|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
17 Implied nudes
LatashaCrosbie wrote: I think probably a few people thought the title of the thread meant you took 17 photos. You might want to add an "edit:" statement to your OP explaining that to avoid others posting "where are the other 16?" Jul 17 10 10:05 am Link While I agree with Elizabeth its still an issue in most of the US. Also we are approaching the issue from 2 different view points. The model and OP who is concerned what kind of flak she will get, if anyone notices the 5 months different from the shots and her birthday in the next year or two. The photographer, we are thinking about legal fees, defending our business, bad press, have our equipment seized and held for up to 12 months (just because). Jul 17 10 10:05 am Link Elizabeth Claret wrote: I agree with you 200% but you still have to be careful about it. I've seen clothed images of minors that have more sexual overtones than anything in her port with less clothing....so why don't we just kill them all? lol. She's done nothing I wouldn't shoot with her but I wouldn't go much further either because I don't want to be on the fence legally. Jul 17 10 10:05 am Link Demetrios Drystellas wrote: You should learn some history. There were no conservative groups nor public outcry involved. The processing lab reported a man picking up questionable images of nude girls to the police. The man was one of Sturges's assistants and eventually the trail led to Sturges. Lots of material was confiscated and later returned. Sturges was not arrested or charged. His assistant was arrested and charged (charges were later dropped). Sturges gained fame and increased sales as a result. Jul 17 10 10:10 am Link Jay Farrell wrote: Yeah, I'm just ranting. Trust me, I know how careful a person has to be about nudity. Jul 17 10 10:12 am Link Are they illegal in the jurisdiction where they were shot? Are you happy with them? If the answer to either of those is "no" then you have something to discuss with someone. Otherwise, it's no one elses business. There are millions and millions of idiots in the world just dying to tell you how to live, what to think, how to act, and that you'll never live up to their standard of propriety. For them, the phrase "live and let live" is like telling a heroin addict he's going cold turkey. Don't encourage them by asking for their opinions. Jul 17 10 10:14 am Link MikeRobisonPhotos wrote: So, if he said this less than 5 months from now, would you still say that? Jul 17 10 10:15 am Link I just did a quick check online and found the age of consent in most parts of Australia is either 14 or 16 depending upon where you are located. Voting age has been lowered from 21 to 18 and there is a move now to lower it to 16. I don't think there is much chance of anyone making an issue out of a 17 year old posing suggestively or doing an implied nude, especially with her parents approval. These things seem to be more of an issue here, in the United States. KM Jul 17 10 10:16 am Link Ken Marcus Studios wrote: You guys don't Kevin Rudd, but he's not very smart and doesn't know the countries' own laws Jul 17 10 10:21 am Link LatashaCrosbie wrote: You're certainly okay with it. And your parents appear to be okay with it. Since the people you know and love seem to support you, I don't really see the point in fretting over the approval of people you don't know, myself included. Jul 17 10 10:22 am Link ****** Didn't Anne Lieborwitz (sp?) shoot a 16 yr. old Mylie Cyrus for a magazine? The implied nude made quite a stir but was perfectly legal in a LOT of countrys, including the USA!!! OP, you are posting some great photographs!! KEEP ON SHOOTING!!!! Jul 17 10 10:22 am Link R A V E N D R I V E wrote: If I'm not mistaken, Rudd stood down about 3 weeks ago and Julia Gillard now "runs the place" (i.e. serves as Prime Minister). Jul 17 10 10:25 am Link R A V E N D R I V E wrote: Is it just me . . . or can anyone else make sense of what this means ? Jul 17 10 10:27 am Link As for this remark ... R A V E N D R I V E wrote: ... I can only express my disappointment that yesterday's earthquake in DC didn't open up the ground and swallow you whole. Jul 17 10 10:28 am Link Pete Hennessy Photo wrote: Leibowitz, and it was Lindsey Lohan, actually. And yes, they were amazing photos, but everyone wants to keep her as the Mickey Mouse club girl or something. Kids grow up people, get over it! Teach your children what's right and wrong, don't shelter them. Jul 17 10 10:28 am Link AJScalzitti wrote: First, OP you are very beautiful and should have a great future ahead of you in modeling or a related field; don't worry about corporate employers down the road at this point in your life. As someone on here observed, you are actually over the age of consent in your country, so there can be nothing except busy bodies objecting. Jul 17 10 10:31 am Link Elizabeth Claret wrote: Jul 17 10 10:31 am Link Elizabeth Claret wrote: it was Miley, and was a gorgeous photo: Jul 17 10 10:33 am Link Bernie Browder wrote: They're drinking Cherrywine, lolz. He sounds like a girl anyway. Jul 17 10 10:34 am Link Stephanie M wrote: Eh, I can't keep their names straight. There's like four of them running around or something. Jul 17 10 10:35 am Link Ken Marcus Studios wrote: The age of consent is different to the child porn laws, for instance here in Victoria the age of consent is 16, but they have to be 18 to photograph it. Where the OP and photographer are located is in bold text below. Jul 17 10 10:37 am Link MikeRobisonPhotos wrote: Fifi wrote: Legally "it doesn't matter what your parents