Incident Image wrote:
David Hamilton and Jock Sturges have made a career of shooting underage kids nude, but I don't see them in jail.

Only because they were lucky, as well as having good lawyers and very deep pockets.   Both have been the subject of multiple criminal investigations, and likely remain so. 

Sturges had his studio raided by the FBI in 1990 and was detained, interrogated, and had all of his equipment and work confiscated.   Joseph Semien, a contractor working for Sturges, was dragged out of bed naked at gunpoint (as well as his roommate and their girlfriends), arrested, and charged with multiple felonies; he also had all of his equipment and work confiscated. 

Semien was pressured into making a confession without a lawyer present, although the charges were eventually dropped.   It took years and an expensive lawsuit for Sturges to get his equipment back, and even then much of it was damaged beyond repair.   Hamilton, while not based in the US, has also been subject to legal harassment.

Furthermore, people have been prosecuted for selling Sturges' and Hamilton's work.  People have been detained, arrested, had their property seized, and been charged with crimes by customs officials for possessing their works when crossing the border, both in the US and the UK.

"Not in jail" is a small consolation when you've had the tools of your trade stolen by the government and have been forced to pay a six-figure legal bill to keep your freedom and recover your (irreparably damaged) property, not to mention the long term stigma and financial impact of having been charged with a CP offense (regardless of whether you were eventually exonerated or not).   

Just because the government can't send you to prison doesn't mean they can't beat and/or taze you, take your children away, destroy your finances, steal everything you own, and permanently ruin your reputation -- all on unsupported charges before they even secure an indictment.  Not to mention that they can keep you in jail for several days while you wait to be arraigned, or for months to years if bail is denied or set so high you can't afford to pay it.  Hell, they can even kill you, your family members, and even your pets on the slightest pretext, virtually without repercussion. 

If they do any of these things in "good faith" (and the courts routinely find even the most blatant police misconduct to have be in good faith), you (or your next of kin) can't do a thing about it or recover a dime in damages.

S W I N S K E Y wrote:
we don't deserve our own constitution....

we have become a nation of pussies, afraid of our local DAs...

in a republic, the government should be fearful of the people.

this "better safe then sorry" attitude makes me sick..

and it's not just photographing minors...its everything.

just sayin ~

I agree 100%.   We are no longer the land of the free or the home of the brave.  This country is well on the road to becoming a theocratic police state, populated by mindless sheep who live their lives in perpetual fear of government- and media-hyped bogeymen.

Digital Moonlight wrote:

I agree 100%.   We are no longer the land of the free or the home of the brave.  This country is well on the road to becoming a theocratic police state, populated by mindless sheep who live their lives in perpetual fear of government- and media-hyped bogeymen.

Well, just look at the last two "geniuses" that were running this country for the past 11 years. What else can you expect ?

Digital Moonlight wrote:

Only because they were lucky, as well as having good lawyers and very deep pockets.   Both have been the subject of multiple criminal investigations, and likely remain so. 

Sturges had his studio raided by the FBI in 1990 and was detained, interrogated, and had all of his equipment and work confiscated.   Joseph Semien, a contractor working for Sturges, was dragged out of bed naked at gunpoint (as well as his roommate and their girlfriends), arrested, and charged with multiple felonies; he also had all of his equipment and work confiscated. 

Semien was pressured into making a confession without a lawyer present, although the charges were eventually dropped.   It took years and an expensive lawsuit for Sturges to get his equipment back, and even then much of it was damaged beyond repair.   Hamilton, while not based in the US, has also been subject to legal harassment.

Furthermore, people have been prosecuted for selling Sturges' and Hamilton's work.  People have been detained, arrested, had their property seized, and been charged with crimes by customs officials for possessing their works when crossing the border, both in the US and the UK.

"Not in jail" is a small consolation when you've had the tools of your trade stolen by the government and have been forced to pay a six-figure legal bill to keep your freedom and recover your (irreparably damaged) property, not to mention the long term stigma and financial impact of having been charged with a CP offense (regardless of whether you were eventually exonerated or not).   

Just because the government can't send you to prison doesn't mean they can't beat and/or taze you, take your children away, destroy your finances, steal everything you own, and permanently ruin your reputation -- all on unsupported charges before they even secure an indictment.  Not to mention that they can keep you in jail for several days while you wait to be arraigned, or for months to years if bail is denied or set so high you can't afford to pay it.  Hell, they can even kill you, your family members, and even your pets on the slightest pretext, virtually without repercussion. 

If they do any of these things in "good faith" (and the courts routinely find even the most blatant police misconduct to have be in good faith), you (or your next of kin) can't do a thing about it or recover a dime in damages.

Small price to pay for art.

Nothing happened to Sam Mendes - heck, he won an Oscar after showing an underage girl topless in American Beauty.

