Angela Michelle Perez wrote:
OMG a girl was talking on MM about this guy before  she had a thread in Model colloguy I asked her who the photographer was she said he found her on facebook and had shot photos of her nude when she was 17 and  he was also taking photos of her friends still who were still under age she sent me the link to his facebook and this was the same dude. I still have the private message from her telling me about this guy.

What a coincindence. I had asked her who she was talking about because she was local to me.


This is the thread

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 847&page=1


The Photographer the OP is talking about it's the same guy in the news.


Atleast I can say I heard it on MM before it hit the news.

WTH?!  I just read her OP...OMG...peekaboob shots?  my V?  do people really talk like that?!

SKITA Studios wrote:

In MA, damages against the state are limited to $100K.  That's why it's common to file a civil suit as well against the arresting officer.  However, the officer's lawyer gets paid by the state (aka, our taxes).
They can pretty much do whatever they want to you here... :-P

p.s., I posted a link to this story in the off-topic forum yesterday, but only one person replied...funny how this thread is huge here :-)

How did you title the thread? Guess it didn't have a Fox News slant to it, right?

studio36uk wrote:
@ ei Total Productions

FWIW a prosecution under 29A [making the image] apparently does not even hinge on intent. The phrase “lascivious intent” does not appear in the text of that section, though it does appear in 29B [disseminating the image] and elsewhere e.g. Sec 31.

Yes, and THAT is  s c a r r y!!!! It is a law of strict liability.

Studio36

Ummm, yeah it does:

Section 29A. (a) Whoever, either with knowledge that a person is a child under eighteen years of age or while in possession of such facts that he should have reason to know that such person is a child under eighteen years of age, and with lascivious intent,

You must have just missed it because it is further into the statute.

And actually, 29A is is not a strict liability statute because you have to show that he had knowledge that the person was under eighteen or had reason to know that she was under eighteen.  The point is that it seems that being presented a credible fake ID would be a defense in Mass as might be any other defense that you didn't have knowledge that the model was under eighteen and had no legitimate reason to believe she was under age.

The mere fact that the model is underaged, isn't in itself sufficient.

It is still all pretty scary.

ei Total Productions wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
@ ei Total Productions

FWIW a prosecution under 29A [making the image] apparently does not even hinge on intent. The phrase “lascivious intent” does not appear in the text of that section, though it does appear in 29B [disseminating the image] and elsewhere e.g. Sec 31.

Yes, and THAT is  s c a r r y!!!! It is a law of strict liability.

Studio36

Ummm, yeah it does:


You must have just missed it because it is further into the statute.

And actually, 29A is is not a strict liability statute because you have to show that he had knowledge that the person was under eighteen or had reason to know that she was under eighteen.  The point is that it seems that being presented a credible fake ID would be a defense in Mass as might be any other defense that you didn't have knowledge that the model was under eighteen and had no legitimate reason to believe she was under age.

The mere fact that the model is underaged, isn't in itself sufficient.

It is still all pretty scary.

not only is it not strict liability that particular statute has been hammered 3 times by the courts and changed every time.  Convictions under the current version are sparse.  I wasn't going to bring this into the discussion when I mentioned the 'doodoo' because I hate turning a good debate into law brief.  But now  that we are talking about law, the ghost of Mass vs Oakes is hanging over this case, because if they fail again and/or if it ends up turning on what is lascivious or not its gonna be reallly bad news for prosecution.  There are only so many times you can amend a statute after challenge before it becomes clear to courts that its grandstanding and not useful law.

CGI Images wrote:
Maybe a bit off to the side but I find it interesting the girl that was the "victim" still seems to proudly display what I'd call provocative images.  And I also noticed she has a tatoo on her neck, this is really what people consider an "innocent child"?

Just sayin.

If this goes further the thread the 'victim' posted and the follow up
threads started by another shooter may come into play.  This girl may not be
so innocent but it won't help the photographer.  Bets are the images may not
be found.  Several other things though.  She's worked with several MM shooters.
One of whom has some pretty sexy imagery. 

