Photographer
Russell Imagery
Posts: 684
Marksville, Louisiana, US
CGI Images wrote:
No.. they are not. People are not in jail for legal activities. If they photographed a minor illegally, then perhaps.. like "PORN", but lingerie, even somewhat sexy lingerie is NOT defined as porn.
Like Doug said... show the cases or STFU. If it was as likely for trouble as you say, should be easy for you to find 3 or 4 cases of photographers in jail for taking pictures of "minors" in lingerie/underwear in non-porn fashion. Good luck. Post a minor in lingerie on the site and see how long the image lasts. will you sue MM? Do it or STFU! Why do some people want to be idiotic and test the paths of the criminal justice system is beyond me.
Photographer
Tony Lawrence
Posts: 21526
Chicago, Illinois, US
Russell Imagery wrote:
No, jails are filled with guys who were finding ways to photograh under-age models, for personal use, in sexy lingerie without the permission of a legal guardian. What people? What jails? Cases? States? Every day photographers do swimsuit and
lingerie shots of girls under 18. That's because its not illegal but if it is show
me what state law or federal law its breaking. Personal and moral taste aside.
What laws? I ask because of your claim about the jails being filled with guys.
They are not.
As to what a legal guardian allows. Under age girls go to mall studios
and take swimsuit and lingerie like photos all the time. No parents.
No guardian. Its only on the paranoid MM forums where its a big issue. Lets not
confuse child porn and sexual acts implied or shown with simple images
of a model in swimwear or lingerie. However prove me wrong.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Russell Imagery wrote:
Post a minor in lingerie on the site and see how long the image lasts. will you sue MM? Do it or STFU! Why do some people want to be idiotic and test the paths of the criminal justice system is beyond me. Your seriously saying MM rules are the same as the laws? Really? There really isnt much testing the images in question are FAR from the legal line.
And FYI.. MM doesnt allow porn either, but its still perfectly legal. Except maybe in Alabama...
Photographer
Photons 2 Pixels Images
Posts: 17011
Berwick, Pennsylvania, US
Russell Imagery wrote:
Post a minor in lingerie on the site and see how long the image lasts. will you sue MM? Do it or STFU! Why do some people want to be idiotic and test the paths of the criminal justice system is beyond me. I already posted a link to a portfolio. Should I STFU also?
Photographer
Swanson Studios
Posts: 403
Galesburg, Illinois, US
Run away! Dont shoot a minor in lingerie thats idiotic! find an adult for that kind of stuff.
Photographer
David Westlake
Posts: 1539
Mansfield Center, Connecticut, US
BMI Studio wrote:
Yep. Here they are. Shots of teen girls in bras, compliments of Wal Mart. Why haven't those Wal Mart people been jailed yet? Why isn't that photographer in custody? Because these are not sexually arousing lingerie pics! They are legitimate commercial photos used to illustrate the practical aspect of underwear for minors.
http://www.walmart.com/browse/Juniors/B … 639&depts= Those pics are from the neck to the navel. Is this a case of small bust = teen? You have no idea how old the models are.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
David Westlake wrote:
Those pics are from the neck to the navel. Is this a case of small bust = teen? You have no idea how old the models are. So your saying all of these http://www2.jcpenney.com/jcp/x5.aspx?De … 0455|50467
Are really OVER 18yr olds pretending to be younger in order to sell panties and bra's. And JCPenney even has a "teen lingerie" category listed as a shopping option, I guess they just mean 18 and 19 right? Thats why they have the doorman at Victoria's Secret checking ID.
Photographer
Swanson Studios
Posts: 403
Galesburg, Illinois, US
My question is this: Besides for advertising for age appropriate stuff (most teen girls wear bras and underwear and swimsuits) i would also add that there is not a sexual or suggestive feel to any walmart or penney ad, why would you want to shoot a minor in lingerie other than some pervy thrill? grow up and stop being a perv.
Photographer
Sharp Shooter Photo
Posts: 588
Indianapolis, Indiana, US
How many 17 yr olds even have lingerie?
