This thread was locked on 2009-04-05 21:07:19
Photographer
Ty Simone
Posts: 2885
Edison, New Jersey, US
Since the original thread was locked, and will not be re-opened, and since it seems that the topic generated some heated debate when I labelled it the other way, I will start the discussion once again.
The full title should be Photographing nude minors and revealing / sexy poses.
To start, Let's set the guidelines of the discussion here.
1. We are not talking about Pornography. It has been shown that photographing a minor in the nude is not in and of itself pornography, (child pornography) nor is it illegal in any Jurisdiction in the United States.
2. With revealing / Sexy poses, for the purpose of this discussion, we are talking clothed and revealing / sexy poses, not nude and revealing or sexy poses.
For example a girl with no bra on in a deep V cut dress (which was an image on here that got blasted at one time because the girl was 16)
or, a girl in Lingerie, where the pieces are NOT see through sitting with her legs spread for the camera. (although, in some jurisdictions, such an image may be illegal.)
Now, has been discussed before, in the industry, Minors (we will go with 14-17 year old) not only are required to be nude / topless around all sorts of adults (professional runway models during shows), but are also required to walk the runway in outfits that may show their breasts etc.. (such as the one image described above)Ad companies have used topless minors in major ads etc...
Hollywood as well has and continues to do movies and shows with topless / nude minors. (not to throw flames on the fire, but a recent show had a completely nude minor with a full frontal view)
Having said all that, It is part of this industry to have nude / topless minors.
Why do certain people feel that it is wrong for them to pose that way and then post the images in their portfolio?
How can you tell a young model with a straight face that because she is doing what the industry demands of her, that she is wrong?
How can you bash photographers for doing what their employers require of them to do, simply because your personal belief system is not in line with an industry you chose to be in?
Again, we are not talking about pornography, nor anything else illegal. We are talking about minors age 14-17 posing topless / nude.
Let the debate begin anew!
Photographer
Chili
Posts: 5146
Brooklyn, New York, US
water's wet, sky is blue, and some people like to debate for the sake of debating i suppose
shall we play a game of tic-tac-toe instead? (you'll get the same results)
Photographer
Ty Simone
Posts: 2885
Edison, New Jersey, US
How boring would this site be if we never debated anything else ever again. Of course, I would be the greatest photographer in the world at that point, because I could simply say I am, and you could not debate the point 
Model
Ms Kaylee
Posts: 686
Helena, Montana, US
Sex sells. People like the idea of innocence.
Most people think of minors and innocent, unspoiled people that should be..children. It's wrong in today's society. Perspectives differ. Those images might be "art" for some, but indecent for many.
Model
DawnElizabeth
Posts: 3907
Madison, Mississippi, US
And as I stated before:
If it were my daughter, at 14, I would not let her be photographed in that manner. But that is my decision, whether she hates me for it or not. I doubt she will. And if someone offered her a million dollars to show her ittie bitties in a film about a man obsessed with an underaged girl - sorry folks, money is not more important than my child.
However, it has been proven that underage girls are used for high fashion runway shows overseas and for ad campaigns. And it is sexual, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Sex sells and there are men obsessed with youth and innocence. Why older models (I'll say 17+) can't be used for these ads and shows, is beyond me.
The underage girls (again, I am talking 14-16) that are used for Maxim type images, is not something I agree with. Even if the parents consent to it. Even if it's non-see thru lingerie with legs spread or a V cut shirt with cleavage. No young girl who is serious about becoming a model needs that in her port and should never be told that. If she wants to pursue adult modeling, tell her to come back when she is an adult.
For fine art nudes, again, the photographer really needs to check the reasons for using a 14 year old instead of someone more legal who could look 14. It is a sexual thing here as well, I don;t care what the photographer says, even if he is a she. There is a certain sexual appeal when using minors as photography/art models.
You don't HAVE to use a 14-16 year old model for any nude work. There are legal models who can do the job just as well. Even in fashion and fine art. I do believe that unless it is a medical study being conducted where photos need to be taken of a minor, that any photographer who decides it's "art" to shoot a 14-16 year old to model nude has to question their sexual motives and preferences.
