Frog516 wrote:
You know what I find interesting is that you can find the human body cute/intersting from the ages of 0-4 years old, then you you have to have no opinion of it from 5-17, then from 18 years old on you can find it beautiful again.

It just seems odd to me.

it does seem a little strange.

DMP Studios wrote:
yes, i have turned them down as well, as most are undercover police officers.

hahaha, i'm watching to catch a predator right now

Sheik Imagery wrote:
I too have encountered this request. I feel like Chris Hansen is waiting on the other end to see if I bite.

"I was just coming here to tell this little girl that it was a horrible idea to talk to older men on the internet. condoms? I don't have any condoms.... oh, those condoms. Those aren't mine, and I have no idea where that bottle of vodka came from"

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
BTW, I'm generally of the opinion that you guys are sounding very paranoid.

...

And a lot of you are very misinformed, frankly.

Ya think?

Studio78a wrote:
Speaking from experience as a Police Officer. If you do the right thing every time you will not have to worry. Now on the other hand if you have done this type of thing before and they have received a complaint on it and don’t have enough probable cause. They will afford you every opportunity to do it again so they can get enough for a search warrant and or arrest you.

I  have no doubt!

Sheik Imagery wrote:
I too have encountered this request. I feel like Chris Hansen is waiting on the other end to see if I bite.

Well at least he allows the person entering the house to finish their milk & cookies before introducing himself and bringing out the cameras.

This has become such a "popular" show that I can foresee people knowingly entering into this situation just to get their asses on television. Hansen is so pompous in his approach that I find him to be almost as offensive as the predators.

And, hey, we were just going to talk and play Playstation 3!

Lucas Chapman wrote:
Maybe YOU need to brush up on more recent case histories.  I'm pretty sure you'll find that most states have done away with so called "entrapment" laws, and allow authorities to act in whatever way they deem necessary to catch the perps.

Really, do you care to show me one?  It isn't an issue of state law, it is a constitutional question.  And to my knowledge, while there have been decisions which give more latitude in terms of searches, there has never been a supreme court decision weakening the rules on entrapment.

DKLEE STUDIO wrote:
the question is not why 16 year old girls would want to post nude, it is troubling that a under 18 model would need to post in the about me section that they refuse to pose nude.  why would they need to write such a thing unless they are asked.  who is asking????

I think we should have a public outing forum where models can report creepy GWC's...

Sadly, they are being asked all the time.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
BTW, I'm generally of the opinion that you guys are sounding very paranoid. This does not need to come up every few days the way it always does. And a lot of you are very misinformed, frankly.

Frankly, being well-informed on the legalities of photographing 16 year old girls in the nude is very low on my priority list.

It's not paranoia.  I have no interest in it.

Dave Wright Photo SF wrote:
paranoia, paranoia.

how about you guys actually read the state and federal laws on the subject, so you know what you're talking about!

This bears repeating.

Being well-informed on the legalities of photographing 16 year old girls in the nude is very low on my priority list.

It's not paranoia.  I have no interest in it.

Frog516 wrote:
You know what I find interesting is that you can find the human body cute/intersting from the ages of 0-4 years old, then you you have to have no opinion of it from 5-17, then from 18 years old on you can find it beautiful again.

It just seems odd to me.

its the jesus thing ya know......what would jesus do???

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Gee, how many times we gotta go over this one again, eh?

As long as the sun continues to comes up in the morning....
We will still feel the need to discuss it.

Lucas Chapman wrote:
Maybe YOU need to brush up on more recent case histories.  I'm pretty sure you'll find that most states have done away with so called "entrapment" laws, and allow authorities to act in whatever way they deem necessary to catch the perps.

Wrong but thanks for playing... want a cookie?

*edit*
damnit Alan, again you beat me too it!

Dave Wright Photo SF wrote:
paranoia, paranoia.

how about you guys actually read the state and federal laws on the subject, so you know what you're talking about!

