Photographer
Bizou Photography
Posts: 163
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Hi!
I was clicking around and I found a photographers profile who only does TFP work and I noticed he has mostly teenagers in his profiles. Younger teens from the look of it.. and a LOT of them. It's pretty much his whole profile. He also has some nude shots where the girls look to be as young as 13-14. Seriously one of the girls looked like she was 'budding'.
I'm curious as to what is appropriate in the 'model world' as to what is appropriate as far as nudity and age goes because I have to say I'm not a prude or anything.. but there's eventually always a line that determines x from y.
I need someone to tell me what is acceptable and what is not as far as younger models go and nudity. Please define some rules of what is appropriate.
Model
Julie Ann NYC
Posts: 714
New York, New York, US
I think the general rule is 18+ or bust... It might depend on the nation/state and parental consent. I would say always err on the side of extreme caution and cover thy own ass. AKA: CHECK I.D.s before you shoot!
Model
Julie Ann NYC
Posts: 714
New York, New York, US
Bizou Photography wrote:
Hi!
I was clicking around and I found a photographers profile who only does TFP work and I noticed he has mostly teenagers in his profiles. Younger teens from the look of it.. and a LOT of them. It's pretty much his whole profile. He also has some nude shots where the girls look to be as young as 13-14. Seriously one of the girls looked like she was 'budding'.
I'm curious as to what is appropriate in the 'model world' as to what is appropriate as far as nudity and age goes because I have to say I'm not a prude or anything.. but there's eventually always a line that determines x from y.
I need someone to tell me what is acceptable and what is not as far as younger models go and nudity. Please define some rules of what is appropriate. Also: was there a link to the model's MM profile or are you assuming based on appearance? Remember that sometimes an 18 girl can look younger and some of us keep 'developing' into our 20s. 
Model
Linda Khalil
Posts: 139
Concord, California, US
I think MM rules are far more strict than most places. Nudity in and of itself isn't offensive to me, it's context. What's it being used for?
Photographer
Daeda1us
Posts: 1067
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
As I am given to understand, there are valid exceptions to the 18+ rule for nudity.
However, as a personal choice I will not shoot nudes or even implied nudes or lingerie under 18.
Easier to avoid "Imperial entanglements" by never crossing that line, even for legitimate art.
My $0.02. YMMV.
Wardrobe Stylist
The Trousseau
Posts: 472
Sheridan, Montana, US
Bizou Photography wrote:
I need someone to tell me what is acceptable and what is not as far as younger models go and nudity. Please define some rules of what is appropriate. The only rule is what will hold up in court. Generally, as long as it isn't whatever the courts would define as "sexual," it seems like it passes. Whatever that might mean.
Seriously, why even deal with it?
Photographer
Chuckarelei
Posts: 11271
Seattle, Washington, US
Bizou Photography wrote:
I'm curious as to what is appropriate in the 'model world' as to what is appropriate as far as nudity and age goes because I have to say I'm not a prude or anything.. but there's eventually always a line that determines x from y.
I need someone to tell me what is acceptable and what is not as far as younger models go and nudity. Please define some rules of what is appropriate. If you end up going to jail, then it's a no-no. What else needs to say?
Photographer
salvatori.
Posts: 4288
Amundsen-Scott - permanent station of the US, Unclaimed Sector, Antarctica
Are you asking for the rules in the legal world or on MM?
MM rules state that a model must be 18 to do ANY type of nudity, even implied. That isn't a legal boundary, it's the rules of this site.
If a woman is of legal age, it makes no difference how old she LOOKS, in fact, if she looks pretty young but is legal, she probably has a chance to make some serious $$$.
Out in the world, it's a different story. Nudes are allowed as long as they aren't sexually oriented. Look at the work of Jock Sturges and David Hamilton. Of course, that doesn't mean there aren't hassles to doing that kind of work, it may still end up in front of a judge.