It's also a moral issue. If it was your child, what would you do. Maybe I need to start a thread entitled: Would you let your son/daughter be photographed nude at 14-17 if they were offered money/a lucrative contract deal? How about for fine art to be shown in a gallery? What would Jesus do?
I am not a religious person. I stopped going to church at 16, so my comment about Jesus was not a Jesus Freak jab. Just some food for thought..... for those of you who do not have children, this argument will probably fall on deaf ears. And if you can say that you would let your children do this, even push it at the young age of 14-17 now, I would love to keep in touch to speak with you when you do have children later on and see if you feel the same way. You won't. Why? Because you will understand what it is to love your child and not want them to be displayed that way. At all.
Photographer
Chili
Posts: 5146
Brooklyn, New York, US
cuz there is a difference between exchanging ideas and being open to new viewpoints and trying to convince someone to alter their thoughts or way of thinking that are so deeply imbedded.
so rather than debate an issue endlessly, i proposed you challenge them to good robust game of tic-tac-toe, and after several thousand games you'll see the only solution is not to play.
Model
DawnElizabeth
Posts: 3907
Madison, Mississippi, US
Chili wrote:
cuz there is a difference between exchanging ideas and being open to new viewpoints and trying to convince someone to alter their thoughts or way of thinking that are so deeply imbedded.
so rather than debate an issue endlessly, i proposed you challenge them to good robust game of tic-tac-toe, and after several thousand games you'll see the only solution is not to play. Okay.
Tic.
Model
DawnElizabeth
Posts: 3907
Madison, Mississippi, US
BTW: I am not trying to tell anyone to change their mind. This is just my thoughts. So, if I offended anyone, I will apologize now. If you want your child to do it, that's fine. It's not right for mine. Yeah, this contradicts what I wrote a bit up top, but when I start, I just keep going and going...I actually edited out about 4 paragraphs.....
Also, it is not REQUIRED that minors do nudes in the industry. It is suggested per job and it is open to be turned down. You don't HAVE to do it if you don't want to and it won't hurt a budding model's career to not do so. Just a fact I thought I'd throw in there.
Photographer
Brian Diaz
Posts: 65617
Danbury, Connecticut, US
Ty Simone wrote:
How boring would this site be if we never debated anything else ever again. I think the boredom comes from debating the same thing over and over. (But keep in mind that for the most part, I agree with you.)
Photographer
MarkMarek
Posts: 2211
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Brian Diaz wrote:
I think the boredom comes from debating the same thing over and over. (But keep in mind that for the most part, I agree with you.) I'm with Brian on this one, including the fact that for the most part I agree with you, Ty.
Photographer
Dreams To Keep
Posts: 585
Novi, Michigan, US
No matter how you slice it, argue it or do it - it is simply legally, and I believe also ethically, wrong.
Photographer
Doug Lester
Posts: 10591
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Part of the problem is that most tend to lump any and all underage nudes/revealing photos into the same basket, as if all of it is of kiddie porn. I would submit there is underage modeling and there is 'underage' modeling. There is Uncle Zeke shooting nude or lingerie snapshots of his 12 year old niece and a 12 year old being photographed for a teen or even preteen underwear catalog. For generaton after generation, young kids were photographed nude by their parents nd by artists, partly in order to show the innocense of childhood. Sally Mann certainly did countless shots of nude teen and preteen children, but on one has really called her a pervert. In earlier generations, it was an accepted practice. For example, Wynn Bulloch photographed his three daughters throughout their lives, from infancy untel they left home to attend college, get married or whatever. In the early 50s, Edward Steichen asembled a major collection of photogrpahic art for MOMA called The Family of Man. With over 500 photos, the collection traveled the world, being exhibited in more than 60 countries, finally ending up being published by MOMA as a coffee table book, with an introduction by Carl Sandburg. The lead photo is (was) one of the images by Wynn Bulloch of his daughter, age about 9 or 10, lying nude in a field of ivy. Today, he would probably be arrested and accused of being a pervert instead of the great artist he was.
No, nude modeling is not right for everyone, whether adult of child and no one should ever be compelled, pressured or talked into posing nude, but to condem it out of hand, under all circumstances is simply being closed minded. I believe that no subject matter should ever be closed or forbidden to artists. Yeah, those who shoot and deal in real kiddie porn should be put away forever, but painting with a too wide brush is not a good thing.
