login info join!
Forums > General Industry > 16 and 'nude' is just wrong - no? Search   Reply
first123456last
Photographer
AJ_In_Atlanta
Posts: 12,801
Atlanta, Georgia, US


MMB Photos - Artistique wrote:
I honestly don't see the problem.

It is illegal to cross a railroad in Quebec; even in full sun, with full visibility, with no danger at all. Police actually apply this law. It seems ridiculous, but a law exists only when there has been abuses in the past.

Law against minor nudity is the same thing. It is ridiculous. As long as you're making something artistic, natural, realistic... with NO sexuality engaged in the picture and process, there is absolutely no reason why it should be illegal, as long as the parents are ok with this.

But there has been abuses. And there are people out there completely unable to see nudity without thinking about sex.

And, at all, why would that be so bad, to think of sex with a picture of a nude 16yo woman ? They actually HAVE sex at that age, for the most part. So what's the big deal... Well, it's illegal. That's the big deal. Why ? Same thing, there has been abuses. Thare are still abuses.

One should try to understand law, and the reason why this law exists, before he builds his morality looking at law text. It is not moraly bad to be excited by a 16yo body ( which some are way more mature than older ones ), it is Legally bad. Big difference.

So, op started with:"16yo and nude, is it a problem ?". Legally, yeah.

I made sure I only had sex in the dark when I was that age so as not to break any laws.  Regardless its just too creepy for me to even consider shooting someone that young in anything revealing or provocative (those are not the same things mind you).

Oct 15 11 08:09 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Doug Jantz
Posts: 4,025
Tulsa, Oklahoma, US


Xylene wrote:
Its just wrong and illigal

Not everywhere.  Others have said this already

Oct 15 11 08:17 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Doug Jantz
Posts: 4,025
Tulsa, Oklahoma, US


S W I N S K E Y wrote:

legal in the USA

Actually it is.  This came to me from a detective after going through this myself lol.  He said a girl under 18 topless is NOT illegal.  Showing genitals under 18 IS.  In the U.S.

Oct 15 11 08:19 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jeffrey M Fletcher
Posts: 4,344
Asheville, North Carolina, US


Doug Jantz wrote:

Actually it is.  This came to me from a detective after going through this myself lol.  He said a girl under 18 topless is NOT illegal.  Showing genitals under 18 IS.  In the U.S.

Your detective has (as you describe it) given his opinion regarding a fairly complex issue. It can easily be shown that this is not always the case.

Go out and purchase a book by Jock Sturges: note the ages, note that genitals are shown, note that the book is sold without age restriction to the buyer (often available at Barnes and Nobel).

Oct 15 11 08:41 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
JStone
Posts: 645
Chicago, Illinois, US


Doug Jantz wrote:
Actually it is.  This came to me from a detective after going through this myself lol.  He said a girl under 18 topless is NOT illegal.  Showing genitals under 18 IS.  In the U.S.

Its far more vague than that and far far more legal than you think.

Nude 14 year old in the water with a nude 40 year old man nearby - legal.

Same set of photos:

Same nude 14 year old near the 40 year old with an erection - illegal.

DIRECTLY  from an appellate case, a case making law.


This is the rule:

A child can not be displayed in an obscene manner or in a manner directly focusing on the genitals in an obscene way.

Whats obscene?

Obscene is determined by the community standards in the community you are in.

edit: Some states have made specific rules regarding images of -18. (Most are unconstitutional but I dont suggest you tet it.) You have to check YOUR states law.

SO in New York whats obscene is not whats obscene in Portage Alaska.

If mere nudity was illegal than every parent who brought in pictures of their five year old running about naked in the back yard would be brought in for charges.


So 16 year olds can and have posed nude as has been challenged in 'Mapplethorpe'?? book. (I forget his name)  It was carried by major bookstores and it depicted 5 year olds - 19 year olds nude. It wasnt obscene it was done in an artful manner.

Just b/c a 16 year old is nude does not make it sexual.  American beauty - 17 year old Thora Birch topless. Blame it on Rio - 17 year old Michelle Johnson topless.  The list goes on and on.