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Buzzdaddy wrote:
How many 17 yr olds even have lingerie? Considering how "teen lingerie" is a shopping catagory/section at most major retailers, I'm going to guess there's a market for it.
I'll take articles such as this as evidence there definitely is a market.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Teen-Lingerie … id=4209043
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Swanson Studios wrote:
My question is this: Besides for advertising for age appropriate stuff (most teen girls wear bras and underwear and swimsuits) i would also add that there is not a sexual or suggestive feel to any walmart or penney ad, why would you want to shoot a minor in lingerie other than some pervy thrill? grow up and stop being a perv. So 17 and 360 days makes a person a perv and 18 and 1 day doesnt?
There is also fashion, beauty photography etc. Many people shoot those categories, plus other "sexy" images and get nothing sexual from it at all, and there is nothing "pervy" about it, perhaps if your into photography to get some sexual charge out of it, you should consider a different hobby.
If people are into photographer just to get some kind of cheap thrill as you suggest they have got to be the worst planners, budget makers and creative sorts around.
You can see more, a lot easier, for a lot less at your local Bada Bing.
Photographer
Photons 2 Pixels Images
Posts: 17011
Berwick, Pennsylvania, US
CGI Images wrote:
So 17 and 360 days makes a person a perv and 18 and 1 day doesnt?
There is also fashion, beauty photography etc. Many people shoot those categories, plus other "sexy" images and get nothing sexual from it at all, and there is nothing "pervy" about it, perhaps if your into photography to get some sexual charge out of it, you should consider a different hobby.
If people are into photographer just to get some kind of cheap thrill as you suggest they have got to be the worst planners, budget makers and creative sorts around.
You can see more, a lot easier, for a lot less at your local Bada Bing. Ditto. I've always wondered what difference a single day makes as far as maturity. The idea behind all those child laws is to protect children from predators who would take advantage of them based on their naivete. Are all of you who are crying "PERV" telling me that one day a girl is too naive to make her own decision but the next she's perfectly capable? Are you telling me that by age 16 a girl is too innocent to decide what is appropriate to wear and what isn't?
Interesting.
Photographer
Steven Anthony
Posts: 19455
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
-jmp- wrote:
= bad form??
Just curious. I'm wanting to work with a 17 yr old and asked her to bring lingerie to shoot in and didn't think twice about it. She said she doesn't do lingerie shoots, but she has a couple of shots in her portfolio with her in a swimsuit and got me all confused-like.
Do you think it's taboo to shoot minors in lingerie because of the word "lingerie"?? Maybe lingerie implies some uber seductive glamour images.. which isn't the idea at all... Are two piece swimsuits just more acceptable although they show the same if not more skin? Hmmm...
The model is bringing her mom, of course, and I backed off and said we'd just shoot the fashion images... but I'm still confused... I've never really encountered this before and would love to hear your thoughts. You should see someone about this...
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
there is nothing illegal, unethical or immoral about shooting underage models either in their underwear or nude for that matter...only if your intentions are bad..
i grew up with 3 older sisters, 2 wives, a GF, 1 daughter and 5 nieces. my whole life i have been surrounded by females of every age, running around in their underwear..
it was neither pervy or dirty..it's just how life is, living with women...
if you however cant separate images of young women in the underwear, with something pervy or dirty..
look in the fucking mirror....there is something wrong with you!
please for all of our our wives, daughter and sisters sakes, dont worry about photographs, get some mental help before you hurt someone...
"We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are." Anais Nin
Photographer
Swanson Studios
Posts: 403
Galesburg, Illinois, US
CGI Images wrote:
So 17 and 360 days makes a person a perv and 18 and 1 day doesnt?
There is also fashion, beauty photography etc. Many people shoot those categories, plus other "sexy" images and get nothing sexual from it at all, and there is nothing "pervy" about it, perhaps if your into photography to get some sexual charge out of it, you should consider a different hobby.
If people are into photographer just to get some kind of cheap thrill as you suggest they have got to be the worst planners, budget makers and creative sorts around.
