Posted by Joe K. Perez: 

Posted by Monsante Bey: 

Posted by Ken Long: 

There was a gentlemen from CA who would come to Arizona for monthly shoots.  A 14 yo. model was found crying in the dressing area, and when asked what was wrong, she told some people what happened.  (Mom/Dad weren't around - they didn't stay around for the shoot, they just dropped her off) The police were called, and when they reviewed the images on his camera, they found shots of her with her skirt up, panties down, etc.

Now... THAT'S SICK!!
I personally REFUSE to shoot anyone under the age of 18. The last people I shot under that age were family members.

I agree that it's sick, but why would that stop you from providing a qualified photographic service to a minor? They are customers just the same and are given equal rights to professional service, respect and courtesy. As long as you provide a safe environment and follow and stick to the photography guidelines for shooting with minors and the guidelines (code of conduct) for professional ethics, morals and behavior, then you should have no problem. Unless you're worried that you have weak convictions.

Agreed. I'd say at least 35% of my shoots are kids and at least one parent or legal guardian is present. I can see the future question now from "legal agers" across America: "Hey mom, how come I don't have a single photograph of what I looked like before I was 18? Am I a space alien, was I adopted?

Oh, and the best part is the parents (especially the moms) love to order tons of prints to give out to everyone of their adoring child.

Posted by Glamour Studio /Gary: 

Posted by Joe K. Perez: 

Posted by Monsante Bey: 

Posted by Ken Long: 

There was a gentlemen from CA who would come to Arizona for monthly shoots.  A 14 yo. model was found crying in the dressing area, and when asked what was wrong, she told some people what happened.  (Mom/Dad weren't around - they didn't stay around for the shoot, they just dropped her off) The police were called, and when they reviewed the images on his camera, they found shots of her with her skirt up, panties down, etc.

Now... THAT'S SICK!!
I personally REFUSE to shoot anyone under the age of 18. The last people I shot under that age were family members.

I agree that it's sick, but why would that stop you from providing a qualified photographic service to a minor? They are customers just the same and are given equal rights to professional service, respect and courtesy. As long as you provide a safe environment and follow and stick to the photography guidelines for shooting with minors and the guidelines (code of conduct) for professional ethics, morals and behavior, then you should have no problem. Unless you're worried that you have weak convictions.

Agreed. I'd say at least 35% of my shoots are kids and at least one parent or legal guardian is present. I can see the future question now from "legal agers" across America: "Hey mom, how come I don't have a single photograph of what I looked like before I was 18? Am I a space alien, was I adopted?

Heh, too funny. I once felt a little trepidation regarding photographing a minor for Internet portfolio development purposes. The question I asked Monsante Bey I asked of myself too. Am I a man of weak moral convictions? No. So, I threw out the worries and did a shoot with a pre-teen, aspiring model. Valentina's (MM # 1019) niece, Nadia (MM # 7719).

It was fun. She had fun, got our family dog in some of her photos and my teenager got to help me with carrying gear, measuring light. Good for him since he's in a photography class at school. heheh, kinda trippy to have your own kid talking to you about the rule of thirds. I wasn't even nervous knowing that Nadia's Aunt Valentina is a model herself and shot with Pros better than me. ...okey, just a little nervous. hehehe

Posted by Glamour Studio /Gary: 
Posting his OMP number is not a good idea. I'm siding with no one here but you don't name names in an accusation without the other person there to make a defense. Sex offender or not, if you cause him slander he still has the right to file suit.

I think you mean libel, and it's not libel unless it's false.

Having said that, I agree with your conclusion though... if the guy did not harm her and conducted himself professionally, I don't see the point in calling him out.

Posted by Anthony Citrano: 

Posted by Glamour Studio /Gary: 
Posting his OMP number is not a good idea. I'm siding with no one here but you don't name names in an accusation without the other person there to make a defense. Sex offender or not, if you cause him slander he still has the right to file suit.

I think you mean libel, and it's not libel unless it's false.

slander and libel are the same things, one is written and the other is spoken..but both are defamation...