think" is a different thing entirely when talking to an 18 year old vs a 17 year old. Even if it's a week apart. Jul 17 10 10:37 am Link MikeRobisonPhotos wrote: MikeRobisonPhotos wrote: Legally "it doesn't matter what your parents think" is a different thing entirely when talking to an 18 year old vs a 17 year old. Even if it's a week apart. Legally, in Austrailia, she's above the age of consent. So, in AUSTRAILIA, LEGALLY, it's not a shocking and horrible thing. Jul 17 10 10:39 am Link nothing wrong with it. it was done really well. even if it was done horribly, nothing wrong with it.. nothing is showing, it was not erotic.. you probably covered up more of your body than a bikini would have... Jul 17 10 10:44 am Link LatashaCrosbie wrote: No need to read this thread, you stated all that matters and it is good that the parents support you. I did glance at your port some nice work, but I do suspect that perhaps you would enjoy the bad girl moniker. Jul 17 10 10:48 am Link The image is both tasteful and beautiful, the OP is happy with it, her parents are ok with and the photographer is ok with it. She is over the age of consent and also over the age defined in the child pornography laws (though it's not covered because it isn't a sexual depiction). There is no problem, why to some people have to make an issue of it? Just be happy for the young lady, she had a great result from the shoot that is a fine addition to an already strong portfolio. Jul 17 10 10:56 am Link AJScalzitti wrote: Can you point me to a specific case in the US (any State) where this has happened (and where the facts are reasonably similar to the OPs question --- 17, implied, no sexual context, parental consent)? I would love to study the case. Jul 17 10 11:01 am Link I've heard of things a lot worse. I think Eliza Cummings was about our age when she did the Dazed and Confused cover with Ash Stymest. A quick google search will show you the pictures I'm talking about- I can't post them here. As far as I know those photos didn't cause a controversy. Someone correct me if I'm wrong though, I just haven't seen anyone bad-mouthing the two for the nature of those photos at their age. It's just conservative people that would get their knickers in a knot about it. People who aren't closed minded won't see a problem in implied nudity at your age. You are on the verge of legally becoming an adult, anyway. Jul 17 10 11:06 am Link For those in the US, the law is pretty clear, even under US law the OP's shoot is legal. US Code: § 2256 TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2256 For the purposes of this chapter, the termâ (1) âminorâ means any person under the age of eighteen years; Paragraph 8: âchild pornographyâ means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, whereâ (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 2252 prohibits the production, transportation, or knowing receipt or distribution of any visual depiction "of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." For the purposes of Title 18, 18 U.S.C. § 2256 defines a "minor" as any person under the age of eighteen years, and "sexually explicit conduct" as actual or simulated: "(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (B) bestiality; (C) masturbation; (D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" Source(s): Jul 17 10 11:10 am Link Rudd stepped down? Nice lightonpixels wrote: The point is, sitting back on the couch and looking at Australia's xenophobia lets me have an unbiased and entertained perspective Jul 17 10 11:11 am Link R A V E N D R I V E wrote: Australia has no bill of rights in our constitution, so technically we have no rights to give up. But if a government goes too far in curtailing our freedoms we at least have the good sense to vote them out at the next election and put in place a government that will restored them. Jul 17 10 11:24 am Link Nope because your parents know, and I've seen some beautiful ones of 16-17yo. Jul 17 10 11:58 am Link And the one in your portfolio is  and I'm sure your parents would rather see that than you bent over wearing a thong with your *ss right in the camera  Jul 17 10 12:01 pm Link Given that your parents are agree i don't see any problem. On Usa they have a different mentality but fortunately on the other countries is different. Jul 17 10 12:04 pm Link Doesn't bother me, I have shot some. Why are you asking AFTER the fact? LatashaCrosbie wrote: Jul 17 10 12:07 pm Link At 5' 9 and Beautiful, with great skin and a beautiful body... you have a real shot at Agency Modeling. I'm not going to say I know it all--but after 20 years in the biz you pick up a few things. But I would be careful with the implieds. In my experience, "implieds" quite quickly turn into more than implieds and then you're heading in a different direction. And quite frankly you don't want to give Agency people or commercial photogs the impression that you've done anything more than implieds. That's if you wanna go mainstream. Wanna go Artsy, it doesn't matter. Very Best wishes, -JULIAN PS. Having said that, just remember: Everyone has an opinion.  )) What works for You? Jul 17 10 12:10 pm Link Don't worry about it. My daughter did complete nudes at one month old. Jul 17 10 12:14 pm Link The United States is a little immature in this regard. Your portfolio is fine. Just wondering, were the implieds paid or for trade? Jul 17 10 12:15 pm Link Allthefaces wrote: (Bingo) I don't shoot even portrait under 18 !!! Jul 17 10 12:30 pm Link Photostudio99 wrote: Not a nono in the USA at all. It's perfectly legal, provided you follow certain guidelines. Jul 17 10 12:33 pm Link |