Morgan Barbour wrote:

Why is it wrong for it to be up?
Just because there are people who are ill and are attracted to that does not make that photo wrong. That mindset is equal to someone saying that a woman who was raped shouldn't have been wearing a skirt that short, because obviously the rapist found it attractive. SMDH.

this comment pisses me off, majority of rape cases isnt about what the women is wearing its about power and being able to take over said women.

I still stand by what I said, its wrong because sick CREEPS are finding this attractive, I dont think any image should be taken like this because although to one it is artistic to another it is pornographic.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

You don't find it a turn on but you're afraid somebody might and that dictates whether an image should be allowed to be photographed in the first place. Hmm...With that logic, ANY image of a minor that could possibly sexually excite anyone should never be photographed...nude or otherwise.

There is always somebody who will find even the most innocent image to be sexually exciting. The image posted was about as innocent as can be yet you don't see it that way. Don't you think that says more about the viewer's issues than the photographer?

What about a shot of a 16 year old girl in Nike shorts kicking a ball into a soccer net? Is that acceptable? Or should we outlaw that type of images because there are people that will find it a turn-on?

were talking about nude shoots not sexy short short shoots.

S W I N S K E Y wrote:
we don't deserve our own constitution....

we have become a nation of pussies, afraid of our local DAs...

in a republic, the government should be fearful of the people.

this "better safe then sorry" attitude makes me sick..

and it's not just photographing minors...its everything.

just sayin ~

Digital Moonlight wrote:
I agree 100%.   We are no longer the land of the free or the home of the brave.  This country is well on the road to becoming a theocratic police state, populated by mindless sheep who live their lives in perpetual fear of government- and media-hyped bogeymen.

Hmmm ... who is hyping this???

Digital Moonlight wrote:
Only because they were lucky ...

Sturges had his studio raided by the FBI in 1990 and was detained, interrogated, and had all of his equipment and work confiscated.   Joseph Semien, a contractor working for Sturges, was dragged out of bed naked at gunpoint (as well as his roommate and their girlfriends), arrested, and charged with multiple felonies; he also had all of his equipment and work confiscated. 

...

Furthermore, people have been prosecuted for selling Sturges' and Hamilton's work.

...

"Not in jail" is a small consolation when you've had the tools of your trade stolen by the government and have been forced to pay a six-figure legal bill to keep your freedom and recover your (irreparably damaged) property ...

Just because the government can't send you to prison doesn't mean they can't beat and/or taze you, take your children away, destroy your finances, steal everything you own, and permanently ruin your reputation -- all on unsupported charges before they even secure an indictment.

...

If they do any of these things in "good faith" (and the courts routinely find even the most blatant police misconduct to have be in good faith), you (or your next of kin) can't do a thing about it or recover a dime in damages.

Stand up. Stop bending over and playing both sides of the fence. Or go home, cower and STFU.

Aesthetic Photoworks wrote:
I know it may be a huge ass can of worms, but whatever.

So you have these 16-17 years olds here who, according to their profiles, "will pose nude". We all know that there are also creeps and pedos around here looking for that type of thing.

I'm wondering... if one of these models posted a nude pic in their port, how would anyone know and care to report it ? Does MM even have people who are keeping an eye on these kids ? I think it's nothing short of retarded to let anyone under 18 to have an option to mark their profiles "Yes" to nudes. I'm just saying...

Disgust... ahem, I mean discuss.

Let me get one thing straight: paedophiles are adults who are sexually attracted toe *pre-pubescent* children.  The proper word for someone who is attracted to a teenager who is under the age of consent is "ephebophile".

What is the difference anyway?  Sexpreds will go after ANY imagery of children and teens regardless of whether they are nude or not.

A person's body is their own property, not anybody else's.  It's time that we let kids decide if they want to pose nude or not and as adults support them and their choices.  Jock Sturges and David Hamilton have pulled off some excellent work of minors in the nude with their books and both of them hate child sexual abuse of any sort. 

It's not their fault if COGs get their rocks off on their work, but thanks to sex education today our kids are aware of them and by and large know how to deal with them.

Let's stop being so paranoid about teens being sexual and work on eliminating our own neuroses.  Read the book "Harmful To Minors" sometime, that might give a better insight into this often maligned area.

Norman Gould wrote:
It is like this thread shows reasons.  Why shoot under 18,  It is too much of a hassle legal or not.  Don't need drama.

Emily Maddison wrote:
I dont know, that just doesnt seem fair on an aspiring model.
They may be able to wait to they are 18 but what if they miss their chance?

It does cause drama actually when they're under 18 & need a parent/ guardian signature whether they're nude or not. I had a gig last weekend with a few females, & two were underage with their mom. Their mom wouldn't sign the model release because she basically said, "they could take your face & put it on a nude model & sell it all over the place." Completely ridiculous & a waste of my time (already started working on one of them) and the photographers that booked them.

