|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
topless/16 yr old
Russh Magazine and Zippora Seven anyone? Oct 03 09 03:18 am Link JP PHOTOGRAPHY OF CT wrote: Unless you have Sally Mann's or David Hamilton's clout, don't consider it. Oct 03 09 04:43 am Link Topless but not sexual... mmm... is it achievable? Domestic nudes?  Photographing nude models under 18 is dangerous... for your reputation. Have you heard about australian photographer Bill Henson? Oct 03 09 05:07 am Link JP PHOTOGRAPHY OF CT wrote: I think you're trying to brag about finding a loophole that allows you to look at 16yo boobies without getting in trouble. Oct 03 09 05:12 am Link I'd much rather be shooting someone in their 30s or 40s. If nothing else, you'd have interesting things to talk about during the shoot. Oct 03 09 05:30 am Link The point, surely, is that those laws exist to protect children from potential exploitation. Therefore they should be sacrosanct. I hope I'm not the only person who finds this thread slightly creepy. Oct 03 09 05:33 am Link I'd rather see photographers pushing the legal envelope asserting their rights to shoot unencumbered on public land than doing things like this. Oct 03 09 05:42 am Link It looks to me that the girls who you photograph aren't professional models, but rather random pretty girls who aren't going to make a career out of modelling. With this in mind, I think that you ought to refrain from shooting these images with young girls, completely irrespective of any considerations of legality and negative publicity. Young people haven't formulated their career plans yet. Young people can't adequately assess risks and benefits. Young people aren't sufficiently attuned to what is acceptable and unacceptable in society. By shooting and publishing these images, you may be seriously foreclosing the girl's options in life. The consequences for her may be serious, and she isn't in a position whereby the can make a proper decision about whether to accept those consequences. It's possible that you would simply be exploiting her naivete in order to create images which she will later regret. If you were to do this, I would regard you as having acted immorally. In case that doesn't matter to you, think of this - if I found that one of my employees was shooting topless images of 16 year old girls, I would fire them. Oct 03 09 05:57 am Link It's simply not worth the potential aggravation, plus the pictures also have the potential to fall into the hands of people who would want them for the purposes of self gratification (you can substitute various phrases for that) no matter reasons or justification there was for the original shoot. If it all does blow up in your face then some of the 'mud' will stick no matter how exonerated (or not) you are in the end, that's not the sort of stigma I'd want to open my reputation up to. Oct 03 09 06:05 am Link Legally: 18 USC 2256/2257/2257a does not cover breasts at all, other than in a prohibition against computer-rendered lascivious simulated sexual intercourse. Realistically: The public that watches your 10 o'clock news doesn't know or care about the law, but they sure as hell know what they'll think of a photographer shooting a topless 16-year-old. Oct 03 09 06:15 am Link Davepit wrote: Good advice that can apply quite a bit beyond the age of consent. Oct 03 09 06:21 am Link Let's see... "60 year old man shoots local 16 year old girl topless"... "see the full story at 6pm on Eyewitness News"... Yeah, has a nice ring to it.... go for it, let us know how it turns out. Might be legal, I don't know, I don't live in the States and I'm not a lawyer... might also be a real can of worms not worth pursuing. Hell there is probably no law that says you can't shove your ass in a wood chipper, but I still wouldn't recommend doing it. Oct 03 09 06:27 am Link heeeeeeere we go again... Well I am all for it. If there is no sexual exploitation than why not? I mean it is after legal, a very fine line, but still legal none the less. Oct 03 09 06:31 am Link One must consider the girl herself. At 16, a girl is not entirely aware or capable of fully understanding the implications of posing nude or partially nude. While this may seem fun, daring and exciting to her now, she might regret it later. Any photographer who is willing to compromise a minor should look in the mirror and question his values. Oct 03 09 06:34 am Link As stated by the OP,.... If it was something special, unique and very art or news worthy, I would have no qualms at all. Just for the sake of controversy...hell no! Particularly now -steroid grown teens. 