Chieffie wrote:

Indeed. I'm so glad I live in The Netherlands

This is why I said the advice received here would be pretty useless to you.
Too colored by irrational fears and a US centric view of the universe.

Accurate Photos wrote:
Why take a chance there are plenty of over 18 year old that you can use and keep your self safe.  It's stupid since your asking you know you shouldn't.

All the other issues here aside (it not being illegal in the US, the OP being in a totally foreign country, etc), the first sentence here VASTLY amuses me since it shows a TOTAL lack of reading comprehension.  These people have approached the PHOTOGRAPHER and asked for the image, he's not trying to "use" anyone for anything.

Out of all the lunacy & hysteria threads on this topic produce, responses like this always make me laugh the most.

Chieffie wrote:
I am assuming the mom agrees. What would YOU do? She's paying for it, but normally I wouldn't shoot a 15 year old this way...

Here's what you do.  Say no.  Walk away.  Remember that SOMEBODY is going to see it as child porn and you'll be tried by a jury of 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

James T Parsons wrote:
In most states, the law says no nudity with underage models, her parents are not given the permission to say the law will not apply with my given consent.. Stay away from this shoot, it is not worth the worry...   jp

I DARE you to cite just ONE of these laws.  Your cite MAY NOT include the words "lewd," "lascivious," ore "sexual."

If you can post ANY such US law making "simple nudity" (especially IMPLIED nudity) illegal I will PayPal you $25.

Grace M wrote:
It's always a good policy to leave the little girls alone. Her mother sounds like she doesn't have good judgment, and the girl is too young to make that kind of decision. Just my opinion.

You'd better tell that to all the 14-17 yr old girls (& the parents thereof) who get signed with mainstream fashion agencies & do shots like this.

Greg Easton Photography wrote:

Here's what you do.  Say no.  Walk away.  Remember that SOMEBODY is going to see it as child porn and you'll be tried by a jury of 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

So you're familiar enough with the legal system IN HOLLAND where the OP lives to say this?  Do you even know if they use 12 person juries there?  Or what the child porn laws are?

James T Parsons wrote:
In most states, the law says no nudity with underage models, her parents are not given the permission to say the law will not apply with my given consent.. Stay away from this shoot, it is not worth the worry...   jp

while you sound like you know what you are talking about, you couldn't be more wrong....there is no state that outlaws photographing minors in nude or implied nude images..

they all have laws where terms like: sexual contact or simulated contact, lascivious displays of genitalia...are used, but none for simple non-sexual nudity.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Get a good lawyer . . .
Are your really that nuts to even consider this for more than a half second ?

shhhhhh, don't ruin all the fun.

Doug Swinskey wrote:

while you sound like you know what you are talking about, you couldn't be more wrong....there is no state that outlaws photographing minors in nude or implied nude images..

they all have laws where terms like: sexual contact or simulated contact, lascivious displays of genitalia...are used, but none for simple non-sexual nudity.

We have to stop agreeing with each other Doug.  This's 2 threads in one day.  People are going to start to talk. 

Chieffie wrote:
So here's the deal:

My colleague's daughter, 15 years old, s paying me to shoot her. My colleague, her mother, is also present. Now she has mailed me she wants to do an implied topless, much like this one:


I am assuming the mom agrees. What would YOU do? She's paying for it, but normally I wouldn't shoot a 15 year old this way...

Oh heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll NO!

I'm too damn cute to be in prison over that dumb shit!

Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit...my cherry ass would get flipped and tripped six ways from Sunday in prison!

So my final answer (in case you didn't catch it the first time around?)

NO.

15 could get you 20!

Jose Luis wrote:
Id shoot it- whats the big deal?  An implied topless shot is not necessarily illegal and it doesnt have to be sexual

Please read your words here

Jose Luis wrote:
Id shoot it- whats the big deal?  An implied topless shot is not necessarily illegal and it doesnt have to be sexual

Swank Photography wrote:
Please read your words here

Yep, they're wrong.  The correct wording is "not illegal at all in any way, shape, or form, although IN THE US they might bring you unwanted legal attention."

Since the op is NOT IN THE US, but rather in HOLLAND, and I doubt any of us know the law there, these types of statements are pretty meaningless.

SLE Photography wrote:

You'd better tell that to all the 14-17 yr old girls (& the parents thereof) who get signed with mainstream fashion agencies & do shots like this.

Thank you, SLE.  Underage fashion and beauty models do full nudes (gasp)
Its not illegal here or Holland.  Yes we all know that 'guy' that innocent mope
who's serving five life sentences for shooting a under age nude.  Expect nobody
knows his name.  The case or state it happened in.  Key here though isn't
the law its the way people tend to view things.