Posted by marksora: 

Posted by Robb Radford: 

In short if Ashley is 100% positive then I see no reason she can't say who the person is IF they are a convicted offender. 

But then just as you stated it might be confused with another person with the same name.   Anyone do a goggle search and you will see the names of many others.  I am a big high football star in many states.


The Administrators of OMP should be notified if they have not been already.

I do think that OMP should be notifed for there are children on that site.  The person could be using the good references from older models to convince the mothers of the young that he is safe.

Like i said before.. i worked with the man and next to the conviction on meganslaw site they have his photo on there. it IS him
I don't know law wise what is right or not right to say. In my book no one that does those things has rights anymore. That's my opinion, yet actual law wise I don't. I'm trying to find this out.
and i agree that's why i contacted OMP regarding this situation

Posted by AshleyDanielle: 

Posted by marksora: 

Posted by Robb Radford: 

In short if Ashley is 100% positive then I see no reason she can't say who the person is IF they are a convicted offender. 

But then just as you stated it might be confused with another person with the same name.   Anyone do a goggle search and you will see the names of many others.  I am a big high football star in many states.


The Administrators of OMP should be notified if they have not been already.

I do think that OMP should be notifed for there are children on that site.  The person could be using the good references from older models to convince the mothers of the young that he is safe.

Like i said before.. i worked with the man and next to the conviction on meganslaw site they have his photo on there. it IS him
I don't know law wise what is right or not right to say. In my book no one that does those things has rights anymore. That's my opinion, yet actual law wise I don't. I'm trying to find this out.
and i agree that's why i contacted OMP regarding this situation

Ashley,

In the response to Robb,  I was referring to the overall idea which he stated himself that things for some can be confusing.  That is why we have law enforcement personel.
Are they perfect no. 
Sometimes these threads go in so many strange directions.
Saying people did silly things that they likely did not do,  telling others how they should think or what their actions should be.  Or to the other extreme demanding court like proof for obvious wrongs.

I do not know.

Only you can.

But what I do know so far is that you have conducted yourself with great professionalism to inform but not crusify in public.

So far I totally agree with the way you have handled this situation.  I quickly agree with your statements.  I think it is just to give out the information in private if you wish.  But I am not a lawyer nor the judge and jury.  Only all three can ever give you or understand a correct answer.

I just want to commend you again for taking the high road.
Five Hanachan and Five Sorachan points for your actions for such intelligence seems to be lacking lately.

If you are postive then that is of great value but for others to decide for you,  well I do not like that.

I think you are and were great like chocolate cake.

Posted by Anthony Citrano: 

Posted by Glamour Studio /Gary: 
Posting his OMP number is not a good idea. I'm siding with no one here but you don't name names in an accusation without the other person there to make a defense. Sex offender or not, if you cause him slander he still has the right to file suit.

I think you mean libel, and it's not libel unless it's false.

Having said that, I agree with your conclusion though... if the guy did not harm her and conducted himself professionally, I don't see the point in calling him out.

Thanks Anthony, Actually libel is the written word where as slander is the spoken. Guess I'm just so used to hearing mainly slander cases in the brick and mortar world compared to libel.
---------------------------------------------
"Can I sue someone who says or writes something defamatory about me?"

In order to prove defamation, you have to be able to prove that what was said or written about you was false. If the information is true, or if you consented to publication of the material, you will not have a case. However, you may bring an defamatory action if the comments are so reprehensible and false that they effect your reputation in the community or cast aspersions on you.

Posted by Mary: 
The way I understand it, convicted sex offenders normally have conditions on release and one is always to stay away from minors (being alone with minors)  they are not allowed to work in schools with minor children.  They are not allowed to work in day care facilities, etc.  Paying your debt to society is one thing, rehabilitation is another and studies show that sex offenders (people drawn to children under the age of 14) are rarely "cured" thats why the "under 14" distinction is made.

I am pretty confident that the OMP photographer is violating his probation or condition of release if he is photographing minors. I don't know that he is but I wouldnt allow him on a modeling site where minors could find him and contact him.

