PR Zone wrote:
Should nude, erotic and fetish simply be disabled if you registed with an age that's under 18 ?

IMO yes, absolutely.
Maybe newer models just tick every option without actually reading what they say?  Just a thought..

Emi Rose wrote:

Maybe newer models just tick every option without actually reading what they say?  Just a thought..

Probably much truth to that.  But in the end it is the responsibility of the photographer to be aware of and conform with the legal limitations of their location.  So ticking those boxes does not mean they can actually shoot that type of material.

Howick Image Studio wrote:

Probably much truth to that.  But in the end it is the responsibility of the photographer to be aware of and conform with the legal limitations of their location.  So ticking those boxes does not mean they can actually shoot that type of material.

Agreed.

PR Zone wrote:
Apart from the straight 'icky-ness' factor, with release forms etc - you have the possibility that a model who's too young cannot enter into contracts/consent to 'conditions around image use' etc

A parent or guardian can contract on behalf of a minor. 

And just to clarify, I wouldn't shoot the material in question with someone under 18 either.  But I also don't think we should impose our moral judgement on the laws of other jurisdictions.  There are places where the legal age is 19 (and probably some where it is higher).  Should we impose the highest common denominator?  And your idea could also be applied to subject matter in general.  Nudity is illegal in certain countries - should we eliminate the nude option altogether just because it is morally unacceptable in certain cultures?

PR Zone wrote:
Not sure what the individual laws say in each country, but - for me - it seems fundamentally wrong for a model to say '16' and 'will shoot nude'

There are some profiles on MM which have female models as young as 16, who have ticked nude, fetish and erotic

What's the community opinion on this?

Should nude, erotic and fetish simply be disabled if you registed with an age that's under 18 ?

On ModelMayhem, models under 18 are not allowed to do nudes. So if you see someone who ticks that box or says so on their profile (or especially when they have any nudes or implied posted): CAM it.

PR Zone wrote:
OK, I'm quite newt this, so not 100% sure what 'CAM it' means...

...but took an educated guess and flagged the profile with a UK moderator called Phil (https://www.modelmayhem.com/490424)

Hope that helps :-)

CAM: https://www.modelmayhem.com/contactamod/

PR Zone wrote:
Apart from the straight 'icky-ness' factor, with release forms etc - you have the possibility that a model who's too young cannot enter into contracts/consent to 'conditions around image use' etc

Sorry. but there are a few bigger issues in that then releases and contracts. In the UK, especially, the word "prison" comes immediately to mind.

Studio36

Isserley wrote:
On ModelMayhem, models under 18 are not allowed to do nudes. So if you see someone who ticks that box or says so on their profile (or especially when they have any nudes or implied posted): CAM it.

I'm pretty sure that on MM, models under 18 aren't allowed to POST nudes.  I don't think the site has any inclination to sort out what models might do outside of MM.  Would they actually delete the account of a nudist who posed for nude family pictures at 16?

Also, I've chatted with a variety of 17 year old models who plan to start shooting nudes as soon as they're 18.  As far as I know, allowing a mature 17 year old to actually think through such a choice and talk with prospective photographers, is not illegal, immoral, OR fattening.

Xylene wrote:
Its just wrong and illigal

In most cases, no, it isn't.  At least not illegal based on the simple fact of nudtity.  It is frequently unwise for a variety of reasons, but not inherently illegal most places relevant to MM.

Digital Hands wrote:
It is possible that the model mistyped the numbers. It should read 26, not 16?

I had a 17 year old model on another site try that one on, she wanted a topless shoot which I decilned, her reply 'Mum is OK with it', I declined again, then her reply was 'Sorry I mistyped my age, it should be 18' At which point I contacted the site mods and she was never heard from agaiin..

I have also shot fully clothed 17 year olds who openly discuss their fake ID cards so they can get in to pubs/clubs, just beware..

Xylene wrote:
Its just wrong and illigal

No it's not necessarily wrong , and not necessarily illegal .

PR Zone wrote:
Not sure what the individual laws say in each country, but - for me - it seems fundamentally wrong for a model to say '16' and 'will shoot nude'

There are some profiles on MM which have female models as young as 16, who have ticked nude, fetish and erotic

What's the community opinion on this?

Should nude, erotic and fetish simply be disabled if you registed with an age that's under 18 ?

You have a confusion of many issues involving law, and site rules.

In most places in the U.S., it is not illegal unless there is a sexual connotation to the shots.   

In the UK, it is illegal.