You can see more, a lot easier, for a lot less at your local Bada Bing. Not saying that people are into photography just for a cheap thrill. I'm saying people know that shooting someone under the age of 18... Even 17 years and 364 days old..... in sexual positions or in a sexualized nature is not legal or moral they still want to push just as far as they can to see what they can get out of that minor without getting in trouble. Why do that besides having some perverse desire to do what the law says is illegal or to thumb your nose at the law and basically say, "your law says this and i didnt do that i did this so na na na na boo boo." its just stupid . if you want to shoot people in lingerie shoot adults.
Photographer
Arizona Shoots
Posts: 28657
Phoenix, Arizona, US
You guys would have an aneurysm if you saw what I shot a couple of years ago.
I was hired by a company to shoot an event sponsored by Rockstar in Salt Lake City. Some of you may have heard of S.W.A.T, but basically they hold events for high school kids.
One of the nights was a dance and I tell you, there was hundreds of girls 14-16 running around the club in their bras and panties.
To the guy who asked how many 17yr olds own lingerie.. Reality check.. your precious little girls ain't so precious.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Buzzdaddy wrote:
How many 17 yr olds even have lingerie? all of them..well except the duggar girls...
Photographer
Martin Philippo
Posts: 968
Noordwijkerhout, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
I've read this whole thread in amazement. The one question that comes to mind is:
what makes a photographer that considers to shoot a 17 year old girl in lingerie a pervert?
Aren't we all supposed to see our photography as a form of business or a form of art? Aren't we supposed just to look at the picture?
Many of you boast to be " a professional". I see "professionals" here in this thread being the first ones to call "pervert". I don't get it.
It probably takes one to know one.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Swanson Studios wrote:
Not saying that people are into photography just for a cheap thrill. I'm saying people know that shooting someone under the age of 18... Even 17 years and 364 days old..... in sexual positions or in a sexualized nature is not legal or moral they still want to push just as far as they can to see what they can get out of that minor without getting in trouble. Why do that besides having some perverse desire to do what the law says is illegal or to thumb your nose at the law and basically say, "your law says this and i didnt do that i did this so na na na na boo boo." its just stupid . if you want to shoot people in lingerie shoot adults. See, I actually hear what your saying but the flaw in your argument is that most people have no clue what the law is in such regard, so your argument that its "taboo" if you will, or a thrill to "thumb your nose" at the law doesn't hold water because what we are talking about here is perfectly legal.
You'd have to be an idiot to shoot porn with a 17yr old but that would be perfectly legal in a few months with the same 18yr old, I understand that, anyone that stupid should do jail time, just on the stupidity alone.
Although I'd argue there probably isnt much difference in maturity. (but then again I think many 18yr olds probably arent mature enough to make that decision either.) That should be decided person to person, situation to situation.
But we are not talking about PORN here, far from porn even though many dont wish to believe that. I hate to keep giving trash traffic but you guys should really check out that Trueteenbabes website before you start talking about pushing "legal" limits.
Here is the fact.. generally speaking the legal line in the sand is much further out there than many believe it is or wish it to be.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
The day I can put up a sexy image of an 18 yr old next to a 17yr old in the same outfit/pose and have people go... "That pic on the right is hot, damn she's fine, sexy sexy.. anyone got a cold shower.... but strangely the picture on the left does nothing like that for me, even though its almost identical.... is she 17 or something?"
I'll buy the "17 and 364 days" makes you a perv argument.
Photographer
Swanson Studios
Posts: 403
Galesburg, Illinois, US
I would agree with you totally. I think my beef is with the whole stupid thread. I feel like if you have to ask if its right or wrong, or there is any CHANCE it could be wrong why do it? there are so many beautiful women that are 18+ that modeling in lingerie, topless, and nude USE THEM!!! Why flirt with disaster?
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Swanson Studios wrote:
I would agree with you totally. I think my beef is with the whole stupid thread. I feel like if you have to ask if its right or wrong, or there is any CHANCE it could be wrong why do it? there are so many beautiful women that are 18+ that modeling in lingerie, topless, and nude USE THEM!!! Why flirt with disaster? Again I get the feeling we kind of agree, but risk is there in anything, there is a certain risk that a 19, 20 or 40yr old could claim you sexually assaulted, raped, robbed them etc.
