here here now.....didn't you know that's what america is all about??moms apple pie, jesus, obergrupenfuhrer oprah, and people trying to pretend they are moral by legislating every possible law about anything and everything possible? ESPECIALLY if it could in any way have something to do with SEX!  our country has become a mecca for the sexually repressed and psychotic of the world....my experience has always been that those with the most to hide and have the most screwed up sex lives are always the ones who hold their lil bibles/korans up to the world so they look so holy and try to make everyone else do what they say .....mark foley is a classic case in point....but there are millions of mark foleys in churches and mosque' across the nation..........ugh.....

Malloch wrote:
This is correct, a new raft of laws brought in by the government due as a knee jerk reaction to media pressure without any real thought. It could now be illegal to photograph an under 18 person (female) with their boobs showing. However, it is still legal for that same female to get married and have children but if her husband takes topless photos of her on the beach then he MAY be open to prosecution. Again it is left to the courts to decide if the line has been crossed. Therefore many photographers in the UK would not want to be the first test case and thereby refuse to work with under 18's for any style of shoot that May be deemed questionable.

NOT TRUE! There has been only ONE change respecting age and no others respecting photography in general. Read my previous response. There has not been a "new raft of laws" - just this one minor change -  and, even here, nudity does not = indecency.

Sexual Offences Act (2003)

Indecent photographs of children

45        Indecent photographs of persons aged 16 or 17

          (1) The Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) (which makes provision about indecent photographs of persons under 16) is amended as follows.

          (2) In section 2(3) (evidence) and section 7(6) (meaning of "child"), for "16" substitute "18".

Studio36

Miguel A wrote:
I am trying to access your profile and I get this:
Unable to show profile #55764
This members is either awaiting approval or has removed their profile from the site.

Do you know what is the matter?

OGR decided to leave this friendly place...

It's a huge loss for us!

udor
Moderator

Garry k wrote:
Should underage fashion models ( ie 15- 19 yrs ) be posing topless or nude for European Fashion Magazines such as Vogue ....( Italian , French etc )

If so - then is is hypocritical for such magazines to be sold in N America -when our own laws prohibit such ?

Whatever the market will bare. No pun intended.

CO Model Amber wrote:
I don't wanna see nude underage teens.

Now nude overage teens...that's another story.

IrisSwope wrote:

I believe the wording of the law says something about the usage\intent of the photo....
There are naked baby pictures everywhere...but if someone took naked baby pictures for the intent of selling them for a sexual purpose...then, I believe, it's illegal....

There was an article in The Wall Street Journal a decade or so ago (author, title, etc. unknown) which discussed how parent took pictures of kids and the EMPLOYEE of the store took it upon him/herself to make determination despite employers instructions to the contrary, and employee submitted it to LEOs.

didn't life used to be simpler? :-)

FFantastique wrote:

There was an article in The Wall Street Journal a decade or so ago (author, title, etc. unknown) which discussed how parent took pictures of kids and the EMPLOYEE of the store took it upon him/herself to make determination despite employers instructions to the contrary, and employee submitted it to LEOs.

didn't life used to be simpler? :-)

You do realise this thread has been dead for 6 and a half years until you resurrected? You are quoting someone as if they posted yesterday!

ZOMBIE THREAD.

Garry k wrote:
Should underage fashion models ( ie 15- 19 yrs ) be posing topless or nude for European Fashion Magazines such as Vogue ....( Italian , French etc )

If so - then is is hypocritical for such magazines to be sold in N America -when our own laws prohibit such ?

I am not certain right now... but I think that the age for nude images, or implied (not pornography) is 16 in some European countries... but they are more stable in their society over there... in America, that would mean the total collapse of society and one of the signs for the approaching apocalypse!

Garry k wrote:
Why did this old thread of mine  get resurrected after all this time ?

                                                                                       Mar 21 07 10:41 am

Another resurrection... LOL

FFantastique wrote:
didn't life used to be simpler? :-)

Another zombie?
How exactly are you coming across these topics?

Garry k wrote:
Should underage fashion models ( ie 15- 19 yrs ) be posing topless or nude for European Fashion Magazines such as Vogue ....( Italian , French etc )

If so - then is is hypocritical for such magazines to be sold in N America -when our own laws prohibit such ?

All in the name of fashion which means you can pretty much get away with anything.

Dave Redden Photography 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

Ummmm I think the term you are looking for is tuppence.

re- photography wrote:

Our laws don't prohibit this at all, but our marketing; i.e. the stores which sell the magazines and the advertisers which buy the pages in them don't generally approve of such content as the American people don't generally approve of such content. there is nothing in US law which prohibits the photographing of underage models nude as long as it is not deamed to be explicitly sexual, ask Joque Sturges who did alot of his shoots (now published in books, which are sometimes found in Borders book stores until some mother catches her 14 son leafing through them in a corner and not wanting to stand up, and complains to the manager....) in nudist camps/beaches in California.......and had materials seized but there was never any legal action taken......EVER......because there are no laws and no real precidents.......still, I'm not ready to be the one to pioneer the field....

Ryan Entwistle - Photographer
re: photography

In 1990, his San Francisco studio was raided by FBI officers and his equipment seized. A grand jury subsequently declined to bring an indictment against him. I'd say having your materials seized as child pornography IS legal action .Yes a grand jury later declined to indite. And yes it probably substantially raised his print prices but considering the popular attitude about nude photography in general it should come as no surprise the term "kiddie porn" would quickly be applied to most under age nude photos regardless of how artistic they may be. Barns and Noble got brought up on charges for displaying several of his books and a David Hamilton book in their stores. B&N struck an agreement with the DA and are basically on a 1 year probation http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/19/us/ob … ttled.html So while there may be no specific law against under age nudes it's really not worth the risk in the US.

Darren Brade wrote:

You do realise this thread has been dead for 6 and a half years until you resurrected? You are quoting someone as if they posted yesterday!

ZOMBIE THREAD.

Hahahahaha

Motordrive Photography wrote:
this thread is now, almost old enough to pose topless (in certain European countries)

LMAO!!! 
                                             

R Michael Walker wrote:

In 1990, his San Francisco studio was raided by FBI officers and his equipment seized. A grand jury subsequently declined to bring an indictment against him. I'd say having your materials seized as child pornography IS legal action .Yes a grand jury later declined to indite. And yes it probably substantially raised his print prices but considering the popular attitude about nude photography in general it should come as no surprise the term "kiddie porn" would quickly be applied to most under age nude photos regardless of how artistic they may be. Barns and Noble got brought up on charges for displaying several of his books and a David Hamilton book in their stores. B&N struck an agreement with the DA and are basically on a 1 year probation http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/19/us/ob … ttled.html So while there may be no specific law against under age nudes it's really not worth the risk in the US.

If I were barnes and noble, I'd use the offer of a settlement against them. It's clear from that kind of settlement that there is no law against selling the books, or even having the books in store, and it was probably some kind of political wrangling at the time. So if that's the case, what were they doing bringing charges against them? They might have taken an issue with the way it was displayed, but come on, B&N should have had enough to shut him down.

MC Seoul Photography wrote:
If I were barnes and noble, I'd use the offer of a settlement against them. It's clear from that kind of settlement that there is no law against selling the books, or even having the books in store, and it was probably some kind of political wrangling at the time. So if that's the case, what were they doing bringing charges against them? They might have taken an issue with the way it was displayed, but come on, B&N should have had enough to shut him down.

I know .. nudity in itself is not illegal. 

Now let's put this zombie thread to rest, shall we?