Kismet Design wrote:
Please be aware that the consentable age is different in some countries than it is in America.

I come from England, the age of consent there is 16.  There have been many Page 3 models (ie: topless) that started their careers at such an age.  Indeed, one or two embarked on their chosen career on their 16th birthday.

Thus a 17 year old posing topless is not illegal in England but it is in America.

What would be interesting is that, technically, anyone residing in America and owning these images is breaking the child pornography law.

Just my twopennorth!

DAVE

Age of consent is indeed 16 in the UK. However I think you'll find the laws for "topless" photos of models under 18 is now applicable.

Melissa - CJ's mum

Kismet Design wrote:
Please be aware that the consentable age is different in some countries than it is in America.

I come from England, the age of consent there is 16.  There have been many Page 3 models (ie: topless) that started their careers at such an age.  Indeed, one or two embarked on their chosen career on their 16th birthday.

Thus a 17 year old posing topless is not illegal in England but it is in America.

What would be interesting is that, technically, anyone residing in America and owning these images is breaking the child pornography law.

Just my twopennorth!


DAVE

I'm curious which law might this be?  Because based on what I know it isn't
Illegal but if you could give the statue number and if you are speaking of a
federal law and or a states law.

Billy Pegram wrote:
Check out the beutiful books by David Hamilton...I have seen them in many books stores with a fine art photography section.

now THERE is an avowed pedophile for you!

what he pulled off 30 years ago he could never get away with today.

House of Indulgence wrote:
So yeah, since 2257 is passing with more restrictions, it may not be written but can be interpreted (this is what happens in a court of law after they bust you and take all your stuff) it can be deamed illeagal to photography girls under the age of 18 nude.

Nonsense.

Nothing in 2257 makes any kind of photography illegal, nor does it make shooting anything at any age illegal.

Tony Lawrence wrote:

I'm curious which law might this be?  Because based on what I know it isn't
Illegal but if you could give the statue number and if you are speaking of a
federal law and or a states law.

Looks like I'm in legal limbo!

I've been in America for eight years now and, as such, I am obviously behind the times with our English laws. 

I also do not profess to know all the American laws regarding this.  I keep it simple.  If you're under 18 I don't want to see any part of your body that may come back to haunt me.  If you really want topless at 16, find another photographer or, better still, wait until you turn 18!

By the way, if you are that curious about the laws, Google is a great resource ~ knock yourself out!

DAVE

re- photography wrote:

Oh yeh, I forgot david hamilton......not  completely disimilar to Sturges, but more color, and more commercial, less "purely artistic" look, to the work, if that makes any sense in work which essentially non-commercial......

Sturges is a master artist-Hamilton is just a has been pervert.

Guess who makes more money.

There is no comparison between them at all!

Decadence Fashion wrote:
I feel the main problem with displaying nude pictures of minors is the increasing number of petafiles in this country that aren't afraid to act on their desires.  It doesn't take sexual depiction to get them aroused.  With family members molesting and strangers raping children, it's understandable to see why our society has such a problem with nude minors. In the midst of all this, people wonder why a person would even want to take nude pictures of minors.  I know most of the people on "here" would see this as being beautiful, artistic and free, but in today's world no matter how artisticly well it's done its going to be seen as child pornography.

Pedophilia is a mental disorder.  Photos of kids don't incite it by themselves.  In fact, a number of pedophiles are found with things like kid's clothing catalogs rather than kiddie porn.
Familial abuse is also usually a result of repetetive patterned behavior.
It's been demonstrated, in point of fact, that sexual repression & a lack of openess is more likely to promote unhealthy & abusive behaviors than an open attitude towards things like nudity.

SLE Photography wrote:

Pedophilia is a mental disorder.  Photos of kids don't incite it by themselves.  In fact, a number of pedophiles are found with things like kid's clothing catalogs rather than kiddie porn.
Familial abuse is also usually a result of repetetive patterned behavior.
It's been demonstrated, in point of fact, that sexual repression & a lack of openess is more likely to promote unhealthy & abusive behaviors than an open attitude towards things like nudity.

Decadence Fashion wrote:
I feel the main problem with displaying nude pictures of minors is the increasing number of petafiles (sic) in this country that aren't afraid to act on their desires.

What evidence do you have that the number is increasing?

SLE Photography wrote:

Pedophilia is a mental disorder.  Photos of kids don't incite it by themselves.  In fact, a number of pedophiles are found with things like kid's clothing catalogs rather than kiddie porn.
Familial abuse is also usually a result of repetetive patterned behavior.
It's been demonstrated, in point of fact, that sexual repression & a lack of openess is more likely to promote unhealthy & abusive behaviors than an open attitude towards things like nudity.

I wasn't saying nude pictures of minors cause pedophilia or family molesting. I was saying that with so much of this happening nowadays (or shall I say being made more aware) it makes the concept of nude minors uncomfortable to the general public.  And it's not just nudity, it's nudity of those legally seen as children.  Because they are children and nude, it will be seen as innappropiate.

Bohan Photography wrote:
go ask the folks at your local nudist camp how many of their kids get molested because all the adults became pedophiles from seeing them nude all day every day.

It's funny how people attack others for having opinions on here.  This thread was about nude pictures of minors and our thoughts about them being displayed in magazines.  I gave a personal opinion of "why" I felt our society had issues with nude minors, not my own feelings towards matter.  What happen to authentic exchange of thoughts?

Decadence Fashion wrote:
What happen to authentic exchange of thoughts?

"Authentic exchange" continues.  However, because it is authentic, it contains some views different from yours.