The risk is virtually nill if things are handled professionally, but still there none the less. Same with this topic, handled professionally the risk is very low of trouble.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Swanson Studios wrote:
I would agree with you totally. I think my beef is with the whole stupid thread. I feel like if you have to ask if its right or wrong, or there is any CHANCE it could be wrong why do it? there are so many beautiful women that are 18+ that modeling in lingerie, topless, and nude USE THEM!!! Why flirt with disaster? yeah better play it safe huh?
do you know how many artists have gone to jail, because they wouldn't compromise their art? artists have had to push the envelope since the middle ages...i'm not just talking about shooting minors, im talking about social statements...
at one time, artists were executed for portraying christ in perspective, in a painting..
geeze its to the point where cops are arresting people for taking legal perfectly legal photographs in public....
well ill tell you one thing..the cops and government should be afraid of the people, not the other way around...
our founding fathers must be spinning in their graves....we dont deserve our own constitution...no wait, i do, cause im willing to fight for it....
Photographer
Photons 2 Pixels Images
Posts: 17011
Berwick, Pennsylvania, US
Swanson Studios wrote:
I would agree with you totally. I think my beef is with the whole stupid thread. I feel like if you have to ask if its right or wrong, or there is any CHANCE it could be wrong why do it? there are so many beautiful women that are 18+ that modeling in lingerie, topless, and nude USE THEM!!! Why flirt with disaster? I don't think the OP was asking whether it's right or wrong, but rather what might lead a girl who poses in barely there swimsuits to decide that lingerie (which in most cases covers more than swimsuits) is inappropriate.
Photographer
Photons 2 Pixels Images
Posts: 17011
Berwick, Pennsylvania, US
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
yeah better play it safe huh?
do you know how many artists have gone to jail, because they wouldn't compromise their art? artists have had to push the envelope since the middle ages...i'm not just talking about shooting minors, im talking about social statements...
at one time, artists were executed for portraying christ in perspective, in a painting..
geeze its to the point where cops are arresting people for taking legal perfectly legal photographs in public....
well ill tell you one thing..the cops and government should be afraid of the people, not the other way around...
our founding fathers must be spinning in their graves....we dont deserve our own constitution...no wait, i do, cause im willing to fight for it.... YES!!!!! I agree fully.
Photographer
Swanson Studios
Posts: 403
Galesburg, Illinois, US
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
yeah better play it safe huh?
do you know how many artists have gone to jail, because they wouldn't compromise their art? artists have had to push the envelop since the middle ages...i'm not just talking about shooting minors, im talking about social statements...
at one time, artists were executed for portraying christ in perspective, in a painting..
geeze its to the point where cops are arresting people for taking legal perfectly legal photographs in public....
well ill tell you one thing..the cops and government should be afraid of the people, not the other way around...
our founding father are spinning in their graves....we dont deserve our own constitution...no wait, i do, cause im willing to fight for it.... Our founding fathers had no idea what our world would be like in 2010. If you showed any of them Model Mayhem the site would be closed immediately. These were very modest people! Oh and there is taking risks to make a statement and there is taking risks for being stupid. Risk for a statement: an adult model posing nude in a public place to protest the wearing of fur. Stupid risk: shooting a minor in very skimpy or sheer garments just because you can. oh and... Stupid risk two: Seeing how close to a moving fan a person can put their penis before itgets whacked.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Swanson Studios wrote:
Stupid risk: shooting a minor in very skimpy or sheer garments just because you can. . But see again, this is where your information is inaccurate, exactly what risk aside from social disagreement and offending others tastes is there?