Ms_Samantha_Marie wrote:

It does cause drama actually when they're under 18 & need a parent/ guardian signature whether they're nude or not. I had a gig last weekend with a few females, & two were underage with their mom. Their mom wouldn't sign the model release because she basically said, "they could take your face & put it on a nude model & sell it all over the place." Completely ridiculous & a waste of my time (already started working on one of them) and the photographers that booked them.

As there are minor aged models with moms who are paranoid for no reason, there are as many if not more that are not drama freaks.  I have shot with many minor aged models over the past 30 years with no problem.  Drama is not necessary.  I have had adult women cause far more drama regarding their wedding photography with me than anything else!  After having a bride try to have me beaten to prevent me from fulfilling the contract to shoot her wedding, I gave up on shooting weddings!  I have heard true stories from other photographers who shot weddings where fights broke out and even one where a wedding crasher shot and killed the groom.  That is far worse drama than any minor and mom have ever provided me with!

Some weddings have been wonderful, and some have been nightmares.  Shooting minors has been nothing but enjoyable as I will only work with those whose parents are on the same page as me in understanding and communication.

Ms_Samantha_Marie wrote:

Norman Gould wrote:
It is like this thread shows reasons.  Why shoot under 18,  It is too much of a hassle legal or not.  Don't need drama.

It does cause drama actually when they're under 18 & need a parent/ guardian signature whether they're nude or not. I had a gig last weekend with a few females, & two were underage with their mom. Their mom wouldn't sign the model release because she basically said, "they could take your face & put it on a nude model & sell it all over the place." Completely ridiculous & a waste of my time (already started working on one of them) and the photographers that booked them.

Yeah, but you come across stupid people everywhere.  It's the mental age of the parents that should be called into question here, not the real ages of the the models.

RayH Photography wrote:
Yeah, but you come across stupid people everywhere.  It's the mental age of the parents that should be called into question here, not the real ages of the the models.

Some are not fit to be married let alone "parents!" 

Jac Knight wrote:
this comment pisses me off, majority of rape cases isnt about what the women is wearing its about power and being able to take over said women.

I still stand by what I said, its wrong because sick CREEPS are finding this attractive, I dont think any image should be taken like this because although to one it is artistic to another it is pornographic.

Such irony.

Do you realize the same could be said for your avatar and several shots in your portfolio?

Some people may find it sick to be nude with a snake wrapped around you.

Some may consider it a form of sick bestiality.

Perhaps some find THAT pornographic.

Maybe some don't think images like that should be taken.

Morgan Barbour wrote:
Why is it wrong for it to be up?
Just because there are people who are ill and are attracted to that does not make that photo wrong. That mindset is equal to someone saying that a woman who was raped shouldn't have been wearing a skirt that short, because obviously the rapist found it attractive. SMDH.

Jac Knight wrote:
this comment pisses me off, majority of rape cases isnt about what the women is wearing its about power and being able to take over said women.

I still stand by what I said, its wrong because sick CREEPS are finding this attractive, I dont think any image should be taken like this because although to one it is artistic to another it is pornographic.

Almost any photo will "turn on" someone.  It isn't even necessarily required that there be a human in the shot.  That's simply not a valid basis for judging the image.  How a reasonable person views the intent of the shot is the best we've got.

Art of the nude wrote:
Almost any photo will "turn on" someone.  It isn't even necessarily required that there be a human in the shot.

Proof:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/26/61056 … 3afdc6.jpg

Ms_Samantha_Marie wrote:

Norman Gould wrote:
It is like this thread shows reasons.  Why shoot under 18,  It is too much of a hassle legal or not.  Don't need drama.

It does cause drama actually when they're under 18 & need a parent/ guardian signature whether they're nude or not. I had a gig last weekend with a few females, & two were underage with their mom. Their mom wouldn't sign the model release because she basically said, "they could take your face & put it on a nude model & sell it all over the place." Completely ridiculous & a waste of my time (already started working on one of them) and the photographers that booked them.

Meh, well I'm emancipated so have never had to bring my parents into this, Though I doubt my mum would of acted like that anyway.

Jac Knight wrote:
Let's put this argument to rest, the site considers an adult to be 18+ so all nudes should be 18+

Agreed 100 %

Incident Image wrote:
It is also considered the age where you become an "adult", and therefore can make decisions independent of your parents, so yes it does.

Age of Consent and Age of Majority are two slightly different things...Strange thing is, Age of Consent can often be younger than Age of Majority in many jurisdictions.....

For example, in some places legal AoC is 17 and AoM is 18. So at 17 that person could consent to sexual relations with an 18 year old boyfriend or something, but could not pose nude for an 18 year old tog for images that will be made public without a parent or legal guardian authorizing without any jeopardy to the photographer. He could get in trouble. Strange for sure...