Photographer
ontherocks
Posts: 23575
Salem, Oregon, US
i've turned down 17 year olds with 18+ wish lists. in our shop you have to be 18 or older for any of that stuff.
there was a senior portrait shooter in our town written up in the paper for supposedly saying inappropriate things to seniors. all it takes is for one person to get upset and complain. i think caution is in order with minors. doesn't matter that 14 year old models in some foreign country can do stuff and get away with it.
Model
Koryn
Posts: 39496
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Bizou Photography wrote:
... Seriously one of the girls looked like she was 'budding'.. People do not always look their biological ages, and unless you have absolute proof that the girls are actually underage, then why should you care?
A couple of years ago, I received a series of hateful emails about how women like me (small figured) who model nude were supposedly promoting child porn, due to appearing underage. I never started modeling until my early 20s, and the fact that some mature women do still have features associated with "nubile" bodies means absolutely nothing. Not every adult woman has large breasts, and some people have baby-faces throughout their middle years. Does that mean that our bodies and sexuality should be repressed, maligned and treated as something disgusting? No. Absolutely not.
Assuming someone is underage because they do not suit your tastes about what you feel a "mature" woman should look like is not only offensive, but also ignorant.
Thanks. Have a nice day.
Photographer
Bizou Photography
Posts: 163
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Miss Julie Ann wrote:
Also: was there a link to the model's MM profile or are you assuming based on appearance? Remember that sometimes an 18 girl can look younger and some of us keep 'developing' into our 20s. No there wasn't a link. There's NO chance she was 18.
There was also no hair and makeup etc. It was just a topless young teen pretty much in black and white.
Then he had another pic of a teen where the girl is naked top to bottom. I wonder how the rest of the photoshoot looked?
Photographer
Bizou Photography
Posts: 163
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
ShivaKitty wrote:
Assuming someone is underage because they do not suit your tastes about what you feel a "mature" woman should look like is not only offensive, but also ignorant.
Thanks. Have a nice day. You certainly look your age.
I think I know a budding young teen when I see one.
Photographer
JeanDphoto
Posts: 1346
Knowlton, Quebec, Canada
-I'm 35, clean cut, married, and not a perv or 'weird' sort of guy.
-For fun I like to go out to restaurants and sit in a booth for 2 hours. Casino is nice too.
-I love the beach and the hot Dominican Republic sun!
-I don't really do drugs and I quit smoking cigarettes 2 years ago.
-I don't physically touch models or ever imply anything or say suggestive things.
-I'm not interested in nude shots at this time.
-However, if your over 18 and your body skin is your best asset (creamy, soft 1 tone skin), it might be a good idea to do an implied artistic shot. Everyone loves them and they generate a lot of comments. Some people are almost meant to do implied because that's where they happen to look best.
The answer lies within...
You like them creamy and soft
Model
Laura UnBound
Posts: 28745
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Bizou Photography wrote:
You certainly look your age.
I think I know a budding young teen when I see one. I frequently am mistaken for a budding young teen, with and without my clothes on.
Do you know for a fact that these girls are a) underage, and b) unable to legally be posing nude at their age for their location?
Model
Laura UnBound
Posts: 28745
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
JeanDphoto wrote:
-I'm 35, clean cut, married, and not a perv or 'weird' sort of guy.
-For fun I like to go out to restaurants and sit in a booth for 2 hours. Casino is nice too.
-I love the beach and the hot Dominican Republic sun!
-I don't really do drugs and I quit smoking cigarettes 2 years ago.
-I don't physically touch models or ever imply anything or say suggestive things.
-I'm not interested in nude shots at this time.
-However, if your over 18 and your body skin is your best asset (creamy, soft 1 tone skin), it might be a good idea to do an implied artistic shot. Everyone loves them and they generate a lot of comments. Some people are almost meant to do implied because that's where they happen to look best.
The answer lies within...
You like them creamy and soft Haaaa! wow.
Photographer
Bizou Photography
Posts: 163
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
JeanDphoto wrote:
The answer lies within...
You like them creamy and soft I said over 18 for implied which I'm comfortable with.
I'm talking ages of early teens.
