Doug Lester wrote:
How do you know it's actually the young girl sending the emails? Could it be a 40 year ld cop posing as the underage model?

this was the first thing i thought! whats that tv show.....   catch a predator thing LOL

mendesm wrote:
It's up to you whether you go ahead with this or not, but at this point:

1. I'd get a phone number and talk directly to the mom
2. before the shoot and before any clothes come off, they have to prove their mom-daughter relationship with IDs and birth certificate for the girl
3. I'd make a point to have the mom and my assistant/mua stay for the entire shoot
4. keep a lawyer on retainer in case the girl goes out flapping her mouth to her friends about taking nude pictures and a "citizen with good intentions" calls the authorities
5. make sure you have back up of all of your stuff offsite in case you do need to use your lawyer because big brother came over and took all your shit away with child pornography charges
6. don't forget to come back here and let us know and prove the fear fongers wrong

And oh, yeah, I almost forgot the obligatory "I'm not a lawyer so don't take what I said as legal advice"

Not worth the "possible" follow up problems.  Sure, the girl and parents are in sync and cool with the project, the problem is with those such as in # 4 above, "citizen with good intentions"  those people sticking their noses into business to none of their concern, blowing everything out of proportion and you have to suffer the public flap that can follow, even with legal fees. If the girl is great, do swimwear and look forwards to her 18th birthday, otherwise, there are plenty of over 18 gals out there.  The US media loves running with stories like, "Local photographer being investigated for child pornography"  It wasn't true, but think of the damage that can linger.  Thats what I'd do.

Carl August wrote:
I suspect that this may be a "Sting" by the cops. 

Enough said. . .

unless the cops were already targeting him for inappropriate behavior with minors, why would they bother with him for casting models, for completely legal modeling assignments..

your suspicions are  ridiculous...

CGI Images wrote:
So in your opinion to avoid drama stay away from 13-19yr olds?

I just had a shoot with a 14 year old that could give lessons on professional conduct to most models. 

When I first shot Naomi Marie she was 16 and one of the MOST professional and curtious models I had the pleasure to work with.  Sadly, she has since retired.  Again, a minor that could give lessons on professionalism.



Now, I take the over all point.  Yes, chances are that "issues" will arise the younger the model.  That is why the overwhelming majority of us, you included, are suggesting active contact with the parents.

Dylan Roberts wrote:
Now, a girl emailed me and we've been talking back and forth for a few days and it wasn't until last night that I got an email from here along the lines of "oh yeah, i'm a minor".  I responded asking if she had seen the two example photos and new what I was looking for in the casting and she said that she had, but then went on to try to tell me that she couldn't legally do that, so of course I had to remind her that there are no anti nudity laws at any age, only anti sexually explicit laws and that those could even cover clothed shoots (so please none of the "she's a minor it's illegal" posts, fear mongering is not cool).

I have no problem working with minors and do it all the time, however at this point (bold) I would have moved on or recommended shooting something else. Basically she is trying for an out. She's a kid, likes your work and wants a free shoot, she's obviously not comfortable with the nudity but might do it just to get in front of your lens and that could be an issue later.

Gulf Coast Glamour wrote:
Not worth the "possible" follow up problems.  Sure, the girl and parents are in sync and cool with the project, the problem is with those such as in # 4 above, "citizen with good intentions"  those people sticking their noses into business to none of their concern, blowing everything out of proportion and you have to suffer the public flap that can follow, even with legal fees. If the girl is great, do swimwear and look forwards to her 18th birthday, otherwise, there are plenty of over 18 gals out there.  The US media loves running with stories like, "Local photographer being investigated for child pornography"  It wasn't true, but think of the damage that can linger.  Thats what I'd do.

I have had an attorney on retainer ever since I asked one to fill out my divorce papers.  It was a mutal split between me and the ex, but I just did not want to bother with the legal crap. But anyway, I gave hime some money and said I'd call him one of these days should the need come up.

Besides, people who want to shoot a minor nude, don't do it because they can't find any other model willing to do it.  They do it because that is what they want to do, shoot a nude minor, and that's that.  Be it because the minor wants it or because the photographer wants to be a rebel or whatever.

As for the media loves to run with stories, me being the person I am, say let them.  Fuck them.  I don't give a shit.  If one day I have the desire to do a nude shoot of a minor, than that is what I am going to do regardless of what the media, the cops, the prudes say.  I have never been the type to conform with the masses to beging with.  That is one of the major reasons I decided to finally go ahead and do something I always wanted to do, shoot nudes, but never did because I grew up listening to 99.99% of the world's population saying it's not something "respectable" people do, when in reality, there absolutely nothing wrong with it.