I would think that if the site owners knew they had a convicted sex offender on their site and did nothing about it, they may be held liable in the event he molested again someone he met on that site.

Just to expand on Mary's post and don't quote me on the exact details but recently I believe in a town in NJ, a registered sex offender was trying to move into a certain town. State and municipal governments can apply their own restrictions on offenders also. One that is standard is the distance an offender can live from schools, day care centers and whatever they deem appropriate he should not be close to. This town somehow worked it out where the footage from restricted buildings was such that there wasn't a single residence he could move into. I don't know if the situation has changed as I heard this on the news a few weeks ago.

Posted by Glamour Studio /Gary: 

Posted by Anthony Citrano: 

Posted by Glamour Studio /Gary: 
Posting his OMP number is not a good idea. I'm siding with no one here but you don't name names in an accusation without the other person there to make a defense. Sex offender or not, if you cause him slander he still has the right to file suit.

I think you mean libel, and it's not libel unless it's false.

Having said that, I agree with your conclusion though... if the guy did not harm her and conducted himself professionally, I don't see the point in calling him out.

Thanks Anthony, you're right. Libel is the written word where as slander is the spoken. Guess I'm just so used to hearing mainly slander cases in the brick and mortar world compared to libel.

TO MAKE A POINT CLEAR.. I have not called ANYONE out!

I posted this so models especially new models are aware of what is going on out there and to take precautions on when they are working for THIER safety.

I could care less about the poor sexual offender or his rights, but I do care about innocent people going to go work with someone and not being prepared with a chaperone or learning the knowledge of checking someone out carefully and the importance of checking references. I do care about the next person that could become a victim.
There are lots of models on OMP that are under the age of 17. They have rights too.

All I'm saying is safety first, be careful and be prepared.

Posted by Mary: 
I would think that if the site owners knew they had a convicted sex offender on their site and did nothing about it, they may be held liable in the event he molested again someone he met on that site.

You would think that ...

Interesting, the case I'd cited earlier, still has his Platinum OMP but his business site has all of the modeling photo sections removed .. Guess it violated his probation ...

Posted by AshleyDanielle: 

Posted by Glamour Studio /Gary: 

Posted by Anthony Citrano: 

Posted by Glamour Studio /Gary: 
Posting his OMP number is not a good idea. I'm siding with no one here but you don't name names in an accusation without the other person there to make a defense. Sex offender or not, if you cause him slander he still has the right to file suit.

I think you mean libel, and it's not libel unless it's false.

Having said that, I agree with your conclusion though... if the guy did not harm her and conducted himself professionally, I don't see the point in calling him out.

Thanks Anthony, you're right. Libel is the written word where as slander is the spoken. Guess I'm just so used to hearing mainly slander cases in the brick and mortar world compared to libel.

TO MAKE A POINT CLEAR.. I have not called ANYONE out!

I posted this so models especially new models are aware of what is going on out there and to take precautions on when they are working for THIER safety.

I could care less about the poor sexual offender or his rights, but I do care about innocent people going to go work with someone and not being prepared with a chaperone or learning the knowledge of checking someone out carefully and the importance of checking references. I do care about the next person that could become a victim.
There are lots of models on OMP that are under the age of 17. They have rights too.

All I'm saying is safety first, be careful and be prepared.

Ashley, in the future please only quote the person you are answering. It looks like your making your post to me when it's actually Anthony you're responding to.

Posted by marksora: 
Mary, 

I did not say that and I get your point.

But with these on line conversations do we want to be the mob, lawyer, judge and jury.

Did not we see the problems that could occur with such actions on the shout box last night?

(ps if interested back log to 10 pm or so EST and read the history of the Shout box.)

(Say no more, say no more, nudge, nudge.)

last night was different because last night was just someone trying to start trouble, accusations, no back up.

In this case on this thread we don't have to be the judge and jury, one has already come to a decision, now that decision is being reported and so the question would be "do we want to be reporters?"

