|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
15 year old implied topless.. What would you do???
http://www.dutchamsterdam.nl/128-spence … -amsterdam mmm..I'd say Holland is pretty relaxed about nudity. Feb 22 10 11:02 am Link OP, maybe, you're being tested. lol Feb 22 10 11:03 am Link SLE Photography wrote: Sarah Pictures wrote: Oh great. The "your daughter" line. *yawn* Sarah Pictures wrote: 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? Take a look. A member has a link to cases of rape or sexual abuse cases of Feb 22 10 11:03 am Link Photos are taken everyday of nudist families (in the U.S. and other countries) and posted online or in print media. These include naked children. No one goes to jail over these, because their use and the manner in how they are obtained are absolutely legal. The photos are typically candid snapshots in style and quality. Even if genitals are shown, they do not constitute child pornography. And on another note, minors have appeared naked in films for years. One example of an underage actress portraying a main character that appears numerous times in the buff or at least topless is "Blame it on Rio". No one arrested the producer, the director or sued the production company. Feb 22 10 11:05 am Link Greg Easton Photography wrote: SLE Photography wrote: Even we ignorant Americans understand that the social mores and laws in Europe are much different than they are in the US. Females of all ages go topless at beaches many countries outside the US so the issue of an adult male simply seeing a topless teenage girl is somewhat moot. In my narrow American mind the issue is the age appropriateness of this type of image of a 15 year old. Just because something is legal in whatever country one resides in doesn't make it tasteful or appropriate. Feb 22 10 11:09 am Link SLE Photography wrote: Given that a good chunk of people couldn't find the United States or Holland on a globe if you handed it to them this shouldn't be a surprise. Feb 22 10 11:10 am Link zarihs wrote: "We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are." Anais Nin Feb 22 10 11:11 am Link David Westlake wrote: And who determines that? Feb 22 10 11:11 am Link Do NOT do it if you are conflicted ! Send them to me and I'll do the job (I live near by). I'd say no if the parents would not be involved but yes if they are and it does not go further to what I see on the beach every summer 20 miles from Amsterdam... :-) Feb 22 10 11:14 am Link It is interesting how long this thread has gone on considering that the OP is in Holland. I take it most of you aren't old enough to remember the pressure put on Holland and Sweden to make child pornography illegal. Feb 22 10 11:15 am Link robert b mitchell wrote: So because YOU wouldn't do it with YOUR kids SHE need HER head examined? Wow. Must be nice to be able to blindly apply your own standards & cultural biases to all parents worldwide. Feb 22 10 11:19 am Link Chieffie wrote: Feb 22 10 11:21 am Link It is illegal for you and the parents to be doing this even if the child agrees with this. This amounts to blatant child abuse in any country, state or whatever. I know that some togs will come in here and try to tell you otherwise. keep well away from this. Feb 22 10 11:22 am Link Please keep in mind, most, if not all of your response have come from people living in the uptight, hypocritical US. Having travelled and worked extensively around the globe most other cultures and countries do not view this as a problem. I say if the mom is at the shoot and both the mom and daughter sign an approval I would do it. This is very tasteful and your society/country is very progressive. Wishing you all the best!!! Cheers, Bob www.floridaglamour.com "be a part of it..." Feb 22 10 11:22 am Link David Westlake wrote: Agreed, but keep in mind that "tasteful or appropriate" are judgments based on CULTURAL BIASES... for instance, most people in the US find the idea of eating a cat or a dog repugnant, but in parts of Asia it's perfectly acceptable. Do we have the right to impose our standards on them? Feb 22 10 11:22 am Link Tony Lawrence wrote: Oh, I agree Tony. That's why I always say (and have in this thread) that IN THE US this is probably not a great idea for many photographers. That doesn't mean a lot of what's being said still isn't garbage. Feb 22 10 11:24 am Link Yes, it's completely illegal to do implied shots of 15 year olds. That's why you never see anything like this: http://blogs.glam.com/glamchic/files/20 … -miley.jpg Feb 22 10 11:25 am Link ei Total Productions wrote: I'm familiar with it. Still doesn't cover the level of craziness in this thread. Feb 22 10 11:26 am Link Sally Mann had no problem