Alexis Nichole wrote:
It's a parents responsibility to know what and where their kids are & what they are doing. Nudes, as beautiful as they can be, should be left to adults (18 and over) who fully comprehend that these images will be around FOREVER. If your not old enough to sign your releases (and understand them) you shouldn't be doing nude modeling. Just IMHO.

+1

David-Thomas wrote:
Yes, there are a couple of girls here who are under 18 and shoot nudes. One of them posts in the forums quite regularly. She is, however, located in a place where it's lawful to take pictures - even hardcore pornographic pictures - of 16 year olds.

Are you talking about England ?

Aesthetic Photoworks wrote:
Are you talking about England ?

Nope. You cn't shoot porn with 16 year olds here, quite rightly. She's in Western Australia.

David-Thomas wrote:

Nope. You cn't shoot porn with 16 year olds here, quite rightly. She's in Western Australia.

Good Lord. I was thinking it was some kind of Third World country 

David D Photography wrote:

Agreed 100 %

You bumped a month old thread for this?

David-Thomas wrote:
Yes, there are a couple of girls here who are under 18 and shoot nudes. One of them posts in the forums quite regularly. She is, however, located in a place where it's lawful to take pictures - even hardcore pornographic pictures - of 16 year olds.

Holy shit; seriously? I'm not saying you're wrong, but gaddamn.

Morgan Barbour wrote:

Holy shit; seriously? I'm not saying you're wrong, but gaddamn.

Yes. The Western Australian reasoning is that if 16 year olds can consent to sex, they should also be able to consent to having a camera in the room.

David D Photography wrote:
Agreed 100 %

Morgan Barbour wrote:
You bumped a month old thread for this?

He's probably a slow reader!

Sunni Tonitia Barbosa wrote:

IT TAKES A WHOLE VILLAGE TO RAISE A CHILD!!!  IF YOU CANT BE PART OF THE SOULTION THEN YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. 
GOD IS WATCHING AND HE ALWAYS WINS!

Just no.

It's not MMs problem.

Incident Image wrote:

Haha, so even though it can be legal depending on circumstances it shouldn't be allowed?

Thought Police in full effect.

Heck, American Beauty won an Oscar for Best Picture and it had a topless Thora Birch in it, who was underage at the time.  Hypocrisy at it's finest.

The reason is that some here are crying wolf and some afraid of younger competition!

Alan Pedroso wrote:
This is the parents responsibility

Since when are there responsible parents these days? Maybe 20 years ago, but today's kids are nothing like that of their past generation.

Aesthetic Photoworks wrote:
I know it may be a huge ass can of worms, but whatever.

So you have these 16-17 years olds here who, according to their profiles, "will pose nude". We all know that there are also creeps and pedos around here looking for that type of thing.

I'm wondering... if one of these models posted a nude pic in their port, how would anyone know and care to report it ? Does MM even have people who are keeping an eye on these kids ? I think it's nothing short of retarded to let anyone under 18 to have an option to mark their profiles "Yes" to nudes. I'm just saying...

Disgust... ahem, I mean discuss.

......M M needs to check,before approving the profile !!

DoubleDare Studios wrote:
hmm...it seems to me that if a person under age poses nude and posts it on MM then, isn't MM hosting child porn? I'm sure there's a lawyer out there that can prove that case. Just another reason I don't do nudes - too much BS...

There is a HUGE difference between nudes and porn. Child nudes in the correct context are legal. Is a baby picture with the child sitting in a studio laughing child porn? Is a home video of someone's beloved children taking a bubble bath together being giggly and silly child porn? I think not.

Tori Long wrote:
I'm saying if it's an accredited class be it photography or painting it would be very hard for a parent to call it pornographic. 

Most photographers I know who shoot lingerie and bikini that also shoot nudes aren't choosing to do art, but even if they were, why take a risk on someone 17 when there are perfectly good people 18 and over?  If you are a famous art photographer no one will care, but I wouldn't want to be the guy in a small town that gets destroyed by angry parents over photos that other people viewed as porn.

Depending on where you live it is EXCEPTIONALLY easy for a parent to call a photo or painting from an accredited art class porn. Just because a class is accredited doesn't mean that the students who are taking the class won't choose to create something of that nature. Are you kidding me?

I took a film photo class (at an accredited school) back in the fall and because I shot a few art nudes and developed them there was a girl (over 18) going ballistic behind my back about how all I did was shoot porn - which is in no way true, and very funny when other people corrected her. Saying that students enrolled in an art class won't produce what someone considers to be "porn" is a very sheltered or idealistic view of life, I can't decide which.

I work with painters, sculptors, and other artists who create beautiful works of art that will get turned away by galleries they ARE CURRENTLY SHOWING AT because of "too much nudity" - no matter that the piece lacks sexuality, the opinion is that if the person depicted in the image is nude and shows anything but their back from the waist up then it is too much... >.