Also keep in mind what is legal to be in public is not the same as what is legal to photograph.

This site does not allow such under 18 nudes and thats this sites rules which we all should and will abide by.

Oct 15 11 08:47 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MMB Photos - Artistique
Posts: 37
Boucherville, Quebec, Canada


AJScalzitti wrote:
I made sure I only had sex in the dark when I was that age so as not to break any laws.

THAT is wrong. That is the society making its way in the personnal life of citizens. That makes us ( north americans ) slaves of a system.

The state has no right to get its nose in the citizen's personnal lifes. People tend to forget the live in prison.

I made a short movie, once, about how criminals we all are. A human being CAN'T exist, outside his house, if not hidden by clothes. Being a human is illegal. You have to hide yourself to be "legal". Think about that.

Oct 15 11 08:54 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ontherocks
Posts: 22,547
Salem, Oregon, US


i had a 17 year old approach me and she had a wish list full of 18+ material. i told her that those types of shots would have to wait until she was 18. haven't heard from her since.
Oct 15 11 08:57 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Doug Jantz
Posts: 4,025
Tulsa, Oklahoma, US


Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
Your detective has (as you describe it) given his opinion regarding a fairly complex issue. It can easily be shown that this is not always the case.

Go out and purchase a book by Jock Sturges: note the ages, note that genitals are shown, note that the book is sold without age restriction to the buyer (often available at Barnes and Nobel).

It wasn't an opinion.  smile  I have seen the book smile  Every definition of child porn you will find states that genitals are part of that.  But this gets away from my point anyway which was applying it to the OP

Oct 15 11 08:57 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 36,003
San Francisco, California, US


Xylene wrote:
Its just wrong and illigal

S W I N S K E Y wrote:
legal in the USA

I would agree with the statement if you changed it to read:  "sometimes legal in the USA."  Obvoiusly there are forms of nudity with minors that is not legal.  The definitions of what is legal varies by state, and to some degree, whether the images are commercial.

Oct 15 11 09:00 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
JStone
Posts: 645
Chicago, Illinois, US


MMB Photos - Artistique wrote:

THAT is wrong. That is the society making its way in the personnal life of citizens. That makes us ( north americans ) slaves of a system.

The state has no right to get its nose in the citizen's personnal lifes. People tend to forget the live in prison.

I made a short movie, once, about how criminals we all are. A human being CAN'T exist, outside his house, if not hidden by clothes. Being a human is illegal. You have to hide yourself to be "legal". Think about that.

This is too true. If we actually lived 'in public' as we ALL do in private...

Oct 15 11 09:07 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
TRW Imaging
Posts: 15
Jaffrey, New Hampshire, US


JStone wrote:

Its far more vague than that and far far more legal than you think.

Nude 14 year old in the water with a nude 40 year old man nearby - legal.

Same set of photos:

Same nude 14 year old near the 40 year old with an erection - illegal.

DIRECTLY  from an appellate case, a case making law.


This is the rule:

A child can not be displayed in an obscene manner or in a manner directly focusing on the genitals in an obscene way.

Whats obscene?

Obscene is determined by the community standards in the community you are in.

edit: Some states have made specific rules regarding images of -18. (Most are unconstitutional but I don't suggest you test it.) You have to check YOUR state's law.

SO in New York whats obscene is not whats obscene in Portage Alaska.

If mere nudity was illegal than every parent who brought in pictures of their five year old running about naked in the back yard would be brought in for charges.


So 16 year olds can and have posed nude as has been challenged in 'Mapplethorpe'?? book. (I forget his name)  It was carried by major bookstores and it depicted 5 year olds - 19 year olds nude. It wasn't obscene it was done in an artful manner.

Just b/c a 16 year old is nude does not make it sexual.  American beauty - 17 year old Thora Birch topless. Blame it on Rio - 17 year old Michelle Johnson topless.  The list goes on and on.

Also keep in mind what is legal to be in public is not the same as what is legal to photograph.

