|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
isn't teen glamour illegal?
David Baxter wrote: Sara Lund wrote: It can if you're 45 and you think they are 14 and you try to meet them for sex. Sep 11 08 10:58 am Link Christopher Hartman wrote: Dang, I already posted in this thread. haha Sep 11 08 10:59 am Link NO, but yo mama is!!!  why why why do people ask these questions? Sep 11 08 11:01 am Link David Baxter wrote:
Sep 11 08 11:02 am Link How about this girl from the AP site put up yesterday? I guess in big corporation commerce it is a different story than some grimey GWC group shooter starting a site. Is that a double standard or just bad taste? http://www.agentprovocateur.com/velma.html She's pretty young, but that makes little difference, I have seen girls that look 15 in ads for Italian lingerie companies in trade publications like Intima. Their bodies fit the wardrobe perfectly, but I guess that people don't use models like this often mainly because that age produces very few girls that have that kind of body. in this group shot: http://www.agentprovocateur.com/witches.html Sep 11 08 11:49 am Link Apfel Photography wrote: Or CK, who for awhile 17 would have been TOO old. Sep 11 08 01:11 pm Link Christopher Hartman wrote: David Baxter wrote: It can if you're 45 and you think they are 14 and you try to meet them for sex. Hey Chris, What if I thought she was 45 and she was REALLY 14, am I still in trouble?? Sep 11 08 01:15 pm Link you have two questions here. one is, can you photograph a girl under 18 in a way which is nude or suggestive. yes, if it is not pornographic. HOWEVER. she is a minor, and you are risking a hassle about sexual overtures or assault or whatever with an underage girl, so if you're working with one, bring her mother. Otherwise, do not work with her without all her clothes on. the other question is, can you use the pictures? if she is under 18, she cannot legally sign a release or a contract, so you cannot legal make use of whatever images you make which show who she is. for this, you need a release signed by a parent or guardian, so, bring her mother. If her mother isn't there, then make nice snapshots, then send her home to her mommy. warning. i have worked a great deal with girls damaged by sexual abuse as children, and it is common for them to be out on their own at 16 or 17. they are smart enough to have fake ids, which allows them to work. the risk of working with an underage girl with fake id is far greater than with a girl of age who pretends to be younger. I have run into three of these. norm Sep 11 08 10:48 pm Link If teen glamour is illegal then the majority of teen girls at local high school dances should be arrested for pornographic behavior on the dancefloor at high school dances. The things they do on the dancefloors are often soooo sexually suggestive I sometimes think they learned it at strip clubs. Sep 11 08 11:41 pm Link The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) 18 USC 2256, says: (8) "child pornography" means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where-- (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct ...(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct What D) says is that a person 18 or over, but pretending to be under 18 is illegal. I remember when this law passed. I am not sure, but I think it mkay have been overturned since then, or replaced by a newer law. The newer law, Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act (COPPA), pertains to anything "virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." So, the wording changed but, to me, it sounds like the same thing. Sep 12 08 02:32 am Link TestShoot wrote: Definite double standard. If you're a hired by J.C. Penny to shoot a 12 year old girl in her underwear for their catalog, that's completely respectable and you're a pillar of the community and an upstanding businessman. Sep 12 08 02:52 am Link I dont get how you could shoot teen glamour and its not illegal http://www.teenstarlet.com/v01/ Dec 15 12 08:11 am Link Shanghai Imaging wrote: Hmm... Revived a four year old thread to needlessly post a link to a site that you claim has content that you think should be illegal. Dec 15 12 09:39 am Link Shanghai Imaging wrote: Robert Lynch wrote: +1 Dec 15 12 11:10 am Link ATLFigures wrote: Would you still agree if your images were somehow seen as suggestive in the opinion of the local oppressed "church lady"? Dec 15 12 11:14 am Link ok its reported. Dec 15 12 12:53 pm Link |