It's not this I'm scared of:



It's this:


I don't really see much difference shooting a 16 year old or an 18 year old, but the perceived difference in society has implications that I'm not willing to put up with. 
i.e. nagging and bitching mothers who don't want to see their little darling that way. 
or maybe the dad who gets hot under the collar about it.
No thanks, I'll save myself the trouble.  I don't make any money doing this, so I don't give a rat's ass, and can pretty much pick and choose who I shoot with any criteria I see fit.  It's not paranoia, I just don't give a shit.

global vision wrote:

its the jesus thing ya know......what would jesus do???

I do not know the dude, so I couldn't really say.

DeathWish Photography wrote:
I don't really see much difference shooting a 16 year old or an 18 year old, but the perceived difference in society has implications that I'm not willing to put up with. 
i.e. nagging and bitching mothers who don't want to see their little darling that way. 
or maybe the dad who gets hot under the collar about it.
No thanks, I'll save myself the trouble.  I don't make any money doing this, so I don't give a rat's ass, and can pretty much pick and choose who I shoot with any criteria I see fit.  It's not paranoia, I just don't give a shit.

Sounds about right.

Magdalenax3 wrote:

Frog516 wrote:
You know what I find interesting is that you can find the human body cute/intersting from the ages of 0-4 years old, then you you have to have no opinion of it from 5-17, then from 18 years old on you can find it beautiful again.

yeah. because no matter what age [under 18] you admire the human body, even if there really is nothing more behind it than thinking it's beautiful, society will think of you as a pedophile/child molester.  not saying that every person is, but i'm saying you have to be careful what you say about a child's body because it raises questions.

It only raises question in an impure mind. People who appreciate it for what it is, and not something sexual, will not question a photograph taken of a nude without sexual overtures.

Frog516 wrote:
You know what I find interesting is that you can find the human body cute/intersting from the ages of 0-4 years old, then you you have to have no opinion of it from 5-17, then from 18 years old on you can find it beautiful again.

It just seems odd to me.

Actually when they're babies you have to be careful about photographing nude too, these days. You could get in some big trouble.

TTLKurtis wrote:

Actually when they're babies you have to be careful about photographing nude too, these days. You could get in some big trouble.

Really how could you get into "big trouble" for doing so?

Frog516 wrote:
You know what I find interesting is that you can find the human body cute/intersting from the ages of 0-4 years old, then you you have to have no opinion of it from 5-17, then from 18 years old on you can find it beautiful again.

It just seems odd to me.

You hit the bullseye again!

Ain't hypocrisy grand?!?!?

Best Regards,
JAY

Jessica Breton wrote:
I just had someone ask me if I would pose in only a thong and no top, and I am only 16. It was a female photographer who asked me to do this, and she said that it was to make sure that my body looked okay, but she wanted to photograph me. I said well since I am only 16 isnt that illegal, and she said no, becuase she wouldnt use it for modeling only to make sure my body looked ok. I was shocked. Isnt it illegal for 16 year olds to pose partialy nude?

As a matter of fact, it isn't illegal.  It IS illegal, however, to shoot porn if you are under 18 - it doesn't sound like she was asking you to shoot porn.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

TA Craft Photography wrote:
I know the law is the law, and we need to do as it requires. The law in most places relates to taking pictures of sexually posed under age girls and boys.  What the law does not take into account is that young people under 18 do have sexual feelings.  How would you react if your 12 year old daughter told you she was expecting a baby?  My daughter has just done that!

And your daughter is really 12?! My sympathies, if so.

TA Craft Photography wrote:
I know the law is the law, and we need to do as it requires. The law in most places relates to taking pictures of sexually posed under age girls and boys.  What the law does not take into account is that young people under 18 do have sexual feelings.  How would you react if your 12 year old daughter told you she was expecting a baby?  My daughter has just done that!

I want to extend my sympathies to you as well.