This site does not allow such under 18 nudes and that's this sites rules which we all should and will abide by.

Well said and appropriate.

Oct 15 11 09:10 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25,319
Bath, England, United Kingdom


Luminos wrote:
In the UK, it is illegal.

No. It's not.

However, taking a photo of an under 18 person which is deemed by a judge/jury to be 'indecent' (a term for whch there is NO definition in UK law) is an offence punishable with jail time.

Given the fact that nobody knows what 'indecent' means and that the same photo (even a clothed photo) could be deemed indecent by one jury but not indecent by another, it makes no sense to ask for trouble by shooting nudes of under 18s - even if the intention is completely innocent.

Personally, I will only shoot under 18 models on agency approved tests or editorials with a full team present, and even then I take care not to let the model get too pouty!

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:
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

Nude/topless - it's irrelevant. The question is one of 'indecency'.

The use of 16 year olds on Page 3 was before the law changed in 2003 to define a 'child' as anybody under 18. These days all Page 3 models are 18 or over.



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Oct 15 11 09:11 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jeffrey M Fletcher
Posts: 4,344
Asheville, North Carolina, US


Doug Jantz wrote:

It wasn't an opinion.  smile  I have seen the book smile  Every definition of child porn you will find states that genitals are part of that.  But this gets away from my point anyway which was applying it to the OP

Okay, so if you don't wish to call it an opinion what would you call it?

Since you've seen one of Sturges's books and wish to defend the position stating that showing the genitals of a minor is illegal explain how the book is still sold (apparently openly and legally).

You stated that you had been told that showing genitals of a minor in a photograph was illegal in the US. My point is that this is not always the case. Additionally you don't have to show genitals to show a minor in an indecent way and run into legal trouble.

Oct 15 11 09:12 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Doug Jantz
Posts: 4,025
Tulsa, Oklahoma, US


Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:

Okay, so if you don't wish to call it an opinion what would you call it?

Since you've seen one of Sturges's books and wish to defend the position stating that showing the genitals of a minor is illegal explain how the book is still sold (apparently openly and legally).

You stated that you had been told that showing genitals of a minor in a photograph was illegal in the US. My point is that this is not always the case. Additionally you don't have to show genitals to show a minor in an indecent way and run into legal trouble.

Not sure about you, but since MY photos were under question at the time and MY camera was in the possession of the detectives that weekend while they went through my photo shoot, I prefer to listen to the guy who would have been arresting me had any of my photos been as he described.

Oct 15 11 09:16 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Doug Jantz
Posts: 4,025
Tulsa, Oklahoma, US


Damn, we have a lot of legal experts on these forums smile
Oct 15 11 09:16 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Looknsee Photography
Posts: 21,517
Portland, Oregon, US


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 ?

1)  I am a photographer of the nude, and I have no interest in photographing 16 year old models (clothed or not).  Indeed, there are many 18-22 year old models that I have no interest in photographing.

2)  "Nude" does not necessarily mean sexy, erotic, fetish, etc.  "Nude" just means without clothes, and there are lots of lovely nude images made of young girls -- people like David Hamilton & Jock Sturges come to mind.  A nude 16 year old, to me, does not necessarily mean child porn.

3)  I believe (but I don't know & I don't care -- see #1, above) that photographing a nude 16 year old is legal, under certain circumstances (e.g. with permission of the child's parent or guardian, in the presence of said parent/guardian, etc.).

4)  Did I mention  I have no interest in photographing 16 year old models (clothed or not).  Indeed, there are many 18-22 year old models that I have no interest in photographing?

Oct 15 11 09:22 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,152
Lancaster, England, United Kingdom


Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
Since you've seen one of Sturges's books and wish to defend the position stating that showing the genitals of a minor is illegal explain how the book is still sold (apparently openly and legally).

I don't know about in the USA, but here in the UK there's been a lot of "sex ed" type programmes on TV showing definite under 18s nude (stills and video), with genitals fully on display (and even the main focus of the image at times).