And just a bit of information, if it is the first time working with a photographer they should have no problem with you bringing someone, this is a crazy world and there are far too many weirdos out there!

Sorry if any of you fellow photographers disagree, but as a women I think its important. 

I don't disagree at all.  It's just unfortunate.  I want to do my best work.  When someone else is looking on, I don't do as well.  My creative process isn't as keen.  That's the sad fact of it.

If I really want to work with a particular model, I have to respect her need for security.  But in all likelihood, my work won't be as good.  So the reality of it is that I don't do work as often, and then I work with models who have a "good feeilng" about me, or who check on my references, or who have gotten to know me beforehand, or obviously, who have worked with me before.

The creep factor in the photography world is a very regrettable phenomenon that drags everyone down to some extent.  Frankly, it angers me, because of the mood of distrust that it instills.  But that's just another part of the reality here, and another issue to be dealt with as appropriately as possible.

Posted by theda: 
Question:  Doesn't Megan's law only deal with child molesters? Are offender's against adults also listed on such resources? For clarity's sake, if we are only talking about child molesters, could we please say that, since that is only one subset of sex offenders.

My understanding is that the model of Megan's Law may vary from state to state.  There is a Federal Megan's Law that dictates information to be released to local law enforcement authorities when a convicted sex offender moves into the area, and to make that information available to the public.

Although, again, the law dictates among states, a variant of Megan's Law stipulates the reporting of convicted sex offenders, not just sexual crimes against children.  Depending on the state, this could include indecent exposure, public urination, inappropriate touching among adults, and so on, as well as predatory pedophilic behavior.

Posted by theda: 
Question:  Doesn't Megan's law only deal with child molesters? Are offender's against adults also listed on such resources? For clarity's sake, if we are only talking about child molesters, could we please say that, since that is only one subset of sex offenders.

I realize there are minor models online, but I would hope their parents are monitoring their modeling endveavours and accompanying them to to shoots.

yes all sexual offenders that are "registered" are on that site. it's the office of the attorney general

Posted by Glamour Studio /Gary: 

Posted by Anthony Citrano: 

I think you mean libel, and it's not libel unless it's false.

Having said that, I agree with your conclusion though... if the guy did not harm her and conducted himself professionally, I don't see the point in calling him out.

Thanks Anthony, Actually libel is the written word where as slander is the spoken. Guess I'm just so used to hearing mainly slander cases in the brick and mortar world compared to libel.
---------------------------------------------
"Can I sue someone who says or writes something defamatory about me?"

In order to prove defamation, you have to be able to prove that what was said or written about you was false. If the information is true, or if you consented to publication of the material, you will not have a case. However, you may bring an defamatory action if the comments are so reprehensible and false that they effect your reputation in the community or cast aspersions on you.

Yeah - we live in such a sue-happy society that people think telling the truth can get them in trouble.  Generally speaking it will not.

Overall in this situation I think it's unfortunate that someone can serve their time and still be basically reconvicted.  I believe this violates the constitution's protection against double jeopardy.  Then again, we as Americans are so full of irrational fears that we don't care about individual rights anymore.

I am not commenting on this guy in particular - although it sounds like from what I've read that he did nothing wrong during this shoot - but I am commenting on the irrational fears we carry around in this culture.

But I digress.

Look, if this guy is violating his parole (which I doubt), fine, report him.  But I think it's unfair to be out trying to shut down a guy's career who, for all we know, is just trying to get his crap back together after serving out his sentence.  By the sounds of the photo shoot, he conducted himself professionally and within the bounds of ethical and appropriate behaviors.

I believe the original poster said he should not have rights anymore.  This unfortunately reinforces what I said about how willing we are to give our rights away in order to FEEL safer.  (One only needs to take a look at airport security or drug laws for good examples of this.)

Maybe this guy's a scumbag - I don't know the details of the case - forcible with a child, if true, is abhorrent.  I just wish people would be more rational in their approach to these delicate issues.

My $0.02.

Posted by AshleyDanielle: 
TO MAKE A POINT CLEAR.. I have not called ANYONE out!