And yeah, I have a framed print of the shot I described above by Bullock hanging on my wall. And by the way, I do not use underage models inmy nude art because I choose not to. I didn't use them well before it became illegal in most states.
Photographer
Ty Simone
Posts: 2885
Edison, New Jersey, US
Dreams To Keep wrote:
No matter how you slice it, argue it or do it - it is simply legally, and I believe also ethically, wrong. It is not legally wrong.
You can not show me any active law on the books in any jurisdiction that makes the act of shooting a minor nude (non-pornographic pose) illegal.
If there was, then you would see blockbuster pulling a ton of movies off of their shelf.
National Geographic would be banned in those areas, as would a ton of other things.
Photographer
William Kious
Posts: 8842
Delphos, Ohio, US
Another thread about taking pictures of naked children? Ty ... you are starting to give me the creeps. Why are you so obsessed about this topic? Personally, I think you are looking for validation - someone to tell you that it's okay to take pictures of little kids in the nude.
Is it legally wrong to photograph children in the nude? That depends on how a judge looks at it. It's entirely subjective. If you want a definitive answer to your question, why not ask a lawyer in your state/municipality.
Photographer
Ty Simone
Posts: 2885
Edison, New Jersey, US
William Kious wrote:
Another thread about taking pictures of naked children? Ty ... you are starting to give me the creeps. Why are you so obsessed about this topic? Personally, I think you are looking for validation - someone to tell you that it's okay to take pictures of little kids in the nude.
Is it legally wrong to photograph children in the nude? That depends on how a judge looks at it. It's entirely subjective. If you want a definitive answer to your question, why not ask a lawyer in your state/municipality. William, It is not legally wrong, The supreme court already said so.
I am not looking for validation, I am simply tired of younger models getting picked on and criticized for having images in their portfolio that some uptight people think are inappropriate.
I do not need any validation, and if I scare you because I understand the way things really are and because I love debating with those people that would infringe on the rights of those of us that fought for our freedom, well, I suggest a nice country like Saudi Arabia is a better place for you to live.
It is legal, and as such, No person here should ever knock a model for doing it.
Yet, they do.
and they claim to be professionals.
and that is where I have my beef.
If they were truly professional as they claim, and they have ever seen the real end of the business, then they would not be making those disparaging comments to future models, of which I know at least one that left here beccause of those type comments.
Photographer
Vegas Alien
Posts: 1747
Armington, Illinois, US
Someone is pretty preoccupied with naked kids.
Photographer
Ty Simone
Posts: 2885
Edison, New Jersey, US
Vegas Alien wrote:
Someone is pretty preoccupied with naked kids. Preoccupied with RIGHTS and protecting potential models on here from idiots that have no clue.
I can go down to the beach here and see all the naked kids I want. Has nothing to do with me, has everything to do with those that bash the poor models that are doing what the industry expects them to do.
Photographer
area291
Posts: 2525
Calabasas, California, US
Ty Simone wrote:
Why do certain people feel that it is wrong for them to pose that way and then post the images in their portfolio?
How can you tell a young model with a straight face that because she is doing what the industry demands of her, that she is wrong?
How can you bash photographers for doing what their employers require of them to do, simply because your personal belief system is not in line with an industry you chose to be in?
Again, we are not talking about pornography, nor anything else illegal. We are talking about minors age 14-17 posing topless / nude.
Then...further into the thread: It is not legally wrong. (the National Geographic analogy is far different than modeling, stick to the original argument(s)) Therein lies the misconception.
The thread topic questions validity in modeling. This explanation has nothing to do with other sources of nudity that can found, ie; nudist colonies, personal photo collections, photo-journalism studies and other forms of artistic endeavor by esteemed artists
What both this and the previous thread failed to point out is how when image statements are made using the likeness of a child in revealing scenarios deemed to be legal, it is done so under the most highly stringent conditions with professional oversight, intimate personal relationships that would not break the barriers of conduct and sensibility toward protection through both emotional and physical means.