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
Bizou Photography wrote:
You certainly look your age.
I think I know a budding young teen when I see one. *whoosh*
The sound of 80% of her post going over your head.
Photographer
Doug Lester
Posts: 10591
Atlanta, Georgia, US
In most places in the US non sexual nudity is legal for under age models. However not everyone agrees with that, including some police chiefs, prosecutors and judges. Before testing the legality of that however, I would recommend having 200 to 300 thousand bucks set aside for bail and legal defense. It is not something I would personally gamble on doing.
Do a google search on the name Jock Sturges. He won the case, but one hell of a cost.
Photographer
Bizou Photography
Posts: 163
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Laura UnBound wrote:
I frequently am mistaken for a budding young teen I can assure you, you look your age. No hate but I'm just being honest. You don't look anything lose to a budding teen at all.
I guess people getting offensive on the topic so maybe I'm just a prude..
Lets just take steps further and bring the models in at 12.. and then 10.. and then 8. We'll all keep calling it art and pat each other on the back.
Photographer
salvatori.
Posts: 4288
Amundsen-Scott - permanent station of the US, Unclaimed Sector, Antarctica
To the OP:
Your profile is pretty new and your bio is a bit on the fugazi side (IMHO).
How about a link to this completely offensive pic? Or does that violate the rules of the law enforcement agency you may or may not work for?
Photographer
Billy Monday
Posts: 2745
Frederick, Maryland, US
Laura UnBound wrote:
I frequently am mistaken for a budding young teen, with and without my clothes on.
Do you know for a fact that these girls are a) underage, and b) unable to legally be posing nude at their age for their location? Oh Laura, I wanna ::quiver:: tie you up and watch you bud!
Photographer
Top Level Studio
Posts: 3254
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Laura UnBound wrote:
I frequently am mistaken for a budding young teen, with and without my clothes on. I could believe that. I missed out on a shooting opportunity last year, when I was introduced to a young woman who looked to me to be about 13. Two days later, when I was in a different city, I learned she was 27.
Here's a picture of Aki Hoshino, retired bikini model. She had breast reduction surgery after retiring from that job. She's 34, believe it or not: http://www.japantoday.com/category/ente … -kfc-store
Here's a clip of Aki at work. It's marked 18+, but I don't know why.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/961179/aki_hoshino/
Wardrobe Stylist
The Trousseau
Posts: 472
Sheridan, Montana, US
What you aren't getting is that two pros, both with amazing portfolios, just told you that they are currently, or have been frequently, mistaken for underage. Perhaps you are above all that, and can accurately guess a woman's age just by a picture on a page. If so, congratulations. On the other hand, they were reacting to your uncertain language that didn't let on to the fact that you have this gift. So, you insult them.
They have a point. If it doesn't pertain to you, then don't take it personally. Once you start a thread, it becomes less about you then about the topic.
Photographer
Daeda1us
Posts: 1067
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
Top Level Studio wrote:
Here's a picture of Aki Hoshino, retired bikini model. She's 34, believe it or not: http://www.japantoday.com/category/ente … -kfc-store Agreed. Some women look MUCH younger than their age.
In her case, I would have definitely required ID.
Then again, I should require ID of everyone, shouldnt I?
Just because they look 20, doesnt mean they are.
Photographer
J Sharp
Posts: 3437
Sacramento, California, US
Photographer
Lawrence Guy
Posts: 17716
San Diego Country Estates, California, US
This subject seems be coming up much more often than it used to.
Photographer
Daeda1us
Posts: 1067
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
There are medically acceptable ways to determine APPROXIMATE age, but most of those are rather difficult to implement in the field.
One of the most popular is the Tanner Scale, which determines sexual maturity (on a scale of 1-5) based on secondary sexual characteristics. In women, breasts and pubic hair development.
