|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Opinions requested - shooting a young child nude
Ok, here's the deal. I have an idea for a photo that would portray a mother and child together, both in the nude. It would be very innocent and only their backsides would be shown - rendering the individuals anonymous. I've seen plenty of mother/infant nude shots which seem perfectly ok, and we've all seen plenty of baby butt photos that seem harmless, but I know I'd be skating on thin ice if the nude child was an adolescent - so, somewhere in there is a line that crosses into potentially dangerous territory. This concept would work best using a mother with her toddler-aged child, say 1.5 to 2 years old. My question is, at what age does it become "inappropriate" to portray a child's naked butt in an anonymous, innocent fashion? Thanks in advance for your opinions, which I'm sure will vary wildly!  Dec 16 10 09:11 pm Link BareLight Photography wrote: I have no idea. Ask a prosectuor. I will say this, I don't see a toddler's butt being very sexualized. Dec 16 10 09:26 pm Link No, I didn't say I wanted to use an adolescent. What I was trying to state is: a) It seems to be acceptible to show an infant/baby butt in a photo b) Many people would have a problem with showing an adolescent butt in a photo So, somewhere between infancy and adolescence there is a line that crosses into potentially dangerous territory if you're wanting to show their butt in a photograph - but where is that line? Of course, the context can make a great deal of difference. But, I'm referring to a very innocent mother/child concept possibly using a toddler in the 1.5 to 2 or so age range. And, does it make any difference if the subjects are essentially anonymous? Your point about asking the prosecutor was not lost on me.  Dec 16 10 10:14 pm Link I wonder how many years the prosecutor gave these perverts shooting this photograph?   It sounds too innocent to even be perceived as anything sexual.Dec 16 10 10:16 pm Link Some people will object no matter what. You need to figure out if their objections mean more to you than the potential positives. I can think of contexts and images that are perfectly suitable no matter what the age of the child. But I wouldn't shoot them because it's not worth the headaches. Dec 16 10 10:17 pm Link simple the child himself/herself will object to showing their naked butts. if he/she does, it is not proper and it is considered lewd. don't do it. Dec 16 10 10:21 pm Link Bluestill Photography wrote: Well, the prosecutor can only request a specific sentence. Then it's up to the judge/jury Dec 16 10 10:24 pm Link notice the photographer is a woman... in addition they are not 'but' naked... obviously if you insist, regardless of what anyone says it seems you made up your mind... Dec 16 10 10:28 pm Link Lawyers are expensive and they don't give discounts even when you're innocent. BTW, OP, I like the work you do with nude adults. Dec 16 10 10:28 pm Link rey sison photography wrote: yeah the sulken dreamer is very creative... Dec 16 10 10:32 pm Link Rig Galvez Photography wrote: Are you implying that it's only wrong if a man shoots a photo of a child? Dec 16 10 10:50 pm Link minor release (for baby) + adult model release, with female friends on set on your behalf your witnesses; other words put as strong of a iron clad door between you and needing to lawyer up good luck' http://asmp.org/tutorials/model-release … child.html http://asmp.org/tutorials/adults-model-release.html Dec 16 10 10:56 pm Link It depends on if it's an election year or not. Dec 16 10 10:56 pm Link armando delgado wrote: What does a release have to do with ths? Dec 17 10 02:08 am Link To be quite frank, you sound like a perrv.. but if u can come up with something as non sexual as the one advertised then it doesn't really see anything wrong. But then again they're ass's are covered. Dont get yourself put in handcuffs just bc of an imaginative concept. Your credibility won't go far in the courtroom. Dec 17 10 02:27 am Link To be quite frank, you sound like a perrv.. but if u can come up with something as non sexual as the one advertised then it doesn't really see anything wrong. But then again they're ass's are covered. Dont get yourself put in handcuffs just bc of an imaginative concept. Your credibility won't go far in the courtroom. Dec 17 10 02:27 am Link ei Total Productions wrote: Written parental acknowledgment/consent for the shot can't be a bad thing surely....my releases have a section re:test/portfolio shoots Dec 17 10 02:44 am Link Ask Sally Mann.. Dec 17 10 02:44 am Link ei Total Productions wrote: Daniel Lee Mahoney wrote: If a shot is legal, it is legal. If a shot is illegal, it will make no difference if you have consent. Consent doesn't seem to be the issue. What is the issue is whether the image will beply the wrath of the authorities. A release is irrelevant. Dec 17 10 02:47 am Link Ahh, I get called a perv for thinking of showing a toddler's butt while this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houses_of_the_Holy is nominated for a grammy for Best Album Cover Art (Led Zeppelin, Houses of the Holy - great album!) Of course that was 1974, and the article does state that the album was "either banned or unavailable in some parts of the Southern United States for several years." Dec 17 10 05:45 am Link Once again a bunch of fear mongering loonies.... Shoot the kid with the mother. You need one release that the mom signs, nude or not, makes