Tiffany Alonzo wrote:
non-sexual/suggestive/partial nudity/whatever u want to call it, i dont think it's right. i dont find it offensive, i just think under aged girls should keep their bits to themselves til they are adults. artistic or not ppl should respect that its a child/teen. would u want ur daughter/sister/neice to appear nude in a fashion magazine for the world to see?

Whether you think it's right or not that's your opinion and our North American values shouldn't dictate what the world does or should do. Especially considering that the cultures of Europe and beyond far excede ours 10 fold as far as history goes. I lived in Europe (France, Czech Republic) and you when you go to the park you will see nudity. Even children running around naked or in their underwear. This is completely NORMAL and harmless to them. Families do it together. Sure, I have to say it is a shock for someone from the U.S, especially when you see little girls. But it IS natural and it isn't sexual at all.

As far as the fashion magazines go, remember, fashion originally came from Europe. As did the magazines. Vogue is from France. Fashion photography is a highly respected art form. And art has always had some nudity because the human form is a beautiful thing to be adored and worth replicating. So for women, even young women, to be nude or semi-nude in a fashion magazine is the furthest thing from a shock for them. It's art. We judge and riducule Europe for their 'immoral behavior' yet we are the biggest producers of pornography in the world. Are we really suited to be the judges for the rest of the 'free world'??

ESP 1MAGES wrote:
But it IS natural and it isn't sexual at all.

Like I said in my last post, I dont see it as sexual.

Kismet Design wrote:
Thus a 17 year old posing topless is not illegal in England but it is in America.

What would be interesting is that, technically, anyone residing in America and owning these images is breaking the child pornography law.

Just my twopennorth!  DAVE

CeJay wrote:
Age of consent is indeed 16 in the UK. However I think you'll find the laws for "topless" photos of models under 18 is now applicable.

Melissa - CJ's mum

Both of you make SOME valid points but both of you seem to think the UK law, re age of the model and nudity, is written is some kind of absolute terms: yea or nay. It is NOT.

The issue resolves to one of "indecency" relating to a photograph but that term is NOT DEFINED IN BRITISH LAW.

What is it then? It is whatever the magistrate says it is in any given case. Thus you might be goaled in Newcastle for something that would never see a courtroom in London.  You could be fined in Cardiff for the same thing. And in Manchester it wouldn't even raise an eyebrow on the local coppers. And in EVERY case I am talking of exactly the same image being considered.

The failing of that law, and the danger of it, is that there is no definition of "indecency" and, as such, it fails the most fundamental test of lawmaking... that: "Law should be written in such a way so that those bound by it know the limits beyond which they may not go."

You take the picture; you take your chances.

Studio36

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I'm curious which law might this be?  Because based on what I know it isn't
Illegal but if you could give the statue number and if you are speaking of a
federal law and or a states law.

There is no manifest illegality on the federal level, Tony, but the issue is bound up in a web of state level law(s). What might not bother a judge and jury in California or Oregon could get you five years in Kansas or Utah....

You take the picture; you take your chances. The issue on the federal level is pretty straight forward but not so on the state level.

Studio36

Kismet Design wrote:
Looks like I'm in legal limbo!

I've been in America for eight years now and, as such, I am obviously behind the times with our English laws.

The revision occurred in the "Sex Offences Act 2003" which cross referenced the age [16] that occurs in the Protection of Children Act [1976][1978] and raises the age referenced from 16 to 18.

Criminal Justice Act 1988 Sec.160 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Secs. 84(4) and 86(1)--Possession of an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph also applies to computer renderings of those images or synthetic [manipulated] images constructed from original photographs.

Studio36

Claire Elizabeth wrote:
Since most of those shots are implied, why does it matter?

It matters because nudity is not a required element to establish "indecency" in law regarding any particular image of a minor. Thus "implied" nudity can see a conviction just as in US v Knox. The key image contested was of a minor F wearing panties but where the "outline" of the genitals could be discerned... even though covered by the fabric. Knox was convicted [at state level] and that conviction upheld [at federal level]

Conversely, even full frontal nudity in children's images may NOT be indecent as in US v  Certain Articles of Merchandise [Allesandra's Smiles] 3rd US Ct of Appeals ca 2003 re: naturist magazines.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

The revision occurred in the "Sex Offences Act 2003" which cross referenced the age [16] that occurs in the Protection of Children Act [1976][1978] and raises the age referenced from 16 to 18.

Criminal Justice Act 1988 Sec.160 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Secs. 84(4) and 86(1)--Possession of an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph also applies to computer renderings of those images or synthetic [manipulated] images constructed from original photographs.

Studio36

Thanks for the update, S36, much appreciated.

DAVE

Kismet Design wrote:
Thanks for the update, S36, much appreciated.

DAVE

The legal paradox [in British law and in some states of the US] is this: At 16 [or some other age of consent under 18] the little darlings can f**k their brains out; you could even sit in the room and watch them do it LIVE; you could even join in; you just can't take their photograph while they are doing it.

Studio36

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I would imagine that many of these types of cases are won on appeal from a legal standpoint but if a judge allows a jury to hear a case well....

The problem is that most of these convictions are allowed to stand because there is no money for the, a, or any, appeal. Many of the defendants are people of only modest means in the first place... and one doesn't even contemplate appeal to the federal courts without $100,000 +++ in assets to pay for it.

Studio36

Brian Diaz wrote:
Nudity does not equal sex.

Why can't people understand that?

North Americans are quite repressed and they just can't fathom this concept. I'm actually surprised as the original poster is from Canada. It's not like the American and Canadian laws on this subject are identical or even similar.

Regards, Art.

rachelrose wrote:
might be sexy but it's not a 'come f*ck me' look its a 'f*ck off' look.

he-he
dido