That's the problem.  Lets say someone complained to the media.  A friend
of the family or like what happened in the Wal-Mart case where a mom was
arrested for taking cute nudes of her kids.  Nothing sexual.  The charges were
dropped after a few days.  The damage to their family may never be repaired.
How would most of us been seen by the general public when fellow artists think its
bad. 

Some one mentioned Miley Cyrus and her semi-nudes: http://oddculture.com/2008/04/28/hannah … nity-fair/
She and her family took some heat for that.  Now just imagine your a everyday
shooter not one connected to a major magazine.  You do some shots like she
has.  People see them and wonder....   That's the problem.  Illegal, no.
Maybe ruin you, yes.

Of course odds are it would never come to that.  I don't shoot children so
its not a issue for me.

Tony Lawrence wrote:

Thank you, SLE.  Underage fashion and beauty models do full nudes (gasp)
Its not illegal here or Holland.  Yes we all know that 'guy' that innocent mope
who's serving five life sentences for shooting a under age nude.  Expect nobody
knows his name.  The case or state it happened in.  Key here though isn't
the law its the way people tend to view things.

That's the problem.  Lets say someone complained to the media.  A friend
of the family or like what happened in the Wal-Mart case where a mom was
arrested for taking cute nudes of her kids.  Nothing sexual.  The charges were
dropped after a few days.  The damage to their family may never be repaired.
How would most of us been seen by the general public when fellow artists think its
bad. 

Some one mentioned Miley Cyrus and her semi-nudes: http://oddculture.com/2008/04/28/hannah … nity-fair/
She and her family took some heat for that.  Now just imagine your a everyday
shooter not one connected to a major magazine.  You do some shots like she
has.  People see them and wonder....   That's the problem.  Illegal, no.
Maybe ruin you, yes.

Of course odds are it would never come to that.  I don't shoot children so
its not a issue for me.

Yep.  I've always said in these threads it's not ILLEGAL but may not be a GOOD IDEA because it might bring unwanted attention.

The hysteria in these threads is to laugh, tho, and given that the OP is in a foreign country with different laws & different public standards it's just bizarre to see the people who ALWAYS ('cause there're a few people who jump in every one of these threads) post bad information about the US try & do the same for a foreign country too.  Bad enough they don't understand the laws in their own country, but they want to try & apply those misunderstandings to foreign nations?

GTFO.

Sarah Pictures wrote:
You should not do your daughter or anyone's at the age.

Oh great.  The "your daughter" line.  *yawn*

Sarah Pictures wrote:
This business should be reserved for matured peoples for the right reason.

So you know this girl AND her mom & are certain neither of them are mature or doing this for the right reason?  What about Miley Cyrus & her family?  Kate Moss & her family, since Kate did FULL NUDES at that age?  What about any number of working fashion girls who do it?  YOU know they're ALL too immature & doing it for the wrong reasons?

What, exactly, ARE those "wrong reasons"?  Are there any reasons which, in your considered judgment, would be "right"?

Sarah Pictures wrote:
I have not respect for those who misuse children or others.

And how is taking a contracted job creating an image someone requests "misusing" them?

Shizam1 wrote:
I would read all the previous threads on under-aged models

Personally, myself, I wouldn't even consider it unless this is highly paid.  Plenty of 18+ models who will do implied topless.

Chieffie wrote:
It's not even that I want the shot.. She wants it... I can get plenty models myself, but she's paying me for it... Not top-dollar though, just  35,00

35 Euros is not worth the controversy.

Robert Winn Photography wrote:
It would not be illegal in the US.

it's clear you have no idea what you are talking about...

zarihs wrote:
just say know these kind o deals always end up like this

http://www.google.com.pk/search?hl=en&s … =&aq=f&oq=

Talk about inflaming a situation with a irrelevent post. Nothing in the OP said anything about raping the model.

zarihs wrote:
just say know these kind o deals always end up like this

http://www.google.com.pk/search?hl=en&s … =&aq=f&oq=

WTF?  Such things "always" end up in accusations that the photographer RAPED the model?

Even for a thread like this, and they're inevitably full of nonsense, this is beyond the pale.

DVine Studio wrote:
I would talk to the mother about why it's not such a great idea and steer her in a different direction that will please her so you can still do the shoot, just something more age appropriate.

Uh... Why isn't it a great idea?  I'm not saying it IS a great one, I'm just asking for your take on why it isn't. 

5th Element Photography wrote:
I wouldnt do it. Just my Opinion. I wouldnt want to even risk the chance of seeing an under-age girl topless. Its ok if others would shoot, but Its not my thing

You'd have a hard time going to the beach, or even some public parks, where the OP lives then, 'cause where he lives underage girls are allowed to sunbathe & swim topless.