Equally important to understand is modeling images/runway fashion statements presented publicly is a decision process not held by just the photographer. Rather, there is a team of individuals with a well thought out plan beyond just creating "promise to be" for one's portfolio.
The issue goes entirely to the guidance and precautions entrusted by many for professional reasoning, not just swayed opinion by one (photographer) to a minor that it is perfectly okay to pose nude (or tantalizing versions thereof). Those giving doubt are clearly misinformed as to how the process works when comparing "what they did" and selling "what we should do" for achieving success as a model or model photographer.
The issue(s) that developed in the previous thread were the intangible interpretations of numerous laws and the encouragement to push the legal letter to the limit through staunch support there is nothing whatsoever wrong with child nudity. The danger in that is how the perception of the court will not favor the hobbyist photographer, to which most arguing for clearly are (and would be substantiated in the court through financial records relating directly to photography), and the information, while correct from a (very) limited technical point of view, was incorrect from good standing law interpretation when facing the bench.
The court, in no uncertain terms, will view the hobbyist as nothing more than one that has merely placed themselves in an advantageous position for gaining a personal satisfaction means with no professional end. The photographer will be ridiculed beyond end by the professional barristers and the thought of acting in a development nature by means of conformity emmulation in this manner will be squashed like an insect of society the system will work to portray.
While the argument prevailed throughout by some that there is nothing wrong, both legally and morally, the accuracy of those statements fall well below the line drawn by the court when it comes to protecting those incapable of making adult-based decisions regarding presentation. While the interpretations of law can be read from a pornographic consideration point of view and not general nudity presented by minors, each of those statutes are accompanied with the words, "including, but not limited to." Therein lies the catch and that will give the court ample height from which to pounce. The laws are purposely written bent that allows for compelling interpretation beyond the exact statute. The "including, but not limited to" statement is the surface from which the law can scratch to dig underneath.
The shield of legal protection given to major ad campaigns, high-profile designer fashion nubile flaunting in provocative ways and how they can push the envelope in ways they do...is levity for those in the role of presenting teens in such form that have earned the right to do so by consistently utilizing uncompromised protection standards. Those in question have integrity beyond reproach on many levels that confirms their ability to work under the most highly professional conditions. Even then, those that do push are walking a razor thin line in both legality and the court of public opinion and presentation is always approached with both caution and sensibility.
The hobbyist on Model Mayhem does not carry such professional esteem that gives enough strength to conscientious judgment. Those thinking they are deserving of the same presentation rights are sadly mistaken. Should they choose to listen and act upon the points in the OP made by virtue of what is good for the goose is also good for the gander, the scrutiny would be unyielding regardless of what interpretation they come up with in the State penal codes.
Unless an individual is shooting for an organization with hordes acting as protection and with credible marketing / commercial purpose, the lone Mayhemer shooting in a less than major professional environment with only mom standing by is going to get bitch-slapped by the legal system. This is where the concept of enacting the limitations falls squarely on its face as non-professional related viability would likely be viewed as nothing more than self-serving satisfaction at the expense of a minor.
For those that choose to push this highly sensitive area of presentation, do so at your own peril. But you should also be prepared to risk virtually everything in your life to defend what will likely be an outcome against.
If this is an issue that is so important then do as others do for doing it correctly. Earn the right and respect at the major agency / campaign / designer level deserving(?) of adequate protection for all involved. Or, simply take your chances. But no amount of howling about the legality is going to save one from the anxious prosecutor serving the constituency that looks first to the protection and welfare of children within the community.
Good luck.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
Ty Simone wrote:
It is not legally wrong, The supreme court already said so. Actually Ty, I totally agree with you that underage models are used in runway shows. I have seen it happen all the time and 14 and 15 years old are getting nekkid in the dressing room with 40 people around.
I also agree that the Supreme Court has given qualified constitutional approval. But being right doesn't mean that you won't be hassled.
As an example, California, like many states, has laws that require a lab to notify the authorities if they process images they believe to be of minors that involve nudity. That doesn't mean they are illegal. But we have seen several stories of photographers in California being searched, questioned and scrutinized by the police as a result of images that are otherwise legal.