Obviously more illustratory than sexual in nature, but that's not the point, and apparently such images are also shown in a lot of high school these days too as part of standard sex education.

So, as you say Jeffrey, simply photographing/videoing/showing the genitals of a minor isn't necessarily illegal (at least not everywhere, certainly not in the UK).

But, personally, I just don't shoot with under 18s, clothed or otherwise.

Oct 15 11 09:22 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
JStone
Posts: 645
Chicago, Illinois, US


Doug Jantz wrote:
Damn, we have a lot of legal experts on these forums smile

Why thank you. wink

Oct 15 11 09:25 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R A V E N D R I V E
Posts: 15,867
New York, New York, US


lol these threads



read some supreme court decisions. the national government does not consider photos of nude minors to be illegal solely because a photo contains a nude minor


it will just be costly if your state's DA comes after you (probably even worse at the county level). also, you'll be indicted if you have no money, but you'll have a better chance if you are familiar with case law. have fun
Oct 15 11 09:30 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 36,640
Columbus, Ohio, US


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 ?

If you wander back to this thread, I've a question for you.

Are you comfortable shooting nudes at 12:05am on a model's 18th birthday?

Oct 15 11 09:38 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jeffrey M Fletcher
Posts: 4,344
Asheville, North Carolina, US


Doug Jantz wrote:

Not sure about you, but since MY photos were under question at the time and MY camera was in the possession of the detectives that weekend while they went through my photo shoot, I prefer to listen to the guy who would have been arresting me had any of my photos been as he described.

Sounds quite scary and I also would have been listening very closely to anything the officers said (while putting a lawyer on notice and seeking other professional advice).

Additionally it's certain that he is not the only law enforcement official with this view, there are some with even more draconian opinions regarding nude images.

Something that is interesting is that another detective looking at underage images could very well view bare breasts as meeting the bar for an indecent or obscene image, depending on the picture, the location and any recent legal, social or political developements.

Oct 15 11 09:39 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,831
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


Luminos wrote:
In the UK, it is illegal.

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.

Luminos wrote:
photos of under 18 illegal for publication.  Did that not happen?

It kinda sorta did happen by way of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 when the age was raised from 16 to 18. The judgement as to legality is based on whether or not an image is "indecent" as Ken pointed out, but that word is not anywhere defined in law.

What that means in practice is that any particular court may or may not see any particular image on any particular day as "indecent"; but that in the very same court on another day, or a different court on the same or another day, the very same image could be found to be "indecent".

When it comes to publishers NO ONE wants to be the test case.

Studio36

Oct 15 11 09:57 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jeffrey M Fletcher
Posts: 4,344
Asheville, North Carolina, US


studio36uk wrote:

Luminos wrote:
In the UK, it is illegal.

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.

What that means in practice is that any particular court may or may not see any particular image on any particular day as "indecent"; but that in the very same court on another day, or a different court on the same or another day, the very same image could be found to be "indecent".

Sounds similar to whether an image could be obscene in the U.S.

Oct 15 11 10:02 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Art Silva
Posts: 9,418
Santa Barbara, California, US


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 ?

I would think that MM sticks to the 18+ rule site wide no matter what. I'm sure some slip thru the cracks but those people eventually get noticed and reprimanded.

edit: I just noticed the Mod's comment on page 1  wink

Oct 15 11 10:05 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,831
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
Sounds similar to whether an image could be obscene in the U.S.

Which resolves to: "I will know it when I see it".

And that's no joke!

Studio36

Oct 15 11 10:08 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Doug Lester
Posts: 10,591
Atlanta, Georgia, US


This is a complex issue in that every state has differing laws and even moreso when Federallaws are added to the mix.  Wha tit seems to boil down to is that shooting non sexual nudes of those under 18 is NOT illegalin the US, if .....

IF you are willing to gamble on your name and photo being on the evening news as an arrested child pornographer.

IF you have 2 or 3 hundred thousand bucks to invest in your legal defense. (Check out Jock Sturgess).

IF you are willing to have all of your images and computers confiscated as evidence and held for months.(Again checkout Jock Sturges).