Her profile here clearly states she's 17 however.  This may turn into a huge
mess with some of those she's worked with in the past drug into it.  Did
she also pose nude for them?  Semi-nude for provocative photos?  Where
are her parents?  She's under 18, was she at these men's homes alone.
I don't shoot people under 18 much and when I do with a parent around.
Its not illegal but I don't have a studio or business location. 

This does it for me.  Under 18, no way.

ei Total Productions wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
@ ei Total Productions

FWIW a prosecution under 29A [making the image] apparently does not even hinge on intent. The phrase “lascivious intent” does not appear in the text of that section, though it does appear in 29B [disseminating the image] and elsewhere e.g. Sec 31.

Yes, and THAT is  s c a r r y!!!! It is a law of strict liability.

Studio36

Ummm, yeah it does:
You must have just missed it because it is further into the statute.

Section 29A. (a) Whoever, either with knowledge that a person is a child under eighteen years of age or while in possession of such facts that he should have reason to know that such person is a child under eighteen years of age, and with lascivious intent,

You are correct on a further reading of that. I do note, however, that 29A(b) is differently worded.

ei Total Productions wrote:
And actually, 29A is is not a strict liability statute because you have to show that he had knowledge that the person was under eighteen or had reason to know that she was under eighteen.  The point is that it seems that being presented a credible fake ID would be a defense in Mass as might be any other defense that you didn't have knowledge that the model was under eighteen and had no legitimate reason to believe she was under age.

The mere fact that the model is underaged, isn't in itself sufficient.

It is still all pretty scary.

As noted in my response to your PM and the reason it could get even more scary at some future date.

Studio36

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
There are only so many times you can amend a statute after challenge before it becomes clear to courts that its grandstanding and not useful law.

That's probably true but you know and I know that: "They's gonna protect them chillens at all costs" [even from themselves]

Studio36

CGI Images wrote:
Maybe a bit off to the side but I find it interesting the girl that was the "victim" still seems to proudly display what I'd call provocative images.  And I also noticed she has a tatoo on her neck, this is really what people consider an "innocent child"?

Just sayin.

Good point. I also have noticed a few 17 y/o models with statements to the effect of "These are the types of shoots I do, but if you want to know or shoot something else, just ask, don't be shy".
With those statements one should likely just move on and shoot someone older.

No matter, the young person's intent or motivation, the responsibility will always be on the older more mature person to insure there is no possibility of misunderstanding or wrong doing.

Lynn Helms Photography wrote:
I, too, am disturbed that the media and the surrounding community have already found him guilty. I don't know if he did anything wrong or not but what I saw in that 'news' story had him convicted and guilty without any compelling evidence. Maybe he is a huge perv but that still does not make him a child pornographer. Maybe he's not even anything but a photographer. The point is we don't know.

+1

No matter the truth, this guy will always be branded a perv.
Just as the victims' identities are kept confidential, so should the accused....until they are found guilty according to the law and not just according to the media and the public. Then string 'um up publicly.

Dario Western wrote:
This is what's so screwed up about America - David Hamilton and Jock Sturges and Sally Mann are allowed to sell images of similar stuff in bookshops but this guy is treated just like a rapist or a paedophile?

America is a sick country and has the worst people working in the media.  I pray for one whole year that nobody is able to speak or write a single lie and see how things will change.  Maybe that could be the making of a sequel to Jim Carrey's film "Liar, Liar". 

If Americans didn't get so uptight with nudity or sex unlike most European people, then things would be in a much better state.

Curse Queen Victoria and the Comstock regime, may both of them rot in hell.

Mann and Sturges have had thier own problems with American prudery....

Interesting this is the same county that see's nothing wrong with putting make up and heels on a 5 year old for a "pagent"

rp_photo wrote:
Does not having a home studio and mostly shooting on location lower the risk of such accusations?

Why?  I would think shooting in my professional studio with a crew would raise less suspicions.

Newray wrote:
Interesting how tastes change.