There are also other laws that you can run afould of, such as contributing to the delinquincy of a minor which can be used if you annoy a prosecutor enough. He might win, he might lose, but if they want to put their teeth into you, they certainly have the tools to do it.
In the end, whether you are right or wrong doesn't really make a difference. It is simply a question of whether one wants to expose himself to the risk if doing so. It can get expensive in court to defend one's self, even if you are right.
So whether your legal interpretation is correct or not, I am simply staying away from it.
Photographer
William Kious
Posts: 8842
Delphos, Ohio, US
Ty Simone wrote:
William, It is not legally wrong, The supreme court already said so.
I am not looking for validation, I am simply tired of younger models getting picked on and criticized for having images in their portfolio that some uptight people think are inappropriate. You are forgetting something, Ty. You have to justify an ARTISTIC purpose for taking pictures of a nude child. A GWC taking pictures of a naked kid won't fly. If you are so certain about the legality of it - and you are comfortable with it - take pictures of a 14 year old girl in the nude, then show them to a cop. Make sure he knows the girl, too. Sure, you may not be charged (assuming you have written permission from the child's parents) but you will get dragged through the muck in the process.
Ty Simone wrote:
I do not need any validation, and if I scare you because I understand the way things really are and because I love debating with those people that would infringe on the rights of those of us that fought for our freedom, well, I suggest a nice country like Saudi Arabia is a better place for you to live. I don't think you "scare" anyone, Ty.
Let me get this straight - you are comparing our civil liberties to photographing nude children? Wow. You've completely changed my mind about the subject.
Ty Simone wrote:
If they were truly professional as they claim, and they have ever seen the real end of the business, then they would not be making those disparaging comments to future models, of which I know at least one that left here beccause of those type comments. Real end of the business? How much of the "real" end of the business have you seen, Ty? You aren't interested in debate... You just want people to agree with you.
Photographer
Ty Simone
Posts: 2885
Edison, New Jersey, US
Area291,
The Supreme Court's word is the law of the land. No lower court or jurisdiction can say otherwise.
The Court said in no uncertain terms that Nudity in and of itself is NOT obscene, nor is Pornography.
The invalidates any attempt to circumvent it with the "not limited to" clause. and even it such a law were tried, It would be thrown out in the first trial, as has happened to those that have come up over the last 2 years, including several in Cali.
It matters not if I am an amateur, a professional, or a granddad. The image itself is the test, and if it is within the legal bounds set by the Supreme Court then if some uppity does arrest the photographer and charge them, they can expect a lawsuit just like Granny did after the court aquitted her for Child Porn in Cali (for the Bath Tub Image)
---------
As for the hassles etc...
I tend to agree that for someone like me, It is not worth the risk, mainly because I have no need for models of that age.
HOWEVER, like stated above, I hate seeing the models bashed here by others because they have images like that in their port.
Even in the Minors in sexy poses in clothes thread, People are saying "Minors should not do that" And THAT is what needs to be changed in the mentality here.
Photographer
MarkMarek
Posts: 2211
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
As an example, California, like many states, has laws that require a lab to notify the authorities if they process images they believe to be of minors that involve nudity. That doesn't mean they are illegal. But we have seen several stories of photographers in California being searched, questioned and scrutinized by the police as a result of images that are otherwise legal. Alan,
While I don't live in Cali, and not even in your country, I do own a photolab and I can tell you that if I was to report each pic I print of a naked minor I would go insane. People always take pictures of their kids in a bath tub having fun or there's tons of newborns laying on the bed naked. I don't know, but with laws like that if I was to report each picture of a naked minor I would go nuts.
Mark
Photographer
Vegas Alien
Posts: 1747
Armington, Illinois, US
Ty Simone wrote:
I can go down to the beach here and see all the naked kids I want. Just how many naked kids DO you want to see? Is that why you live near that beach?
Photographer
BCG
Posts: 7316
San Antonio, Florida, US
here in san antonio, we lock'm up in jail...dude tried that with a 16 year old boy on the riverwalk...dude met kid on the bus...dude should be monkey stomped...what is next, feeding christians to the lions again?