For me it simply is not worth the risk.
Oct 15 11 10:16 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Tansy Blue
Posts: 317
Nottingham, England, United Kingdom


Stefano Brunesci wrote:

Luminos wrote:
In the UK, it is illegal.

No. It's not.

However, taking a photo of an under 18 person which is deemed by a judge/jury to be 'indecent' (a term for whch there is NO definition in UK law) is an offence punishable with jail time.

Given the fact that nobody knows what 'indecent' means and that the same photo (even a clothed photo) could be deemed indecent by one jury but not indecent by another, it makes no sense to ask for trouble by shooting nudes of under 18s - even if the intention is completely innocent.

Personally, I will only shoot under 18 models on agency approved tests or editorials with a full team present, and even then I take care not to let the model get too pouty!


Nude/topless - it's irrelevant. The question is one of 'indecency'.

The use of 16 year olds on Page 3 was before the law changed in 2003 to define a 'child' as anybody under 18. These days all Page 3 models are 18 or over.



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Damn, exactly what I was going to say.

I remember (back in the daaaaay) when 16 year olds were on page 3 (I would've been 10, scary stuff), but all under-18 models have now been removed from the tabloids' websites.

Basically, no one knows what indecent means, and no one wants to be the test case.

Oct 15 11 10:22 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jeffrey M Fletcher
Posts: 4,344
Asheville, North Carolina, US


studio36uk wrote:

Which resolves to: "I will know it when I see it".

And that's no joke!

Studio36

I always had taken that statement as an admission of defeat. Since we don't have the honorable Justice in our studios to apply his judgement we're left in something of a fog.

It seems to me that we still exist in a legal environment where virtually any nude image could potentially be declared obscene and that there is no 100% sure way of determining an images legality short of trial regarding an individual image.

I was wondering why you think the indecency law in the UK is routinely followed as a prohibition while this is not the situation regarding possible obscenity prosecution in the U.S.?

Oct 15 11 10:26 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fiddlers Green Photo
Posts: 1,350
Edmonds, Washington, US


the futurist in me contemplates that a thousand years from now anthropologist viewing our civilization will find it interesting that there are no images of developing humans in their natural form. I wonder what reason they will assign to this taboo of modern times.
It is a whimsical thought.
to the question - prison is not my idea of a fun place so right or wrong I am not shooting anyone under 18 nude or lewd.
Oct 15 11 10:29 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 11,887
Olivet, Michigan, US


Isserley wrote:
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...

Depends on what you're networking for.

If you were 17, and your 18th birthday was Nov 1, I'm pretty sure MM is fine with us talking about a nude shoot in December, while they may well have a problem if we intend it to be in October.

Oct 15 11 10:32 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Pixelpower
Posts: 92
Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom


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?

There is no such thing as UK law. Scotland and England are both in the UK and have very different legal systems and different laws. However neither of say anything on the subject of nudity. They both ban "indecent" photos of under 18s, but neither defines indecent. A fully clothed photo could be considered indecent, and a fully nude one decent, and that is the problem.It would be up to the magistrate or judge in England, and the procurator fiscal or sheriff in Scotland, to decide, and no-one can guess how the whim might take them.

Oct 15 11 10:38 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MKPhoto
Posts: 5,665
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada


The Brits might  know the details.

Not too long time ago a student was arrested  on charges of child pornography, stemming from his/her university assignment, where he/she photocopied images by Hamilton (one from 70s), from the book loaned from the uni library.

Released, and lawyers are working hard now to seal the record.

Does not matter what is legal and what not...
Oct 15 11 10:45 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Ken Pegg
Posts: 1,844
Weymouth, England, United Kingdom


People get very hung up about the term 'indecent' in UK law. The reason why it is not clearly defined (if it could be) is because the legislature knows that public standards change during the lengthy life of a statute.
This is best illustrated by the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 which uses the test for 'obscene' as 'likely to deprave and corrupt'.
Some people may remember the 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' trial in 1960 (also see the 'Fanny Hill' trial of 1964), the year the Act came into force. The prosecutor became the laughing stock of the media when he tried to set the litmus test for 'obscene' at the kind of book "you would wish your wife or servants to read".
The Act is still in force, but would no longer be brought to bear in homosexual imagery cases, but still apply to beastiality images.
The terminology and underlying test simply adapts to changing public perceptions.
Oct 15 11 10:51 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtGlo
Posts: 506
Peru, Illinois, US


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 ?