The site is permitted to set its standards higher, or is required to observe laws wider than where it is sited (the U.S.).

So the site doesn't allow it, and will police it if you bring it to their attention via CAM.

Nudity is controversial.   If you think the human body is bad, then you may consider it wrong to have images of nude people under the age of 18.

I tend to agree with the U.S. laws, that as long as the image isn't sexual - then there is nothing wrong and freedom of speech and expression should rule.

That said, I still like that the site bans underage nudity.   I think that while such isn't wrong, it is impractical in our society where people of unsound mind would find encouragement and seek pleasure in such.   So from a practical social approach, and as a personal decision on the part of the site management, I have to support it.

And I don't shoot anyone under the age of 18 anyway, whether nude or not.  (This is a hobby with me, and I just don't see the reason to do that.)

So rather than think in terms of having the photos or expressed desires up as wrong, I rather view the act of banning such on the site, as a site decision, as right.

Xylene wrote:
Its just wrong and illigal

Well that's you're opinion, in my opinion, you're wrong and you can't spell. But you are entitled to have an opinion, even if it's wrong.

Xylene wrote:
Its just wrong and illigal

legal in the USA

Luminos wrote:
In the UK, it is illegal.

That is plain wrong. Please do not post such falsehoods. It is perfectly legal to photograph nudes of any age in the UK, as long as they are not indecent. Nudity does not equate to indecency.

Ken Pegg wrote:

That is plain wrong. Please do not post such falsehoods. It is perfectly legal to photograph nudes of any age in the UK, as long as they are not indecent. Nudity does not equate to indecency.

I agree with your comment, but it seems to me that the UK has a law making nude photos of under 18 illegal for publication.  Did that not happen?

Ken Pegg wrote:
That is plain wrong. Please do not post such falsehoods. It is perfectly legal to photograph nudes of any age in the UK, as long as they are not indecent. Nudity does not equate to indecency.

Absolutely correct Ken, the grey area is over decency, which is where you ARE at the mercy of the courts whims. 

Of course, nudity and decency can be wholly unrelated!

Howick Image Studio wrote:
I believe there are countries where the legal age is 16 for that type of subject matter, so disabling those options would unfairly limit people in those countries.  If the disabling could be done selectively to properly recognize legal age on a country by country basis, then it would make sense.

The problem is it may be legal in some countries but the publish on the internet a 16 year old nude is pornography in many countries and could cause legal problems for MM.

Luminos wrote:

I agree with your comment, but it seems to me that the UK has a law making nude photos of under 18 illegal for publication.  Did that not happen?

All of David Hamilton's books are still openly for sale in the UK (including Amazon) and many of the models are clearly sub 16 let alone sub 18.

MikeRobisonPhotos wrote:

I'm pretty sure that on MM, models under 18 aren't allowed to POST nudes.  I don't think the site has any inclination to sort out what models might do outside of MM.  Would they actually delete the account of a nudist who posed for nude family pictures at 16?

Also, I've chatted with a variety of 17 year old models who plan to start shooting nudes as soon as they're 18.  As far as I know, allowing a mature 17 year old to actually think through such a choice and talk with prospective photographers, is not illegal, immoral, OR fattening.

You are correct that they aren't allowed to post them, but I'm also reasonably sure they aren't allowed to network for them here either. I'm not a mod, however, so...

PR Zone wrote:
Not sure what the individual laws say in each country, but - for me - it seems fundamentally wrong for a model to say '16' and 'will shoot nude'

There are some profiles on MM which have female models as young as 16, who have ticked nude, fetish and erotic

What's the community opinion on this?

Should nude, erotic and fetish simply be disabled if you registed with an age that's under 18 ?

but nude means something different from topless in the UK right? like topless doesn't count as nudity right?

Page 3 used to have 16 year olds "nude" for the longest time

Luminos wrote:
In the UK, it is illegal.

No, it isn't.

PR Zone wrote:
Not sure what the individual laws say in each country, but - for me - it seems fundamentally wrong for a model to say '16' and 'will shoot nude'

There are some profiles on MM which have female models as young as 16, who have ticked nude, fetish and erotic

What's the community opinion on this?

Should nude, erotic and fetish simply be disabled if you registed with an age that's under 18 ?

Well, while you need to be 18 to do nudes here, with 14 popping out kids and acting and dressing like prostitutes.... Oh wait, to me that's bad, so is the thing you're talking about.  Granted I'm across the pond here and all, but anyways.  I hope this thread goes well.