If it's something you want to do and you can't do it where you live, then go do it where they allow it.  Besides, if it were so illegal to shoot minors with no clothes on, there would be a lot of families being torn apart by the powers that be after that birthday party they just had at the nudist colony over the weekend.

Just because virtually every a-hole in the world is wrong, it does not mean you can't do it.  It sickens me to see how affraid and spineless people become just because a retartd in a blue uniform may have to come talk to you.

SCRetouching wrote:

13!? naked, to avoid drama, deffinatly.

Well before you were saying all teenagers.  So to be clear now your saying the younger the nude subject the more "drama" one can expect or risk, correct?

CGI Images wrote:

Well before you were saying all teenagers.  So to be clear now your saying the younger the nude subject the more "drama" one can expect or risk, correct?

From the op, i assumed the teen was about 16 because i thought 18 was adult but as you said 13-19 i guessed 19 is still not counted as an adult but i find quite mature, and i put a '!' after "13" because there was no way i was thinking this girl was as young as 13, and even if shooting a 13-19 yo naked is legal, i wouldn't even bother as young as 13 which is why i said deffinatly would avoid the possible drama, even if legal

SteveZieglerPhotography wrote:
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the laws regarding communication with a minor for immoral purposes. That's righty...they can nail you just for talking with them if you say the wrong things anymore. After the the hits CL has taken over the last year or so I wouldn't even try to sell my car there much less think of discussing nude anything with someone claiming to be under 18. Regardless of what the laws are on nudity and minors there are so many other things they can try to pin on you it makes my head spin.

*sigh* now I am officially out of this thread.

mendesm wrote:

Now I am officially out of this thread.

Well I'm sorry if my comment didn't follow along with your fuck them all position. I actually agree with you on most of the points you made but take a look at what's been going on around there with CL being forced into cooperating on various prostitution cases involving minors and all that. Is it really such a stretch to think they wouldn't use the same tactics to try and draw someone into that BS trap? Honestly I'm not trying to be a fear monger but look at the reality of the situation...

I've been a naturist for the majority of my life and there are hundreds of nude photos of me in the family photo albums when I was a kid. I'm also a huge fan of the work of Sturges and have met him on several occasions. He's a wonderful human being but even he says that in some cases it's not worth it. There are several states in this country he won't even step foot in anymore because of the trouble he's had.

You make your own choices and more power to you but the reality of the situation in this country is that you have to prove innocence and not the other way around when it comes to situations like that.

SCRetouching wrote:

From the op, i assumed the teen was about 16 because i thought 18 was adult but as you said 13-19 i guessed 19 is still not counted as an adult but i find quite mature, and i put a '!' after "13" because there was no way i was thinking this girl was as young as 13, and even if shooting a 13-19 yo naked is legal, i wouldn't even bother as young as 13 which is why i said deffinatly would avoid the possible drama, even if legal

Wow, what you must think of the photographer that pointed out he's shot a nude 9yr old. Wonder how he posted from prison,  you know because surely that's where he's at after all the " drama"

CGI Images wrote:

Wow, what you must think of the photographer that pointed out he's shot a nude 9yr old. Wonder how he posted from prison,  you know because surely that's where he's at after all the " drama"

why are you getting all worked up, it was my opinion.

SCRetouching wrote:


why are you getting all worked up, it was my opinion.

I'm not worked up just pointing out how silly your opinion is to generalize simply based on age.  Just look at the others posts in this very thread that have had good experiences shoring "minors", even nude.  Just my opinion.

Just say personally it's not your choice, that's fine we all have tastes, I won't shoot feet.

Wiggle Widget Photo wrote:
18 U.S.C. 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75

The fact that a parent or guardian signs a release form merely means the prosecutor would be able to prove intent by both you and the parent, and sucessfully prosecute both.

As many have said already, why invite trouble when there is a plethora of willing and legal aged models out there?

Wow.  And what in the world does 2257 have to do with this??

Great first post by the way.

SteveZieglerPhotography wrote:

Well I'm sorry if my comment didn't follow along with your fuck them all position. I actually agree with you on most of the points you made but take a look at what's been going on around there with CL being forced into cooperating on various prostitution cases involving minors and all that. Is it really such a stretch to think they wouldn't use the same tactics to try and draw someone into that BS trap? Honestly I'm not trying to be a fear monger but look at the reality of the situation...

I've been a naturist for the majority of my life and there are hundreds of nude photos of me in the family photo albums when I was a kid. I'm also a huge fan of the work of Sturges and have met him on several occasions. He's a wonderful human being but even he says that in some cases it's not worth it. There are several states in this country he won't even step foot in anymore because of the trouble he's had.