I posted this so models especially new models are aware of what is going on out there and to take precautions on when they are working for THIER safety.

I could care less about the poor sexual offender or his rights, but I do care about innocent people going to go work with someone and not being prepared with a chaperone or learning the knowledge of checking someone out carefully and the importance of checking references. I do care about the next person that could become a victim.
There are lots of models on OMP that are under the age of 17. They have rights too.

All I'm saying is safety first, be careful and be prepared.

I respect your desire to inform fellow models of perceived dangers, and I think it is very noble.  My only point is that it should be approached with some balance and perspective. You're probably at least 1,000 times more likely to be hurt driving TO a photo shoot than AT the shoot.

I totally understand you're feeling freaked out about this, and I sympathize - just encouraging everyone to see the dangers in perspective.

Again this has nothing to do with this guy - because I know nothing about his particular situation - I'd probably want to squash him like a bug.  I just think unjustified paranoia and mistrust serves no one, especially those of us who are professional, kind humans who would never dream of hurting someone.

Posted by Mary: 
It's not just child molesters that get listed, it's violent sex offenders....there are guidlines that will get you on the site and I read them in the paper when Megans law first passed but I can not remember exactly what they were.  I know that forcible rape was on the list and sex with someone under the age of 14 was listed.  Statutory (sp?) rape...for example sex between a 18 year old and a 15 year old won't get you listed unless it is by force.   Peeing in public, indecent exposure, streaking etc. won't get you on the list. 

I think you are mistaken.  In many states a statutory charge WILL have you listed as a sex offender, as would indecent exposure and the numerous ways one could get busted on that - ranging from taking a leak in public to having sex with your girlfriend in a car parked in a public lot.

In most states the age of sexual consent is under 18 - generally 16.  Many states require there to be a 5 year difference as well.  So, sex between an 18 and 15 year old would not be a crime. 

DAs generally don't prosecute these types of cases unless there are aggravating factors, anyway.

Posted by Mary: 
I may be mistaken about specifics, I just recall reading the article in the paper, it was awhile ago.  But like you said, it would be very rare to see a conviction for a minor offense such as streaking.  I looked around on the Calif site and could find no cases that were just indecent exposure, they were all rape by force and serious offenses like that.

If a model did go to a Megans law site and see that a photographer was convicted of indecent exposure one offense she probably wouldn't get so alarmed anyway, I dont think we would have ever heard about it.   

That's true and I agree his rap sheet is not very comforting.  I'd not send my daughter (if I had one) to his studio.

Yeah, DAs in most places stay away from these "crimes of morality" when they are victimless.  I think that's good - most of those laws should be repealed anyway, in my view.

Posted by Jeanine M.: 
Thanks for posting that!

And just a bit of information, if it is the first time working with a photographer they should have no problem with you bringing someone, this is a crazy world and there are far too many weirdos out there!

Sorry if any of you fellow photographers disagree, but as a women I think its important. 

I don't disagree that someone should do whatever makes them comfortable - as long as the work can be done equally well.

But I do disagree that there are "far too many weirdos out there".  I think there are far fewer weirdos out there than we act like there are.  The world is crazy mostly to the extent that people harbor very irrational fears.  But I think I'm repeating myself and that's rude. 

Posted by AshleyDanielle: 
Offense Code
Description
288(b)(1) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS W/FORCE
288a(b)(1) ORAL COPULATION WITH PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS
647.6 ANNOY/MOLEST CHILDREN
647.6(a) ANNOY/MOLEST CHILDREN

I annoy people all the time. I never knew it was against the law...

Posted by Anthony Citrano: 

Posted by Glamour Studio /Gary: 
Posting his OMP number is not a good idea. I'm siding with no one here but you don't name names in an accusation without the other person there to make a defense. Sex offender or not, if you cause him slander he still has the right to file suit.

I think you mean libel, and it's not libel unless it's false.

Having said that, I agree with your conclusion though... if the guy did not harm her and conducted himself professionally, I don't see the point in calling him out.

Just a little research shows that slander is spoken and libel is written. It's very basic.