Precis of Wiki: The Sun (13 million reader Murdoch newspaper) and other British tabloids featured girls as young as 16 as topless models. Samantha Fox, Maria Whittaker, Debee Ashby, and many others began their topless modelling careers in The Sun at 16. Such photographs were legally permissible in the United Kingdom under the Protection of Children Act 1978. Controversy over these young models ended when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 raised the minimum age for topless modelling to 18.

It didn't raise the minimum age for nude/topless modeling to 18, it made it illegal to take indecent photos of people under 18.  It is a vague term which isn't well defined.

So the current status is that it is perfectly legal to take nude photos of minors in the UK, so long as the nude photos are not indecent.  Of course, nobody knows what the term means and it is generally left for the court to decide on a case by case basis.

ei Total Productions wrote:
So the current status is that it is perfectly legal to take nude photos of minors in the UK, so long as the nude photos are not indecent.  Of course, nobody knows what the term means and it is generally left for the court to decide on a case by case basis.

Indeed and the phrase attached to that during the original debates leading to the passage of the Protection of Children Act was that the term, and the interpretation of the meaning of "indecent":

"is an issue of fact best left to a jury"

The lack of a definition was and is intentional. And that is how it stands to this day.

The real reason for the disappearance of the 16 and 17 y/o Page 3 girls is that no one wanted to be, or does today want to be, "the test case", and only a well funded media outlet could financially afford to be one.

Studio36

CGI Images wrote:
Maybe a bit off to the side but I find it interesting the girl that was the "victim" still seems to proudly display what I'd call provocative images.  And I also noticed she has a tatoo on her neck, this is really what people consider an "innocent child"?

Just sayin.

Yeah Dressing like that she's begging to get raped...

Really? You are blaming her? From her post the photographer touched her and kissed her inapropriately. Let's leave it at that and not blame her

delicious_dancer wrote:
If they were not forced and consent was given, also if the photographer has been doing nudes for years as a professional or hobbiest tog then hwy should he be punished.

truth is, we dont know.  All we know is he was arrested and charged and the police didnt have any nude pics of her to show.  and that bail was set at a  rediculously low 5,000$.  he may have been breaking the law for years and never caught or he may have been carefully NOT breaking the law.  I dont think professional or hobbyist enters into it.  The law (and I'm sure our society) does not distinguish in this case.  For every image we might see, Im sure we would all decide in our own minds if that image crossed the line or not, even f each and every one of us had a different idea where the line should be.

terrysphotocountry wrote:
That is one ID he did not check?

He knew and acknowledges she was seventeen.  ID has nothing to do with this.   He says that he didn't take any nude pictures of the girl, and as of yet, the police apparently haven't found any, or at least, they haven't said they have.

Knz-Jade-Kai wrote:
FYI, I know the OP in this thread is a Photographer, in my quote (quoted above) I was asking if the "other thread OP" was in fact the girl that turned the guy in.

And, wondering if we should be discussing the OTHER post's OP's images in THIS thread without the photographer's or her permission. That's all.

kjk

I don't think the OP of that other thread was the girl that they were talking about in the news since the News report said the photoshoot took place two weeks ago only. I'm thinking the "victim" it's a diferent girl that just happened to have accused the same guy.

Angela Michelle Perez wrote:
I don't think the OP of that other thread was the girl that they were talking about in the news since they said the photoshoot took place two weeks ago only. I'm thinking the "victim" it's a diferent girl that just happened to have  accused the same guy.

Interesting thought

Angela Michelle Perez wrote:

I don't think the OP of that other thread was the girl that they were talking about in the news since they said the photoshoot took place two weeks ago only. I'm thinking the "victim" it's a diferent girl that just happened to have  accused the same guy.

why? that thread was started 9 days ago.
so if she had the shoot 14 days ago, asked MM for input 9 days ago, and followed it by going to the cops last week....

Martin Bielecki wrote:
why? that thread was started 9 days ago.
so if she had the shoot 14 days ago, asked MM for input 9 days ago, and followed it by going to the cops last week....

Because in her thread it sounded as if her shoot had taken place a few months ago and not recently.