You make your own choices and more power to you but the reality of the situation in this country is that you have to prove innocence and not the other way around when it comes to situations like that.

my sincere apologies.  I over reacted for sure, not because you were fear mongering, but because what you commented on, being what they can do to you just for talking about this or that to a minor, is actually true.

But again, just because they can try and put their foot on your neck and press it down, it does not mean one has to conform.

In reality, the more people that stand up and push back saying "hey, you know what! it is not illegal so I AM going to do it, so fuck you" the less we have to put up with in the long run.

Idleness, avoidance and dissipation is exectly the opposite of what is needed.  People need to stop being affraid of doing a, b or c just because the someone wrote and passed a law to further his carreer.

This country was started by people who did not want to conform to the masses. What did ever happen to that spirit?  I came to live in the US and love being an american because here we're encouraged to say "Fuck you! You don't own me."  Yet, here's one very clear topic where most people won't stand up and tell the masses go to hell let people live their own lives.

The more you people conform to not doing something because this or that may happen, the tighter they'll pull on the leash.  Where is it going to stop?

Wiggle Widget Photo wrote:
18 U.S.C. 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75

The fact that a parent or guardian signs a release form merely means the prosecutor would be able to prove intent by both you and the parent, and sucessfully prosecute both.

As many have said already, why invite trouble when there is a plethora of willing and legal aged models out there?

because everyone should be free to live their life and do whatever they want (as long as they don't hurt anyone on their way there) instead of being born to live affraid of experiencing those those things you desire and conform your entire life.

Greg McGonagill wrote:
Why not just offer to photograph her with clothes on, and see where it goes?

This might need some clarification or it comes off creepy.

Wiggle Widget Photo wrote:
18 U.S.C. 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75

The fact that a parent or guardian signs a release form merely means the prosecutor would be able to prove intent by both you and the parent, and sucessfully prosecute both.

As many have said already, why invite trouble when there is a plethora of willing and legal aged models out there?

CGI Images wrote:
Wow.  And what in the world does 2257 have to do with this??

Great first post by the way.

I was just about to ask the very same thing.

FunkHead Photography wrote:
As you can see, and as you no doubt know, shooting minors in the nude (legal or illegal) is fraught with risk.

It might not be illegal were you are from, but in all seriousness do you want to have to potentially go through all the shit that comes with it to find out?

Look at it like this. If one of those "citizens with concerns" does report you (legal or not) the police are going to come and they are most likely going to take you to the station. They are going to question you and based on the outcome of that they will either release you or arrest you. Oh and if you are arrested, its going to cost you crap loads on lawyers to find out you were innocent.

Personally, I say fk that, its not worth it.

John

if you know for a fact that it is NOT illegal, as we know that it is not, and the police does arrest you, you don't say a freaking word other than to your own lawyer, period.

FunkHead Photography wrote:
I fully understand that. Given the circumstances were there are plenty of non-minors out there who want to shoot art nude, the head fucks of being questioned and the inherint costs to prove you are not breaking the law, I am asking.. .is it worth it?

Would you shoot it?

Given the perfect storm of all the tangental pieces that would have to come together that opportunity would be rare.

But...

1.  The right model. 
2.  Active and supporting parents.
3.  Clear goals for the shoot and a clear objective for the finished product.
4.  The right project. (photo book, print, gallery)

I wouldn't think twice about it.  I think many of us are laboring from an "internetz" perspective.  There is no way I would display these images on the internet.  The release would even bar the model from promoting herself with the images.

This would have to be a paid shoot (to the model) that I retained full rights.

Exactly where would a "concerned citizen" find these photos?

Published in a photobook?  That battle has been fought and won by our side.

Hanging on a Gallery wall?  That battle also tallies in our column.

These photos wouldn't go near a Facebook or ModelMayhem.

Though I firmly believe an art piece has no more or less merit if it sits in a dark closet only ever viewed by the artist, generally a "published" piece would in theory be tougher to look down on no matter how zealous the DA or Sheriff or politician.

FunkHead Photography wrote:
As you can see, and as you no doubt know, shooting minors in the nude (legal or illegal) is fraught with risk.



John

Do you really believe this, or are you just following the fear mongering you've heard others put out there?

mendesm wrote:

if you know for a fact that it is NOT illegal, as we know that it is not, and the police does arrest you, you don't say a freaking word other than to your own lawyer, period.

Not to mention if the police are going to be arresting you for legal things, why would they stop if the girl was 19? There are obcenity laws they could try and say those images broke.