Posted by Justin: 
I'm not trying to make trouble or persist in an argument.  Different states have different categories.  I quickly looked at three states - New Hampshire, Alaska, and Colorado.  Alaska's Megan's Law dealt with minors and more serious offenses. Here's what the other two said - and I'm not going to look at the other 47 and the Federal law.

By the way, I don't shoot with children, unless it's friends or family members. Given the simple fact of some artistic nudity in some of my shots, I'm simply not going to allow anyone to make the connection between a certain component of my work and my possibly taking photographs of kids.

*************

NEW HAMPSHIRE SEX-OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION

NUMBER OF REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS

2,600 as of January 30, 2003.

Related page: New Hampshire Sex Offender Registry.
1. WHO IS REQUIRED TO REGISTER?

Sexual offenders and offenders against children must register.
(N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 651-B:2(I))

2. WHAT DOES “SEX OFFENDER” MEAN?

“Sexual offender” means a person who has been convicted of any violation or attempted violation of the following offenses:
(1) aggravated felonious sexual assault;
(2) felonious sexual assault;
(3) sexual assault;
(4) felony indecent exposure or lewdness; or
(5) an equivalent offense in another jurisdiction.
(N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 651-B:1(III))

*******************

Colorado Megan's Law Legislation
COLORADO SEX-OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION

NUMBER OF REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS

7,917 as of February 24, 2003.

Related page: Colorado Sex Offender Registry.
1. WHO IS REQUIRED TO REGISTER?

Any person who:
(1) was convicted on or after July 1, 1991, in Colorado, of an unlawful sexual offense or enticement of a minor;
(2) was convicted on or after July 1, 1991, in another state or jurisdiction of an offense that, if committed in Colorado, would constitute an unlawful sexual offense or enticement of a minor;
(3) was released on or after July 1, 1991, from the custody of the Department of Corrections having served a sentence for an unlawful sexual offense or enticement of a minor; or
(4) on or after July 1, 1994, is convicted in Colorado of unlawful sexual behavior or of another offense, the underlying factual basis of which involves unlawful sexual behavior, or any person who is released from the custody of the Department of Corrections having completed a sentence for unlawful sexual behavior or for another offense, the underlying factual basis of which involved unlawful sexual behavior,
is required to register.
(Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 16-22-103(1), (2)(a))

2. WHAT DOES “UNLAWFUL SEXUAL OFFENSE” MEAN?

“Unlawful sexual offense” means:
((1) through (11) deal with kids.)
(12) indecent exposure;
((13) through (19) deal with kids.)
or
(20) criminal attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any of the offenses listed in (1) through (19) above.
(Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-411(1))

This is one of the few posts in the long thread with correct information. Good work.

Posted by Doug Swinskey: 

Posted by AshleyDanielle: 

Posted by Doug Swinskey: 
its always good idea to be cautious and check references, but also remember you are more likely to be harmed by someone you know and trust then a professional photographer..

very true

Posted by Doug Swinskey: 
another thought is most commercial shoots dont allow for non-essential personel..they will not allow you to bring body guards..

the ones i have done they allowed for the chaperone to stay in the dressing room or had an area set up for people, waiting room type area. I believe they are understanding of this. But agree not in the room for the shoot it's self. Some that were like casting calls my chaperone would wait outside, YET were still there for me.

i am just always leary when someone jumps to any conclusion..its nice to have the whole story to base a decision on..please dont think i was defending this photographer..
also,on a commercial shoot with photog, his grips, the MUA and stylists..theres already a croud of people there, thats why most dont allow a chaperone..

and when are you comming to florida???

Models tend to feel more secure when I share with them that my current day job is public school teaching and that I had to undergo a background check in order to get my license.  I'll gladly show them my certificate if they ask, but no one has. 

I'm all for safety and having the model feel secure on a shoot, but there are two sides to the escort/chaperone story.  I've heard some horror stories about models who were accompanied by jealous husbands or boyfriends, chaperones who interfered with the shoot, and even chaperones who broke or stole items belonging to the photographer.  I always tell models up front that I expect any person who accompanies them (limited to one individual at least 21 years of age) to be totally unobtrusive as in invisible and inaudible.