5-14..not so much of an issue. Oct 03 09 06:41 am Link Look at the commotion over the pix of Miley Cyrus when she had a bare back. Now, expand the outcry to a raging mob if she had actually been topless. That's where our society is right now. A topless Drew Barrymore at age 16? Nobody would have blinked. But the equivalent today? Yikes! Does anybody remember "Patti" D'Arbanville, one of David Hamilton's models, who went on to minor fame in television and movies? What harm did her nudes as a teenager do? But today, the times they are a'changing, but not for the better as far as artistic freedom goes. Me, I'd like to stay out of the news. Oct 03 09 06:43 am Link This question gets asked very often here. The answers seem to fall into four categories: 1) Go for it. It's legal (in most states if not all - lots of opinion on that one.) 2) Do it, but be prepared for social, political, and maybe even a little ungrounded legal complications. 3) Don't do it (because of the complications.) 4) It's illegal (but, no, it isn't.) There's no right answer for all, just a right answer for you. But be assured there will be complications. With so many beautiful and willing models over the age of 18, why shoot a 16 year old topless - unless such a shot is requested by the girl and her family? Oct 03 09 06:50 am Link RTE Photography wrote: It's not about being prude. It's about recognizing that even some clothed pictures of children can be used as pornographic fodder for pedophiles. So why would you go the extra step and take their clothes off, knowing that they are going to be objectified by some messed up deviant? If I wanted to take an artistic photo of a baby in a lion's den, wouldn't it not matter what my intentions were? I'd still be placing that baby in harm's way and I would be responsible if it got hurt or eaten. Oct 03 09 06:59 am Link wynnesome wrote: Exactly. Why? Oct 03 09 07:01 am Link Cadence Gamache wrote: by this logic, we should prevent Sears, Giant Tiger and WalMart from putting pictures in their ads because the teen pics could be used for fodder. Sorry...makes no sense. Can we go back to the post from RTE that you qouted. It's not necessary to take something to an illogical conclusion. Just weakens it. Oct 03 09 07:07 am Link Well, artistic considerations aside, here's a thought - "Legal" does not equal "Good Idea" In the past I have occasionally considered a course of action that my attorney advised me against pursuing. Although I had the legal authority and the letter of the law seemed to support it, he accurately pointed out that I was just asking for trouble. I probably would have come out on top, but it would have been trouble anyway. Who needs that? I have worked with a couple of models in their mid-20s who could easily have passed for 16. If you're after a certain look or mood, this can be easily achieved without any legal ambiguity. One final thought. I once got some advice from a guy who ran an adult website, who passed on something he'd gotten from a guy who was a longtime producer of porn. That guy had managed to stay out of legal trouble for years with this simple dictum - Never make a model look younger than she is, and nobody will bother you. May not be good legal advice, but it was good practical advice. Oct 03 09 07:09 am Link AVD AlphaDuctions wrote: I don't see it as illogical... Why is it prude to be wary of taking naked pictures of children? It's not. It's simply being responsible. That's all I'm saying. Oct 03 09 07:11 am Link Oh, and I should add that I know a man who did 5 years in jail for doing this exact thing. When it went to trial the jury did not rule by the letter of the law, but instead dragged in all sorts of concepts like "moral turpitude", "undue influence", "innocence", etc. He was on trial for multiple counts of things that never even went through his mind while he was in the studio. Did 5 years in the slam. Oct 03 09 07:13 am Link Jeff Mason wrote: Now that's got to really s*ck Oct 03 09 07:15 am Link Why even think about shooting a 16 year old nude? Does she look like a playboy playmate or something? Just don't do it, it's simple as that. No other rationale needed. Oct 03 09 07:18 am Link Ask yourself why but ask yourself why not. Respect the laws because of the consequences they bring but don't just sheepishly follow them. The issue is bigger than seeing some 16 year old titties and be prepared to fight all that comes with it. Allowing newspapers headlines to restrict your art is very