Photographer
Photons 2 Pixels Images
Posts: 17011
Berwick, Pennsylvania, US
Swanson Studios wrote:
Our founding fathers had no idea what our world would be like in 2010. If you showed any of them Model Mayhem the site would be closed immediately. These were very modest people! Oh and there is taking risks to make a statement and there is taking risks for being stupid. Risk for a statement: an adult model posing nude in a public place to protest the wearing of fur. Stupid risk: shooting a minor in very skimpy or sheer garments just because you can. oh and... Stupid risk two: Seeing how close to a moving fan a person can put their penis before itgets whacked. I don't think our Founding Fathers were as innocent as you want to believe. 
Photographer
Swanson Studios
Posts: 403
Galesburg, Illinois, US
CGI Images wrote:
But see again, this is where your information is inaccurate, exactly what risk aside from social disagreement and offending others tastes is there? Wouldnt sheer be considered illegal? if you can see nipples and crotch even through fabric i would assume the law might frown on that 
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Swanson Studios wrote:
Our founding fathers had no idea what our world would be like in 2010. If you showed any of them Model Mayhem the site would be closed immediately. they sure were conservative (even though they all had mistresses and illegitimate children), but they also knew that their religious and moral opinions had no place when creating law...
Photographer
Swanson Studios
Posts: 403
Galesburg, Illinois, US
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
they sure were conservative (event hough they all had mistresses and illegitimate children), but they also knew that their religious and moral opinions had no place when creating law... And they would have either put in jail or executed a woman who was naked in public
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Swanson Studios wrote:
Wouldnt sheer be considered illegal? if you can see nipples and crotch even through fabric i would assume the law might frown on that shooting minors nude is not illegal...omg...
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Swanson Studios wrote:
And they would have either put in jail or executed a woman who was naked in public pre-constituion, they sure would....
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Swanson Studios wrote:
Wouldnt sheer be considered illegal? if you can see nipples and crotch even through fabric i would assume the law might frown on that No its not. You can take the clothes off and directly see all that skin and it still be prefectly legal, here is an example of that http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2uETMBssSug/S … M_PICS.jpg
Porn with minors is illegal, garments or the lack there of really dont have anything to do with the definitions of legal porn, generally speaking.
Again, check out this website, perfectly legal, lots of sheer, and obviously sexy posing going on with under 18 girls. www.trueteenbabes.com
Man I really hate sending traffic to that site just to prove a point.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
this thread is a losing battle...im out ~
Photographer
Warren Paul Harris
Posts: 950
Dallas, Texas, US
Don't you think it was just plain WRONG to ask an underage girl to bring lingerie to a shoot?
Seriously? Whatever you're smoking is not yielding the best results.
Rule of thumb:
Would it be OK if she wore lingerie (and nothing else) to the mall?
No? So what does that tell you.
This is not the same category as a swimsuit or anything else.
Lingerie is meant to be seductive. Period.
Google the word and see what you get. SEX. Period. That's the societal translation for lingerie.
If the very idea of lingerie and a 17 year old girl doesn't set off alarm bells for you, then there is something wrong with you (unless you're a 17 year old boy).
The fact that you had to ask is frankly unsettling. Your social compass should have told you this before you had time to type the post.
Photographer
Swanson Studios
Posts: 403
Galesburg, Illinois, US
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
pre-constituion, they sure would.... Post constistution they would have too!!!!! "Dude" to use your syntax..... I know its not illegal to photograph a minor, but it IS illegal to photograph a minor with nipples or crotch showing.... or do you live in another country?
Photographer
Martin Philippo
Posts: 968
Noordwijkerhout, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Swanson Studios wrote:
but it IS illegal to photograph a minor with nipples or crotch showing.... or do you live in another country? This my friend is again, where your information is wrong, an image is not illegal simply because a minors nipples or crotch can be seen.
Did you even look at the legal images in the links I posted?
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Swanson Studios wrote:
Post constistution they would have too!!!!! "Dude" to use your syntax..... I know its not illegal to photograph a minor, but it IS illegal to photograph a minor with nipples or crotch showing.... or do you live in another country? i live in the USA and i am familiar with the laws governing my business....
lascivious displays of genitalia (ie spread legs on a female)...thats illegal..
simple frontal nudity, nipples...not illegal
and i said i was out..sorry for getting dragged back in....
|