Chaperone horror stories would make a good thread.

Posted by Justin: 
I'm not trying to make trouble or persist in an argument.  Different states have different categories.  I quickly looked at three states - New Hampshire, Alaska, and Colorado.  Alaska's Megan's Law dealt with minors and more serious offenses. Here's what the other two said - and I'm not going to look at the other 47 and the Federal law.

By the way, I don't shoot with children, unless it's friends or family members. Given the simple fact of some artistic nudity in some of my shots, I'm simply not going to allow anyone to make the connection between a certain component of my work and my possibly taking photographs of kids.

*************

NEW HAMPSHIRE SEX-OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION

NUMBER OF REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS

2,600 as of January 30, 2003.

Related page: New Hampshire Sex Offender Registry.
1. WHO IS REQUIRED TO REGISTER?

Sexual offenders and offenders against children must register.
(N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 651-B:2(I))

2. WHAT DOES “SEX OFFENDER” MEAN?

“Sexual offender” means a person who has been convicted of any violation or attempted violation of the following offenses:
(1) aggravated felonious sexual assault;
(2) felonious sexual assault;
(3) sexual assault;
(4) felony indecent exposure or lewdness; or
(5) an equivalent offense in another jurisdiction.
(N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 651-B:1(III))

*******************

Colorado Megan's Law Legislation
COLORADO SEX-OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION

NUMBER OF REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS

7,917 as of February 24, 2003.

Related page: Colorado Sex Offender Registry.
1. WHO IS REQUIRED TO REGISTER?

Any person who:
(1) was convicted on or after July 1, 1991, in Colorado, of an unlawful sexual offense or enticement of a minor;
(2) was convicted on or after July 1, 1991, in another state or jurisdiction of an offense that, if committed in Colorado, would constitute an unlawful sexual offense or enticement of a minor;
(3) was released on or after July 1, 1991, from the custody of the Department of Corrections having served a sentence for an unlawful sexual offense or enticement of a minor; or
(4) on or after July 1, 1994, is convicted in Colorado of unlawful sexual behavior or of another offense, the underlying factual basis of which involves unlawful sexual behavior, or any person who is released from the custody of the Department of Corrections having completed a sentence for unlawful sexual behavior or for another offense, the underlying factual basis of which involved unlawful sexual behavior,
is required to register.
(Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 16-22-103(1), (2)(a))

2. WHAT DOES “UNLAWFUL SEXUAL OFFENSE” MEAN?

“Unlawful sexual offense” means:
((1) through (11) deal with kids.)
(12) indecent exposure;
((13) through (19) deal with kids.)
or
(20) criminal attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any of the offenses listed in (1) through (19) above.
(Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-411(1))

This is great and exactly what I meant when saying, do the research, laws vary from federal, state and local.

Posted by Doug Swinskey: 

another thought is most commercial shoots dont allow for non-essential personel..they will not allow you to bring body guards..

just a thought...

Just NOT true. Most commercial shoots have a place for extras to be. There are so many people at a real commercial shoot (assistants, MUAs, stylists, etc.) nobody would probably even notice a bodyguard.

No model should EVER go to a shoot alone. Any photographer that wants them to, is probably not concerned with the image. Dreaded chaperones are like rain - you have to learn to deal with them and get the shot anyway or just don't shoot with them model.

Posted by PhotographerC: 

Posted by Doug Swinskey: 

another thought is most commercial shoots dont allow for non-essential personel..they will not allow you to bring body guards..

just a thought...

Just NOT true. Most commercial shoots have a place for extras to be. There are so many people at a real commercial shoot (assistants, MUAs, stylists, etc.) nobody would probably even notice a bodyguard.

No model should EVER go to a shoot alone. Any photographer that wants them to, is probably not concerned with the image. Dreaded chaperones are like rain - you have to learn to deal with them and get the shot anyway or just don't shoot with them model.