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...

I don't get it?  If you normally would not shoot a 15 yr old this way, why are you asking?   

Either do it, and if you find out later you have violated some law in your country, be ready to pay the price.  If you haven't broken any law, just do it.

Why do these types of posts keep going on?   If you are looking for validation, you will always find it from someone, no matter what your question is.

OP.. do you know the laws in your country concerning photography of minors?

MArk Rowe Photography wrote:
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?

No, it is because the OP is in Holland.  People don't seem to get it.  For all you know, the OP could have been sitting around naked in the sauna with the coleague and the daughter when the topic came up.  Things are that open there when it comes to nudity, and mixed sex saunas, spas and beaches are totally common.

The world is not judged by America conservatism.

MArk Rowe Photography wrote:
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?

why is that people that know nothing about the laws and legalities, falsely claim something is illegal, when it clearly is not?

MArk Rowe Photography wrote:
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?

Usually it's because insists something is illegal when their experience with the laws involved say otherwise.

Essentially, they're trying to explain to someone that what they believe isn't fact.

You could correct their beliefs if you could show some facts to back up your belief.

MArk Rowe Photography wrote:
Perception goes a long way in this game.

Absolutely. If an American asked about this, I'd be inclined to recommend they not do so--but not for legal reasons; simply because enough people believe it's illegal that it would be socially problematic. Since I don't know the laws and culture for the OP's area, however, I wouldn't presume to impose such a broad stance.

Yet you claimed it was "illegal for you and the parents to be doing this", and that it's "blatant child abuse", both of which are statements about legality, and both of which appear to be incorrect.

MArk Rowe Photography wrote:
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.

I'm very curious to see the exact laws on this.

Could you link them, please?

Isn't there now a rule about not posting misinformation in an industry thread?

MArk Rowe Photography wrote:
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.

How do you know it's illegal? Are you an expert in Dutch Law? Or do you even know what the legal position would be in your own English law?

MArk Rowe Photography wrote:
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?

It's not illegal.

MArk Rowe Photography wrote:
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?

Many photographers don't have "family style clients." Or don't care what others think.

MArk Rowe Photography wrote:
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.

Have you considered the massive fallout from spreading blatantly false information and forcing your morals on others?

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...

Nope, dont do it.  Under age, mean problems in the future.  what if the mom is ok with it, but the dad finds out and isn't?   This can't be a good choice to do.

sfphotojournal wrote:
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

So the ONLY two questions in the US are:

(1)  Do you want to shoot it? 

(2)  Are you going to pose it in a sexually explicit manner.  The reference picture posted by the OP, to me, is not sexually explicit.  So as long as it keeps away from "sexually explicit", you are okay.

Naked does not equal "sexually explicit".

Chieffie wrote:
"2256 and 2257 regs"

I have NO idea what these are, and I'm pretty sure we don't have them in Holland. Also, it's NOT illegal to do implied nude with 15 Y/O here, this is just me asking you guys what you would do...

If it's legal and you're fine with it then proceed accordingly.  I might ask the mother to write a hand written letter stating her wanting and permission for you to shoot the implied shots and then sign it.

MArk Rowe Photography wrote:
Guys, in this case, its not always what it is...its more about what it looks like.

If you are the Do it! queue, i hope your past, present and future clients are watching you from the distance.

I think you are operating under the false pretense that every photographer here does this for a living and has a client base.

But please clarify - first you said it was illegal, and now you are saying it isn't, but is still wrong because it looks immoral?

MArk Rowe Photography wrote:
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.

Didn't hurt him.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078111/

Chieffie wrote:
Actually, reading all these answers it occurred to me that I'm not comfortable doing it, even if it is legal... I've just mailed her saying so...

Well, if I had read from the beginning instead of the last post and reading backwards, I would have noticed this by the OP.

This was  on the first page... LOL

Moot point everyone.  Keep going at each other if you have nothing else to do.    The OP has left the building.. or at least says he ain't gonna do it.

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
OP you really have to state in HUGE BOLD letters that you are not based in US when posting here.
SLE the hysteria actually makes me sad
The glut of ignorance....doesn't bode well for the future.

EVERY time this subject comes up, it’s the same kind of trainwreck fueled by hysteria, incorrect information, paranoia, and general foolishness.

MArk Rowe Photography wrote:
Guys, in this case, its not always what it is...its more about what it looks like.

If you are the Do it! queue, i hope your past, present and future clients are watching you from the distance.

How odd that you would hold these views as a fashion shooter.  Many of those
who appear partly nude for fashion are under 18 and this is TAME in comparison.
There are no laws against simple nudes of minors in the US.  Sexual, yes illegal.
Would most of us consider a beautiful image like this sexual?  I wouldn't
What does that say about you or those who might define a image of a underage
boy with his shirt off as sexual.  Frankly you can see more of teen age girls
at most malls or the beach.

Your morals aren't what the laws state.  Your sexual views aren't shared by
others.  This is Holland for goodness sake.

MArk Rowe Photography wrote:
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.

Hysteria, fearmongering, blatantly false information, and prudish repressive attitudes are far more damaging to all of us than any implied nudes that the model ASKED for could ever be.