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
MarkMarek wrote:
Alan,
While I don't live in Cali, and not even in your country, I do own a photolab and I can tell you that if I was to report each pic I print of a naked minor I would go insane. People always take pictures of their kids in a bath tub having fun or there's tons of newborns laying on the bed naked. I don't know, but with laws like that if I was to report each picture of a naked minor I would go nuts.
Mark It is an annoying law. Normally, nobody bothers with bathtub kids. But about 2 years ago, we had a story all over the six o'clock news. A woman photographer shot a 13 year old girl topless with her mother (also topless). It was a cutsey, totally non-sexual mother/daughter photo. They lived a somewhat open lifestyle.
The lab reported the image to the police (because they felt they were required to) the police got their hands on the photo and got a search warrant. They ransacked the studio of the photographer looking for more.
In the end, the photo was, what it was, a topless photo of a mother/daughter. It was perfectly legal in California (we have the exact same language as the feds, no real or simulated sex and no lacivious display of the genitals).
However, the police took the position, "Where there is smoke, there is fire." The attitude in this country seems to be that the protection of kids, even when there is nothing to protect them from, trumps both rights and insanity.
Were the acts of the lab an overzealous reach or a misinterpretation of the statute? I am not a lawyer, don't ask me. Obviously the lab owner felt she had to report it and that is all that really matters. I can tell you though, in the past when I was shooting film, I got a call on more than one occassion from a lab questioning whether a model was over eighteen and on one occassion found myself driving down with identification.
Isn't it nice to be so well protected by our government?
Photographer
Ty Simone
Posts: 2885
Edison, New Jersey, US
William Kious wrote:
Ty Simone wrote:
William, It is not legally wrong, The supreme court already said so.
I am not looking for validation, I am simply tired of younger models getting picked on and criticized for having images in their portfolio that some uptight people think are inappropriate. You are forgetting something, Ty. You have to justify an ARTISTIC purpose for taking pictures of a nude child. A GWC taking pictures of a naked kid won't fly. If you are so certain about the legality of it - and you are comfortable with it - take pictures of a 14 year old girl in the nude, then show them to a cop. Make sure he knows the girl, too. Sure, you may not be charged (assuming you have written permission from the child's parents) but you will get dragged through the muck in the process. WRONG!
Again, another bit of misinformation.
What is the artistic purpose of the girls gone wild videos?
What is the artistic purpose of a nudist youth web site (with no information, just pictures of nudist, all minors) running around?
Ty Simone wrote:
I do not need any validation, and if I scare you because I understand the way things really are and because I love debating with those people that would infringe on the rights of those of us that fought for our freedom, well, I suggest a nice country like Saudi Arabia is a better place for you to live. I don't think you "scare" anyone, Ty.
Let me get this straight - you are comparing our civil liberties to photographing nude children? Wow. You've completely changed my mind about the subject. You said I was starting to scare you. Your quote.
And yes, It is a civil liberty. And if you want a detailed explanation, let me take it through what was already fought for you.
Our great president decided that Child Pornography was bad umkay! so he made a law that said making and possessing it is bad.
But it did not stop there, he decided to add in Simulated Child Porn, where the model WAS OVER 18 but portrayed to be a minor.
Now, that should scare the bejesus out of everyone.
Because If you take a picture of a nude woman and someone thinks she looks 17, You would go to jail under that law!
Fortunately for us, The Supreme Court nixed that law before it was ever enacted!!
Real end of the business? How much of the "real" end of the business have you seen, Ty? You aren't interested in debate... You just want people to agree with you.
Sure, I am interested in Debate.
But If you are going to debate, then debate with facts, not opinions, nor what you think are facts.
FACT: It is not illegal to photograph a minor nude in ANY jurisdiction in the United States!
FACT: Models under the age of 18 are used in the industry constantly in both topless, nude (implied nude) and revealing clothing.
FACT: Runway models under the age of 18 are expect to change clothes in front of a myriad of people (adults both male and female) and then walk down the runway with, at times, breasts clearly visible.
These are Facts.
They are not arbitrary. They can not be refuted.
You can try, but then you are not debating, You are simply stating something false in order to try and show your opinion to be correct.
Let's debate the issue.
The REAL issue.
Where the h3ll does anyone on this site get the right to tell a minor model that her image is inappropiate for her age, or too revealing, even if it is a full nude?