YES!!

Oct 15 11 10:53 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Ken Pegg
Posts: 1,844
Weymouth, England, United Kingdom


Martin K Photography wrote:
The Brits might  know the details.

Not too long time ago a student was arrested  on charges of child pornography, stemming from his/her university assignment, where he/she photocopied images by Hamilton (one from 70s), from the book loaned from the uni library.

Released, and lawyers are working hard now to seal the record.

Does not matter what is legal and what not...

Urban myth I would say, although there is a widespread belief in the UK media that David Hamilton books have been deemed to be illegal.
It revolves around the 2005 case (R v Loam) in Guildford Crown Court, where a man was charged with the possession of some 19,000 alleged indecent images. The haul included a number of David Hamilton books. In the event the case never went to trail after the defendant pleaded guilty to a number of specimen charges, which did not include any of Hamilton's books.
At the time, a rather overzealous DC Simon Ledger, proclaimed outside of the court that the possession of David Hamilton books was unlawful and and the conviction demonstrated that they were not legal. This despite the fact that a jury had not considered their contents or reached a verdict.

This even led to a public correction some time later in a national newspaper (see head of article):http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2005/jun/23/photography.art

We don't have sealing of records in the UK (unless it is a state security issue). Wrongly decided cases are usually overturned on appeal and the final and earlier verdicts remain in the public domain.

Oct 15 11 10:56 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Expression Unlimited
Posts: 1,136
San Diego, California, US


As a photographer... I'd say shooting a 16 year old Nude would potentially be far more trouble than it is worth
Oct 15 11 10:59 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
JWB2
Posts: 5,965
Evansville, Indiana, US


Expression Unlimited wrote:
As a photographer... I'd say shooting a 16 year old Nude would potentially be far more trouble than it is worth

Could you define "worth"

Oct 15 11 11:01 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MKPhoto
Posts: 5,665
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada


Ken Pegg wrote:
Urban myth I would say, although there is a widespread belief in the UK media that David Hamilton books have been deemed to be illegal.
It revolves around the 2005 case (R v Loam) in Guildford Crown Court, where a man was charged with the possession of some 19,000 alleged indecent images. The haul included a number of David Hamilton books. In the event the case never went to trail after the defendant pleaded guilty to a number of specimen charges, which did not include any of Hamilton's books.
At the time, a rather overzealous DC Simon Ledger, proclaimed outside of the court that the possession of David Hamilton books was unlawful and and the conviction demonstrated that they were not legal. This despite the fact that a jury had not considered their contents or reached a verdict.

This even led to a public correction some time later in a national newspaper (see head of article):http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2005/jun/23/photography.art

I recall reading about it in recent news and strictly in the context of school assignment. There was a highlight that the Hamilton books were loaned from university library...The context was that Hamilton books were perfectly legal and that somone's overzealousness lead to serious problem for someone.

Oct 15 11 11:02 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Ruben Sanchez
Posts: 3,482
San Antonio, Texas, US


Lea Reah wrote:

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

Ha, ha.  In Texas, they'll put you in Huntsville for that.

Oct 15 11 11:04 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,831
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


Martin K Photography wrote:
The Brits might  know the details.

Not too long time ago a student was arrested  on charges of child pornography, stemming from his/her university assignment, where he/she photocopied images by Hamilton (one from 70s), from the book loaned from the uni library.

Released, and lawyers are working hard now to seal the record.

Does not matter what is legal and what not...

THIS IS TRUE -IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED!

Studio36

Oct 15 11 11:05 am  Link  Quote 
first123456last   Search   Reply