANY suggestive manner..be it fully clothes but grabbing genitals. or completely Implied naked suggestively.
that is the law in CALIFORNIA.. and as you DO NOT LIVE HERE IN CALIFORNIA..you seem to try to know alot about our laws..
reporting you to a moderator Now and showing all threads you are starting riots in~ Kymberly, I do not recall the OP even asking to shoot minors in suggestive manners.....
I understand where you are coming from, but the OP only asked what the legal age is
Model
Steph Clare
Posts: 3447
Argyle, Florida, US
ReinerSchutzBeauty wrote:
Sums it all up really. You said it was against the law. I challenged you to state the law. You couldn't. Not only couldn't you, you say you don't care.
Good to see the legal brains on MM out in force.
A word of advice - nude and explicit are not synonymous. not bothered mate so i wouldn't waste your time
Photographer
Harold Rose
Posts: 2925
Calhoun, Georgia, US
StrawberryImages wrote:
What is the LEGAL AGE requirement for a model to pose NUDES for a photographer or act NUDE In a video. Here is the answer I get from law search.
"Federal law requires an individual be 18 to be photographed in the nude and the photos published or printed. That means any means including showing on a computer screen"
I also find that some States can make the age even higher.. You even have some local laws that make this a very touchey issue..
For parents to sign away a minor's majority, it has to be approved by a judge..
Playboy got caught in this many years ago, when the parents pushed their daughter by giving permission for a 15yr old to pose nude. These issues are collectors items..
|