Plus it's an assumption on your part to think it's her it could have been anybody else accusing the same guy. Remember this guy was recruiting girls from all over facebook it could have been anybody. Lets not act like its a fact that she is the "victim" from this case because no one knows.

Angela Michelle Perez wrote:
I don't think the OP of that other thread was the girl that they were talking about in the news since they said the photoshoot took place two weeks ago only. I'm thinking the "victim" it's a diferent girl that just happened to have  accused the same guy.

Martin Bielecki wrote:
why? that thread was started 9 days ago.
so if she had the shoot 14 days ago, asked MM for input 9 days ago, and followed it by going to the cops last week....

They may well be the same person, but at this point it's just conjecture on our part. Some people seem to be assuming that they are the same.

Angela Michelle Perez wrote:

Because in her thread it sounded as if her shoot had taken place a few months ago and not recently.

Plus it's an assumption on your part to think it's her it could have been anybody else accusing the same guy. Remember this guy was recruiting girls from all over facebook it could have been anybody. Lets not act like its a fact that she is the "victim" from this case because no one knows.

no I get that, I wasn't suggesting she was the girl in question. But the timing doesn't look off to me, in terms of when she sought feedback and when the news broke, regardless of the discrepency between when the shoot took place.

Beatrix Mae wrote:
Yeah Dressing like that she's begging to get raped...

Really? You are blaming her? From her post the photographer touched her and kissed her inapropriately. Let's leave it at that and not blame her

I think it's important to keep a real perspective here: there is a huge disconnect between the categorical way the law treats sex and the way real people treat sex as an evolution in social skills and self awareness. 17 year olds have sex, they have sexual identities, they negotiate social interactions by flirting, etc. I don't think he was blaming her, but let's not infantilize her either. It may not sit well that 17 year old girls choose to wear "sexy 69" outfits and aspire to glamour modeling because they want to be seen as sexually desirable, but that's the way it is. For what it's worth the law is as much a problem here as the "creepy" adult men considering he would be in less trouble if had sex with her (consensually) without ever taking a pic.

And the most important thing to keep in mind: how would any of these issues be different (if at all) if the model were a few months older. Because Terry Richardson is going through the same kinds of accusations of exploitation and the models are so far 'legal'. To that effect I recently read some interesting questions on the topic:

Can a young (adult) model realistically and fully consent when posing sexually for an older photographer? How big of an age range differential is needed before this is an ethical issue? How old must the young (adult) model be before this is not a controversial consent to make? Should we, as a society, consider raising the age of legal consent for young (adult) models to pose sexually from 18 to 21? 25? 30?

Should a model ever be allowed to have sex on camera? With the photographer, or only other models? Should the photographer have a list of all the poses and setups written down and approved beforehand, or should there be any degree of spontaneity during the shoot? How much spontaneity is acceptable? How far in advance should a model know about any possible scenarios for it to be considered informed consent? Does an artist’s existing body of work and reputation count as information that should tenor consent? If the scenarios include sexual poses, does this alter the consent framework?
From: http://claytoncubitt.tumblr.com/post/466172419

Beatrix Mae wrote:
Yeah Dressing like that she's begging to get raped...

Really? You are blaming her? From her post the photographer touched her and kissed her inapropriately. Let's leave it at that and not blame her

The victim is never "at fault" for being attacked, but while there's no excuse for predation, if you know there are predators and you don't take precautions, and then you're victimized, as wrong as it was for the perp, it's still your bad too. My mom left the garage door open and a bunch of her stuff got stolen. She was mad, but mostly at herself for being irresponsible. A friend of mine in college got raped SEVEN times and STILL insisted on walking around in stripper heels and barely-there skirts, traveling alone, drinking alone, and putting herself at risk. There are sharks in the ocean. Go ahead and surf, but if you surf wearing a seal costume you're a dumbass weather you get bitten or not.

Teen girls who play up their sexuality and take risks meant for informed adults are more likely to be targeted by predators than teen girls who don't. If she'd been at home with her face in a book she wouldn't have got groped. It doesn't excuse him, but she's not innocent just because she lost.