cowardly. Using bad lion cage analogies and jumping to conclusions about enabling pedifiles is ridiculous. Who are we protecting? .......16 year olds that want to pose nudes or all the adults (most likely the same people who are quick to dismiss the question) who wont admit they want to see it? Oct 03 09 07:21 am Link There is no need to shoot children naked!! I am a MOM of six, and this thought disgusts me!!! Use your head man!!! Thats not healthy thinking!!! I am also a criminal justice major, and I actually dicussed this post with my CRIMINOLOGY CLASS, AND the majority found it a repulsive idea!!!! Oct 03 09 07:22 am Link While morally I don't think nudity is really an issue that should be condemned and I think most views on nudity stem from a puritanical religious society, I also accept reluctantly that I live and work in society and have to abide by their standards and practices to a certain extent. Something that is not a big deal to me is outrageous to others, and unfortunately that taboo makes it a turn on to another group. With these thoughts in mind accepting that there are ultra conservatives and pedophiles in this world, I'd have to say it's just a bad idea all around and not worth the trouble. Oct 03 09 07:22 am Link The question was to shoot or not a 16 year old topless, not if you should find an 18 year old or older. In the US it seems you are on very risky waters. In North America it is more or less the same but states or provinces have their own laws. In most of Europe it is not a problem so much depending on the use and the nature. Here people exercise common sense over radically opposed fanatics. I wouldn't tempt it if it were a photo to be diffused or gallery displayed. Tough call artistically isn't it? Oct 03 09 07:24 am Link Hollywood wrote: Sorry you're disgusted but ALL thinking is healthy. Oct 03 09 07:26 am Link It's just a bare chest...... In theory everybody is born with the same basic layout. Why the hysteria? Oct 03 09 07:34 am Link JP PHOTOGRAPHY OF CT wrote: I've no thoughts about photographing a topless 16 year old. I've been doing artistic nude work for longer than most here have been alive and have often received queries from both models and parents about including 14 to 17 year old girls in my work. I see no valid reason to do so. I have no legal, moral or ethical point to make and my work is about "women", not girls. Oct 03 09 07:34 am Link Why is age such an issue in art? Nude art and 18+... what's with the age of 18? Maturity? Maturity has nothing to do with age. Ability to make good decision is also nothing to do with age. It's the law that has to be written with a fixed age... Too bad for the rest of us artist... but law is law... Oct 03 09 07:35 am Link Theloneous Jones wrote: Yeah, just what we need. More suffering artists who feel compelled to be martyrs for crappy art, and then blame it on society when it all goes to hell for them. Oct 03 09 07:35 am Link Jeff Mason wrote: Im not suffering (the art is crappy, Ill give you that one) and I dont know where the word blame comes into all this but I will say society, especially in 2009 is full of so many loopholes and condtridictions that allowing your lifestyle do be dictated by Nancy Grace is weak. Regardless of the issue, dont let the 9 o'clock news or your criminal justice class form your opinion. Think, discuss, learn........or play it safe and shoot another female holding a guitar. That what we really need, right? Oct 03 09 07:45 am Link xaveir wrote: Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Oct 03 09 07:51 am Link Theloneous Jones wrote: Well, yes. Open and frank discussion is essential in a free society, and I think we can agree on that. Oct 03 09 07:56 am Link H3D PHOTOGRAPHER wrote: Nods Oct 03 09 07:56 am Link Hollywood wrote: Personally, I wouldn't shoot anyone under 18 nude in any way. Implied, topless, no way. I just wouldn't take any kind of risk like that. Oct 03 09 07:57 am Link Just a thought, is the 1970's film 'Walkabout' seen in the US? In the film there are loads of sexual inuendos and Jenny Agutter (16 at the time) and her brother in the film (age about 10) fully naked (everything shown). In the 1970s version of Romeo and Juliet, Juliet is in bed with Romeo - both naked but only a quick 'flash' of Juliet as she gets out of bed - the actress is 15!! Most laws are aimed at preventing exploitation. If you take images of an under 18 naked for 'art's sake' that's fine. If you take the images to pass around dirty old men, it's wrong!!! Oct 03 09 08:03 am Link |