How can you possibly justify telling her that when the industry expects it of her!
Look at a 17 magazine! Look at any of the teen mags! They have sexy, even erotic looking poses of Teen girls in them!
That is the industry.
Photographer
area291
Posts: 2525
Calabasas, California, US
Ty Simone wrote:
The invalidates any attempt to circumvent it with the "not limited to" clause. and even it such a law were tried, It would be thrown out in the first trial, as has happened to those that have come up over the last 2 years, including several in Cali. Don't sway from the subject, nude modeling, not just nude imaging.
I didn't respond for the purpose of nude imaging, it is the premise of selling the concept of modeling and the implications nudes of teens will bring.
Huge difference.
Photographer
Haas Designs
Posts: 389
Knoxville, Tennessee, US
Ok, here's a question...
Lingerie for the minor (14-17) is inappropriate? What about swimwear? I've photographed several under 18's in swimwear and that seems to be acceptable. How is it different then if the same model is in the same pose wearing a non-see through bra and panty, or wearing a V-neck showing cleavage?
This is one thing I've not really ever understood. I've had several models (all ages) say that they're happy to wear a bikini, but wearing lingerie (same exact coverage) is inappropriate. Tell me how the two are different...
Photographer
Ty Simone
Posts: 2885
Edison, New Jersey, US
Vegas Alien wrote:
Just how many naked kids DO you want to see? Is that why you live near that beach? Vegas, I live by that beach because of where I work.
I have no need to see naked kids, I grew up without the preoccupation you seem to have.
You are stuck on me, fine.
It has nothing to do with me, and EVERYTHING to do with you and people like you!
Because I bring the subject up, You have an issue with me.
Or is it you have an issue with the subject, but can not refute that because I am right in my assessment, therefore you feel the need to discredit the messenger and not the message?
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
Ty Simone wrote:
HOWEVER, like stated above, I hate seeing the models bashed here by others because they have images like that in their port.
Even in the Minors in sexy poses in clothes thread, People are saying "Minors should not do that" And THAT is what needs to be changed in the mentality here. I will say this Ty, it is hypocritical. We do see underage nudes in New York all the time. Thora Birch was 17 in American Beauty, Milla Jovavitch 15 in Blue Lagoon II and Reese Whitherspoon 14 in The Man in the Moon. So to the extent that it is fine for Ron Howard, but not fine for the woman shooting a 13 year old with her mom, it is silly. But public attitudes are public attitudes.
But you are right, the models probably shouldn't be bashed to the extent that they are. However, when it comes to glamour, (rather than New York or a major motion picture), I am not sure why the photographer can't and shouldn't just shoot a model over 18.
For models under 18, it doesn't necessarily get them much by doing it. For photoraphers, it just exposes them to risk.
So let's all stop bashing the models and move onto another topic.
Photographer
BCG
Posts: 7316
San Antonio, Florida, US
*please note that this post is void of any personal attack or flaming*
might i suggest ty trying to shoot topless miners?!?
Photographer
Ty Simone
Posts: 2885
Edison, New Jersey, US
area291 wrote:
Don't sway from the subject, nude modeling, not just nude imaging.
I didn't respond for the purpose of nude imaging, it is the premise of selling the concept of modeling and the implications nudes of teens will bring.
Huge difference. Huh?
I am lost as to what you are trying to say here.
In order to have an image of a nude minor, you must have a minor posing nude...
Am I saying that I should be walking up to a 16 year old girl and say, "Hey, I can make you a super model come here and take off all your clothes!" Hell no!
I am saying that If a 16 year old came up to me with her book and showed me pictures of her topless, I should not criticize her as people do on here when the same thing happens.
Does that mean I should then shoot her nude? No.
Neither she nor I would gain anything from it.
Photographer
area291
Posts: 2525
Calabasas, California, US
Ty Simone wrote:
The REAL issue. You seem to be confusing the judgment and actions of those in the industry working under highly professional conditions with the mass on this site shooting in garages, basements, wrinkled sheet backdrops and rarely having others on the set...when most haven't seen the inside panel of an agency door.