You should be brigged for this kind of posting.

MArk Rowe Photography wrote:
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.

You have no idea of what you are talking about. Unless there is a sexual context there is no question of the legality whatsoever. Not in the US, not in Europe in general, and certainly not in the Netherlands.

Seriously. These posts of yours are doing more damage to the photographic community than any implied nude ever could.

David Westlake 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.

SLE Photography 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?

(And let's not have anyone bring up crazy stupid arguments like that of female genital mutilation as a matter of cultural standards here... that's something that demonstrably does harm, whereas a 15 yr old doing an implied or someone having fido-foo-yung does not.)

David Westlake 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.

Thank you for making my point about foolishly absurd examples by equating a distaste for pork with beating someone for dressing in a manner you don't like.

Much like my initial example of eating domestic animals vs genital mutilation, you've demonstrated that you feel YOUR biases outweigh ANYONE else's without regard for scale or demonstrable harm.

MArk Rowe Photography wrote:
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.

First, I don't see anyone really encouraging him.  What I see is a number of us making the points that a) people are trying to apply US standards to another country where things are different, b) that people here seem to be functionally illiterate & don't get that the person they're speaking to is in ANOTHER COUNTRY where the US laws they're quoting don't apply, and c) the US laws they're quoting GENERALLY DO NOT EXIST.

Several of us have also said it's a BAD idea that might bring negative fallout, at least in this country, but that doesn't necessarily make it automatically illegal or immoral.  What we HAVE been saying is that there's a lot of hysteria & bad information spewed about in these threads, and that people should know & consider all the FACTS... not the nonsense the hysterics are shrieking.

As for the rest of your points, you immediately quoted Dave:

dave wright sf wrote:
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

Now be serious... that's massive hypocrisy against your comments about family work & perception.  If that was SUCH an issue, then people SEEING the image who WOULD NOT KNOW she was clothed & retouched would treat him EXACTLY as if he really HAD shot her topless.

That sort of poor thinking is the issue here, you guys can't even maintain consistency in your OWN ARGUMENTS.

ei Total Productions wrote:
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.

SLE Photography wrote:
I'm familiar with it.  Still doesn't cover the level of craziness in this thread.

ei Total Productions wrote:
Why should this thread be any different from any other thread, even though this whole thing would be a big yawn in Holland.

Dunno, the whole "It will inevitably lead to accusations that you're a rapist!" line's a new one on me.

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...

Don't go there! Protect yourself and let her go elsewhere if she wants to shoot that stuff at her age. At least you can't get into any trouble if things so south with the pics taken....'cause you didn't do it

Kevin Connery wrote:
Usually it's because insists something is illegal when their experience with the laws involved say otherwise.

Essentially, they're trying to explain to someone that what they believe isn't fact.

You could correct their beliefs if you could show some facts to back up your belief.

Thank you Kevin.  100% correct.  Unfortunately this's one of those things where people are SO wrapped up in the false belief & it's SO deeply tied in with other things (usually their desire to assert their self-proclaimed "superior" morals over others) that it's almost impossible to reason with them.  They demand we prove it's NOT illegal & we point to the simple absence of laws making it illegal & they insist it still is. 

Kevin Connery wrote:
Yet you claimed it was "illegal for you and the parents to be doing this", and that it's "blatant child abuse", both of which are statements about legality, and both of which appear to be incorrect.

Exactly.  The "blatant child abuse" line, the false claim of illegality, and the ad hominem attack on nude shooters clearly show what agenda is at work there.  Which circles back to my above comments about a lack of basis for rational discussion. 

MakingShotsPhotography wrote:
Don't do it. Let them find another person to do it...

+1

MArk Rowe Photography wrote:
If the US and UK were to reduce the classification of 'child' age limit down to 14, there will be a ton of happy photographers.

Wow - just wow.

You don't try to cram your morals down people throats, do you?

And I notice you havn't clarified the question I asked you earlier.

MArk Rowe Photography wrote:
Guys, in this case, its not always what it is...its more about what it looks like.

If you are the Do it! queue, i hope your past, present and future clients are watching you from the distance.

Have you considered that you're spewing blatant misinformation, asserting that your morals are correct over all others, misrepresenting what people are saying, and generally making yourself look legally incompetent & incapable of conducting a civil conversation?

IMO, if clients are watching, that's a lot more likely to make you look bad to them than me.

MArk Rowe Photography wrote:
If the US and UK were to reduce the classification of 'child' age limit down to 14, there will be a ton of happy photographers.

Wow.  Just wow.

MArk Rowe Photography wrote:
Even if it was a 15 year old who looks 25, she is still a 15 year old. Its does not matter if another country has a law that defines the age of consent to be 13, she is still 15.

Yes the Netherlands has the same as the UK in terms of age of consent (16) and somewhere as close as Spain has (13) which is amazing to me.

But again my point its not about the laws. A 15 year old is a 15 year old on earth.

So you are saying it doesn't matter what the laws of a country are - we should all base our actions on the moral laws of Mark Rowe?