A quick Google will give you the low down. And sorry Laura, but anyone describing you as a "budding teen" is unfamiliar with the term or attempting to flatter you. You are a gorgeous model. No doubt about that, but as to Tanner staging, your breasts put you firmly as Stage 5 (the top stage, ie "adult") and pubic hair can be trixy in models, but the pic I chose with a nice "landing strip" puts you firmly at stage 4 at least. You would have to go without removing the hair long enough to see its true growth pattern to determine if you fit stage 5.
A couple of caveats regarding Tanner staging. Some women NEVER progress to stage 5. That is perfectly normal.
AND for this discussion MOST IMPORTANTLY Dr. Tanner himself is on record as stating using the Tanner Scale to determine chronological age, rather than sexual maturity IS A MISUSE of the classification system.
In short, You cant look at someone's body build and determine how old they actually are.
Photographer
Vector One Photography
Posts: 3722
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US
How young ? David Hamilton did many books on what looked like under aged girls. Pastelly, grainy, soft focus. Shot in Europe, usually France. Thought they were great. But that was the seventies before everyone got paranoid.
I can't even discuss the artistic merit of photographing "budding" womanhood without having thoughts of baloney sandwiches and cool aid three times a day with a roommate named Bubba.
As much as I liked Hamilton's work, I'm just not that brave.
P.S. Many years ago Hustler did a spread (maybe bad choice or words) of a model that looked fifteen. Started all sorts of trouble. Turned out the model was the aunt of a dancer I knew and she was really twenty-two. I still would think twice about shooting a model like that. I don't need the pole-ese up in my business like that.
Photographer
Bizou Photography
Posts: 163
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
JSL wrote:
How about a link to this completely offensive pic? Or does that violate the rules of the law enforcement agency you may or may not work for? No I don't want to start any trouble. Lets say I'm almost certain our police would start an investigation though. We have a lot of bored police in our province with a lot of funding and a lot of investigative units. I'd prefer not to start trouble if there is none. It's not a nice thing to do.
And what are you so defensive for btw? If you like to do 'implied' photos of 'underage' girls, then just say it and call it your niche.
Gee all this time I thought I wasn't a prude and very liberal and artsy. I guess I'm wrong.
Personally I don't want to shoot nudes because I want to get the models pics into print media and be more commercial and mainstream. My long term goals don't include nude pics. Implied is different if the model has very good skin and genetics to do implied.
But I don't have an actual problem with nudes or even implied at all. When we're talking about budding teens though.. wow. That's a bit much.
Photographer
sdthjkyf
Posts: 191
Los Angeles, California, US
Photographer
salvatori.
Posts: 4288
Amundsen-Scott - permanent station of the US, Unclaimed Sector, Antarctica
Bizou Photography wrote:
No I don't want to start any trouble. Lets say I'm almost certain our police would start an investigation though. We have a lot of bored police in our province with a lot of funding and a lot of investigative units. I'd prefer not to start trouble if there is none. It's not a nice thing to do.
And what are you so defensive for btw? If you like to do 'implied' photos of 'underage' girls, then just say it and call it your niche.
Gee all this time I thought I wasn't a prude and very liberal and artsy. I guess I'm wrong.
Personally I don't want to shoot nudes because I want to get the models pics into print media and be more commercial and mainstream. My long term goals don't include nude pics. Implied is different if the model has very good skin and genetics to do implied.
But I don't have an actual problem with nudes or even implied at all. When we're talking about budding teens though.. wow. That's a bit much. Assume much? I never said I was interested in photographing implied nudes of underage females. You are a newbie here, and truthfully, inferring what you did is slanderous, improper and just plain, I dunno... goofy..
I feel the need to contact a Mod regarding your posts.
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
Bizou Photography wrote:
No I don't want to start any trouble. Lets say I'm almost certain our police would start an investigation though. We have a lot of bored police in our province with a lot of funding and a lot of investigative units. I'd prefer not to start trouble if there is none. It's not a nice thing to do.
And what are you so defensive for btw? If you like to do 'implied' photos of 'underage' girls, then just say it and call it your niche.
Gee all this time I thought I wasn't a prude and very liberal and artsy. I guess I'm wrong.