with doing more than implied topless of her kids. The link below is to one of her images. It's okay...it's "art." What I don't understand is how she could do this but if you take a picture like this to be developed in a lab, they will call the cops and you'll probably be arrested. http://images.artnet.com/WebServices/pi … filetype=2 Feb 22 10 11:27 am Link MArk Rowe Photography wrote: UTTER rubbish. Show me a law where it's illegal in Holland, or the US. As I understand it, it's now illegal in the UK where you live but that doesn't mean it is EVERYWHERE. And I would imagine the reason it's now illegal in the UK because of people like you equating it with abuse. Feb 22 10 11:27 am Link David Westlake wrote: Greg Kolack wrote: Apparently the OP. The fact that he posted this thread seeking advice indicates that he is not comfortable about photographing a 15 year old girl that way. It is ultimately up to him where to set his limits. Feb 22 10 11:28 am Link MakingShotsPhotography wrote: ditto! Feb 22 10 11:29 am Link MArk Rowe Photography wrote: you clearly have no clue with what you're talking about... Feb 22 10 11:30 am Link Christine Eadie wrote: Because recognized artists & working industry pros don't get subjected to the same attention as local moms & small town basement studio shooters. Feb 22 10 11:30 am Link Tony Lawrence wrote: HOW do people see them? Feb 22 10 11:30 am Link SLE Photography wrote: In the UK? Could you show me something to that effect? Feb 22 10 11:32 am Link SLE Photography wrote: Davepit wrote: I said "as I understand it" because I'm not 100% sure, but I know I've read some stuff about how Page 3 girls & lad-mag models used to be as young as 16 but the law was changed a few years back to require them to be 18. I'm not certain of the particulars or how far-reaching those legal changes were. I'll ask studio36uk about it. Feb 22 10 11:36 am Link United States Department of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) Citizen's Guide to United States Federal Child Exploitation Laws Child Pornography Child pornography is defined by law as the visual depiction of a person under the age of 18 engaged in sexually explicit conduct. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2256(1) and (8). This means that any image of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct is illegal contraband. Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. See 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2). A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. In addition, for purposes of the child pornography statutes, federal law considers a person under the age of 18 to be a child. See 18 U.S.C. § 2256(1). http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/ci … _porn.html ___________ Federal Bureau of Investigation Innocent Images National Initiative Online Child Pornography/Child Sexual Exploitation Investigations The Innocent Images National Initiative (IINI), a component of FBI's Cyber Crimes Program, is an intelligence driven, proactive, multi-agency investigative operation to combat the proliferation of child pornography/child sexual exploitation (CP/CSE) facilitated by an online computer. Innocent Images Statistical Accomplishments Online child pornography/child sexual exploitation investigations, which are worked under the FBI's Innocent Images National Initiative, accounted for 39 percent of all investigations worked under the FBI's Cyber Division in fiscal year 2007. Innocent Images grew exponentially between fiscal years 1996 and 2007 with a: 2062 percent increase in Cases Opened (113 to 2443) 1003 percent increase in Informations & Indictments (99 to 1092) 2501 percent increase in Arrests, Locates & Summons (68 to 1769) 1404 percent increase in Convictions & Pretrial Diversions (68 to 1023) Between fiscal years 1996-2007, the Innocent Images National Initiative has recorded the following statistical accomplishments: Number of Cases Opened: 20,134 Number of Informations & Indictments: 6,844 Number of Arrests, Locates & Summons: 9,469 Number of Convictions & Pretrial Diversions: 6,863 http://www.fbi.gov/publications/innocent.htm __________________________ This discussion pertains only the United States Law. The issue here isnât about free speech, artistic merit or even the prudishness of Americans. The issue is whether you will be exposed to criminal investigation and prosecution and the associated costs. As shown above, The Department of Justice has a very broad definition of what constitutes child pornography, and that The Department of Justice, through The Federal Bureau of Investigation, has greatly increased its investigation, prosecution and conviction of cases against those