Sincerely,
JAY

DMP Studios wrote:
yes, i have turned them down as well, as most are undercover police officers,with just a small percentage  actual young ladies that should indeed know better.Either way mention 16yrs all communication stops from there on in.

a thought...why would undercover policemen set up a sting for something that is not illegal?

Gene Geter wrote:
What's up with 16-year-old girls wanting to pose nude? What's the origin to this? I met a few asking me if I could photographing them and also heard stories from other artists and friends about this.

I'm 16, but I would never want to pose nude.  That's gross.  And it's illegal!

RebeccaArielPhotography wrote:
I'm 16, but I would never want to pose nude.  That's gross.  And it's illegal!

nothing gross about nudity any age and sorry, not illegal

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

DMP Studios wrote:
yes, i have turned them down as well, as most are undercover police officers,with just a small percentage  actual young ladies that should indeed know better.Either way mention 16yrs all communication stops from there on in.

Sam Javor wrote:
my guess is that the origin has something to do with a undercover police officer... but I'd be guessing.

I chuckle whenever I read that.  Undercover officers will not contact you, pretend to be a teen and ask you to shoot them nude.  Stop being so paranoid.

If they contact you, encourage you to shoot them and then pose in a fashion that is illegal, that is called entrapment.  They cannot initiate the contact.  To do so raises the issue of them encouraging you to do something you wouldn't have done on your own.

Instead, when they set up stings, they will go online, for example and wait for you to contact them.  The will suggest nothing nor make any sexual remarks nor discuss doing nude shoots.  When you suggest the shoot they will be evasive and let you affirm what you are wanting to do.  They will get you to commit to doing something that would cross the line from legal to illegal and then get you to set up the characteristics of it so that you have definitely proposed something illegal.  They will discuss props or something shoot specific so they can demonstrate that you are intending to go through with it, such as bringing bondage gear or condoms.

They will then arrange a time/place to shoot.  When you arrive, they will search you to see if you brought the promised item.  In the meantime, they have a written transcript of the entire proposition.

A case would never stand up if they went around contacting photographers and then asking them to shoot nude.  You guys need to get a life.  You spend so much time worrying about this kind of nonsense.  You see police officers behind every door.

Turning down the shoot is the right thing because you don't need to be shooting any 16 year olds nude.  But it isn't an undercover cop contacting you.  Drink another beer and relax.  It is all good.

That is total crap! The police will contact you and they will then bust you. They do it all the time-- for example the undwercover approaches you on the street and offers you drugs and when you get out your money they bust you. The same goes for kiddie porn and sex crimes and all that jazz. Another example-- undercover police posing as prostitutes approach you and ask you if you want a date and when you get you wallet out they bust you! Don't even think the constitution comes into play when dealing with the cops-- they are just as bad as the element they are fighting. I know for a fact having worked on both sides of the battle. Better to be paranoid than busted-- and I might add that paranoia is perfect awareness.

Studio 530 wrote:

That is total crap! The police will contact you and they will then bust you. They do it all the time-- for example the undwercover approaches you on the street and offers you drugs and when you get out your money they bust you. The same goes for kiddie porn and sex crimes and all that jazz. Another example-- undercover police posing as prostitutes approach you and ask you if you want a date and when you get you wallet out they bust you! Don't even think the constitution comes into play when dealing with the cops-- they are just as bad as the element they are fighting. I know for a fact having worked on both sides of the battle. Better to be paranoid than busted-- and I might add that paranoia is perfect awareness.

"Good luck living in fear and ignorance, only alluding to what it is you really want." - a very wise MM member

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Studio 530 wrote:
That is total crap! The police will contact you and they will then bust you. They do it all the time-- for example the undwercover approaches you on the street and offers you drugs and when you get out your money they bust you.

once again, why would the police set up a sting for something that is not illegal?

Doug Swinskey wrote:
once again, why would the police set up a sting for something that is not illegal?

Not the real police silly....
The morality police!
Although..... some folks would like to blur the line between the two.
Now be sure and cover your Piano legs Victoria.