Personally I don't want to shoot nudes because I want to get the models pics into print media and be more commercial and mainstream. My long term goals don't include nude pics. Implied is different if the model has very good skin and genetics to do implied.
But I don't have an actual problem with nudes or even implied at all. When we're talking about budding teens though.. wow. That's a bit much. The second or third day you were on MM you started an escort thread, convinced that no model in the entire GTA works without an escort.
A few days later you start this thread, asserting your vast knowledge.
What you write on your profile is most interesting. I could say more, but the MM Gods would frown on that.
There is still rope left on the pile.
Photographer
MKPhoto
Posts: 5665
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Vector One Photography wrote:
How young ? David Hamilton did many books on what looked like under aged girls. Pastelly, grainy, soft focus. Shot in Europe, usually France. Thought they were great. But that was the seventies before everyone got paranoid.
I can't even discuss the artistic merit of photographing "budding" womanhood without having thoughts of baloney sandwiches and cool aid three times a day with a roommate named Bubba.
As much as I liked Hamilton's work, I'm just not that brave.
P.S. Many years ago Hustler did a spread (maybe bad choice or words) of a model that looked fifteen. Started all sorts of trouble. Turned out the model was the aunt of a dancer I knew and she was really twenty-two. I still would think twice about shooting a model like that. I don't need the pole-ese up in my business like that. In Canada child pornography:
"...shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity"
highlight mine
Photographer
TerrysPhotocountry
Posts: 4649
Rochester, New York, US
Bizou Photography wrote:
You certainly look your age.
I think I know a budding young teen when I see one. Never Ass-U-me
Photographer
Photo Anthems LLC
Posts: 9
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Just google Federal Regulation 2257a and you'll find out pretty much everything you need to know. If you ain't compliant, you leave yourself open to be busted no matter what state laws you think you're fine with.
Photographer
MC Grain
Posts: 1647
New York, New York, US
Bizou Photography wrote:
Hi!
I was clicking around and I found a photographers profile who only does TFP work and I noticed he has mostly teenagers in his profiles. Younger teens from the look of it.. and a LOT of them. It's pretty much his whole profile. He also has some nude shots where the girls look to be as young as 13-14. Seriously one of the girls looked like she was 'budding'.
I'm curious as to what is appropriate in the 'model world' as to what is appropriate as far as nudity and age goes because I have to say I'm not a prude or anything.. but there's eventually always a line that determines x from y.
I need someone to tell me what is acceptable and what is not as far as younger models go and nudity. Please define some rules of what is appropriate. Unfortunately the only answer is that it depends on the circumstance.
Pornography, 18+. Acting in the Blue Lagoon, younger.
I really have a hard time thinking of reasons you'd legitimately need to shoot someone under 18 nude, even though it was legal.
Photographer
Top Level Studio
Posts: 3254
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
MKPhoto wrote:
"is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity" I think that's the most significant part of that quote. Art nudes sometime include sexual aspects, but not that often.
Model
Linda Khalil
Posts: 139
Concord, California, US
In Canada child pornography:
"...shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity"
highlight mine I think the most important part is the AND. It's not just under the age.
Model
Laura UnBound
Posts: 28745
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Bizou Photography wrote:
I can assure you, you look your age. No hate but I'm just being honest. You don't look anything lose to a budding teen at all.
I guess people getting offensive on the topic so maybe I'm just a prude..
Lets just take steps further and bring the models in at 12.. and then 10.. and then 8. We'll all keep calling it art and pat each other on the back. Youve never seen me in a tshirt and jean shorts with pigtails and no makeup.
Ive worked hard to look like a grown woman in my portfolio, but I can still easily take on the 18 and younger castings, and I scare the hell out of some of the photographers I work with upon arrival with my hair up and pajamas on. Trust me.
You failed to answer the important part of my post though, and went off on a tangent about peoples art and intentions instead.
So I'll ask you again.
Do you know for a fact that the girls depicted in these images are under the age they are allowed to be posing nude legally in their area?
|