I'm sorry, but the more pertinent question becomes, "Where the hell does anyone on this site get the right to tell a minor model that her image IS appropiate for her age?"
Photographer
Ty Simone
Posts: 2885
Edison, New Jersey, US
Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I will say this Ty, it is hypocritical. We do see underage nudes in New York all the time. Thora Birch was 17 in American Beauty, Milla Jovavitch 15 in Blue Lagoon II and Reese Whitherspoon 14 in The Man in the Moon. So to the extent that it is fine for Ron Howard, but not fine for the woman shooting a 13 year old with her mom, it is silly. But public attitudes are public attitudes.
But you are right, the models probably shouldn't be bashed to the extent that they are. However, when it comes to glamour, (rather than New York or a major motion picture), I am not sure why the photographer can't and shouldn't just shoot a model over 18.
For models under 18, it doesn't necessarily get them much by doing it. For photoraphers, it just exposes them to risk.
So let's all stop bashing the models and move onto another topic. Forget the photographer himself.
I think each and every photographer has to ask his/herself if they want to do it, and make that determination for themselves.
I am more interested in stopping the models that come on here from being bashed because they did pose that way, for whatever reason.
Photographer
Ty Simone
Posts: 2885
Edison, New Jersey, US
area291 wrote:
You seem to be confusing the judgment and actions of those in the industry working under highly professional conditions with the mass on this site shooting in garages, basements, wrinkled sheet backdrops and rarely having others on the set...when most haven't seen the inside panel of an agency door.
I'm sorry, but the more pertinent question becomes, "Where the hell does anyone on this site get the right to tell a minor model that her image IS appropiate for her age?" That is my point Area291!
That has been my point all along.
Like I have stated numerous times, I have no need nor desire nor even inclination to shoot nude minors, not my style of work.
I just hate the bashing they take on here (even now in that other thread) by those here who CLAIM to be PROFESSIONAL. and even those that do not.
Photographer
area291
Posts: 2525
Calabasas, California, US
Ty Simone wrote:
Huh?
I am lost as to what you are trying to say here. Selling the concept of nothing wrong with nude modeling for teens is far different than Granny's bathtub picture.
Photographer
Ty Simone
Posts: 2885
Edison, New Jersey, US
area291 wrote:
Selling the concept of nothing wrong with nude modeling for teens is far different than Granny's bathtub picture. Different because?
The baby had no say, The model does. (unless she has parents like Michael Jackson's)
I am not saying Teens should do nudes with every photographer they meet (although the first thread I kind of hinted that because then with it being everywhere, people would stop getting all up in arms when they see 1 or 2......)
I am saying that those teens that do it should NOT be bashed here or anywhere else.....
Photographer
Ty Simone
Posts: 2885
Edison, New Jersey, US
While I am here, and before I go for an extended period....
Here is an interesting factoid.
Of the Child Porn confiscated by the FBI in raids since 2002, almost 90% of it involved prepubescent youths.
Of the Child Molesters arrested and later found in possession of Child Porn, almost 85% of it was prepubescent youths.
Therefore, Granny's bathtub picture is far worse than 16 year old Missy topless.
(Those states came from a Field Agent for the FBI New York Computer Crimes division)
(mainly it has to do with the fact that if she is 18 and looks like 16, it is no different in their minds that a 16 year old. However, prepubescent can not be faked, therefore they tend to flock to those images more than they do teen ones.)
Photographer
Vegas Alien
Posts: 1747
Armington, Illinois, US
Ty Simone wrote:
Vegas, I live by that beach because of where I work.
I have no need to see naked kids, I grew up without the preoccupation you seem to have.
You are stuck on me, fine.
It has nothing to do with me, and EVERYTHING to do with you and people like you!
Because I bring the subject up, You have an issue with me.
Or is it you have an issue with the subject, but can not refute that because I am right in my assessment, therefore you feel the need to discredit the messenger and not the message? You know nothing about me, but all of us are learning a thing or two about you. Not sure why someone would be so interested in knowing all there is to know about shooting pictures of naked kids if the subject doesn't pertain to them.
Photographer
PierJes
Posts: 98
Quebec, Quebec, Canada
Legal or not, moral or not, minors are off-limits for me.
I would not take any chances.
|