involved in child pornography. You have been approached by a colleague who wished to have implied nude photographs taken of her minor child. The problem here is that though the mother has given consent, what about the father? If the father has custodial rights, and even if he doesnât, he can certainly lodge a criminal complaints against you. Understand that the vast majority of child pornography investigations are initiated by citizen complaints. If law enforcement and the prosecutors see merit in such a complaint, they will certainly start a criminal investigation against you as the photographer. As a practical matter, your computer equipment will be seized, your photographic equipment will be seized, your family, colleagues, and friend will be interviewed, and all aspects of your personal life will be under scrutiny. In the worst case, you may also be interrogated and perhaps even jailed during part of the investigation. The investigation may also be released to the media. You will most certainly have to retain an attorney. There will those that will argue that there wouldnât be any merit in this scenario. That you will be protected by artistic merit and free speech, and perhaps one would be vindicated in court. But foremost, a person must consider whether he can bear the monetary and emotional cost. You could also be sued civilly. Remember that a minor can not enter into a contract, except in certain situations such as emancipation by the courts. Custodians of the child must stand in her place. As noted above, her mother has given consent, but whether the father has is unclear. Absent consent of all the parties, you may be exposing yourself to liabilities under privacy law, such as false light or misappropriation of likeness. You may also be exposing yourself to liabilities under tort law, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress or even possibly battery, if there was physical contact between you and the minor. Though ultimately, the decision is yours and yours alone, I would certainly counsel caution. Remember, no good deed goes unpunished. Feb 22 10 12:40 pm Link you could shoot her in a bikini top and photoshop out the string or shoot her in a bikini top, and then find a third-party retoucher Feb 22 10 12:47 pm Link David Westlake wrote: SLE Photography wrote: In some countries in the middle east the fact that westerners eat pork is considered repugnant and a woman seen in public without a burka will likely be flogged. The fact that the OP is expressing some level of discomfort indicates to me that even in Holland an implied topless shot of a 15 year old girl could be frowned upon. Feb 22 10 01:05 pm Link Why is it always the ones that intensively shoot nude trying to convince others regardless if it is legal or not for the photographer to shoot this? Its almost like they are willing to do what it takes to shoot up to the limit. Do you honestly think that family style clients will ever let you shoot thier children in normal shoots after you engage in this kind of photography? Have you considered the massive fall out from even engaging in such a shoot will do for your reputation? Even if the shots are fantastic, you will still be looked upon as the photographer who shot the minor in a nudity implied style. Perception goes a long way in this game. Feb 22 10 01:11 pm Link dave wright sf wrote: Feb 22 10 01:12 pm Link MArk Rowe Photography wrote: Sometimes the appearance of impropriety can be damaging. Feb 22 10 01:13 pm Link This will be my second "Run, Forest Run, comment of the day. I know this goes on in the fashion world, but I won't shoot anyone under 18 without all the appropriate stuff covered up at all times - I don't want to be anywhere near the child at any time without clothing on. That's in general. What would really scare me off of this assignment, however, is that it is the child of a colleague. There are just too many potential pitfalls to make this a good idea. Feb 22 10 01:13 pm Link ... just RUN! No matter what nothing good can come of the situation, your friendship with your colleague included. Feb 22 10 01:13 pm Link If the caps fits. David Westlake wrote: Feb 22 10 01:19 pm Link BAIL BAIL BAIL. Feb 22 10 01:22 pm Link If Mom signs off on it and its non sexualized, I don't see what the big flipping deal is. Bunch of paranoid ninny nannies. Feb 22 10 01:22 pm Link MArk Rowe Photography wrote: Wait...what's that I smell? Oh, it's just one big pile of steaming bullshit. Carry on. Feb 22 10 01:23 pm Link ei Total Productions wrote: SLE Photography wrote: Why should this thread be any different from any other thread, even though this whole thing would be a big yawn in Holland. Feb 22 10 01:31 pm Link |