no difference. Too many ppl trying to make such a simple things difficult. As long as the photo is appropriate, non-sexual in nature, and portrays them in a favorable manner. It kills me to see so many opposed, you much watch too TV. Dec 17 10 05:51 am Link armando delgado wrote: ei Total Productions wrote: c'mon al, you know it makes the peoples sound like they know what they are talking about... Dec 17 10 05:58 am Link David Gaze wrote: This! Dec 17 10 05:59 am Link It's one of the oddities of the laws governing depictions of the human body that there is no definite and fixed answer to your question. There are certainly people who believe that any nude image is a sexual one (and so any nude image of a child would be illegal). You can get all sorts of answers to your question with examples regarding supposed guidelines but the laws are not written in this fashion. In general the shot you describe will be safe but the applicable laws are not written in such a way that it could be said that an image such as the one you are describing would always be legal. The same is also true of your adult nudes but the bar is set so much higher that concerns about prosecution would not generally be realistic. Dec 17 10 06:03 am Link Concern over images of this type does way more harm to society that the images themselves. Dec 17 10 06:06 am Link Natalia_Taffarel wrote: because some folks can't separate nudity, from sexuality... Dec 17 10 06:06 am Link "inappropriate" doesn't start an some magical age.... good grief, use good judgment (if you know what that is, otherwise...leave it to a Pro!) http://www.ehow.com/facts_5182757_defin … avior.html Dec 17 10 06:08 am Link David Gaze wrote: Oh dear, a post full of common sense. Dec 17 10 06:11 am Link David Gaze wrote: Yep Dec 17 10 06:12 am Link They show nekkid baby butts on TV all the time! Dec 17 10 06:13 am Link As I am not a lawyer, I'm not gonna speak on the legality of it but I find it ridiculous people are acting appalled that you would take a picture of a child's butt. Good god it's a butt. At one point you had one too. Jeez. http://www.traveladventures.org/contine … land02.jpg http://www.1homegift.com/members/103009 … /30096.jpg http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2008/ … 15x275.jpg People have been depicting the image of a nude mother and child for much longer than anyone in this forum has been alive. I can understand if an average civilian might get there feathers ruffled, but really MM? Get it together. Dec 17 10 06:15 am Link Just shoot it !!! Think how many decades these were around  Dec 17 10 06:18 am Link the age for the line that you refer to is much different for a male photographer than a female - different depending on your age as well. A 70 year old grandmother could take pictures of any age (nude) and nobody would object - but a 25 year old guy has to be very, very careful. Dec 17 10 06:18 am Link Paul Dempsey wrote: I don't agree. Either the picture has sexuality or it doesn't. Dec 17 10 06:25 am Link With written consent of a parent, and escorted by said parent, it is legal in ALL 50 states to photograph children nude. If it wasn't there are MANY of us that would be in prison. It's not the image that is illegal, it's the "MIS-use" of the image that represents that. I've photographed 100's of children nude form infants to 17 years old. Never had an issue, never gone to jail, BECAUSE my images HAVE NEVER been for public view and they were paid sessions at parents' or models' requests with parental permission and guidance. If you're not sure or uncomfortable don't do it. It's that simple. A nude child playing is a lot different than a naked kid with their legs open. One is art, one "could" be, but MAY be perceived at something else. Dec 17 10 06:27 am Link David Gaze wrote: + 1,000,000 Dec 17 10 06:27 am Link Natalia_Taffarel wrote: +1 Dec 17 10 06:27 am Link In my opinion as long as the mother is present and giving consent to the shoot you aren't skating on thin ice...I was raised as a nudist, by my parents, went to a nudist summer camp until I was 16...and recently have been going over a concept of a totally nude generation shoot consisting of my mother (66) my nieces (17,21,25,28) and mine (I'm 26) and their children(ranging from 18 months to 6 years)...it of course would be tastefully done, with probably some white sheer material and we've got some other themes in mind, but I think as long as both parties are in agreeance on the shoot your not risking anything...it's not illegal to shoot children nude, it is illegal to shoot them in a sexual manner nude...I think nudity at any age is beautiful, it's how we were created and damnit there's nothing wrong with it except the stigmas society has put on it. I was safer at my summer camp and more closely watched and protected than any of my friends who went to regular camps...no one could understand unless they were actually a part of it, but it's not the swinger/kiddie porn impression people always get when I tell them...hope this helps at least a little... Dec 17 10 06:43 am Link zee soy wrote: Like a perv really?? Dec 17 10 06:54 am Link S W I N S K E Y wrote: armando delgado wrote: c'mon al, you know it makes the peoples sound like they know what they are talking about... I'm just trying to be nice, if people want to genuinely create great photographs it's basically all I could come up with, but yeah this is a touchy subject. If have doubts - might be the concept to skip Dec 17 10 07:12 am Link |
???
