Eye of Ra wrote:
Miley Cyrus - Annie Leibovitz

Don't really need to say much more than that.  Regardless of your personal views, this issue has been in the news recently, and it seems the public, and the courts (through lack of any litigation) have spoken...

Rahul

That was much ado about nothing. Underneath that blanket was her normal swimsuit.

Sarah Threlkeld wrote:
I just got really offended by a photographer's work. I am all for crazy art. But this wasn't exactly "professional" style work...

How old is the asian girl in chaps on your portfolio?

Kailey Ibsen wrote:
I am not a lawyer, though I soon will be, and my mother is an attorney.....case by case these issues not spelled out in legislation, because there are too many circumstances that come in play. However, photographers can of course be held responsible and convicted of child exploitation and obscenity if there was no parent signature on a model release, no parents present at the shoot, or simply by testimony of the child later if they were pressured or manipulated into something.

With a good attorney, its situational enough that its probably not worth taking the risk of shooting children in extremely risque lingerie or nude, with arguable sexual content.

Like those contracts you sign if your going rafting or something, signing your life away...if something happens to you, even though you did sign that agreement, with a good attorney they can surely be liable.

While there may not be a law specifically stating that a 12 year old girl can not be shot in a thong and stripper heals, there are enough child protection acts such as:

The United States Supreme Court, in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)

(one of many) in which it may be argued that a certain case falls under the violation of a certain legislation. 

Just don't take pictures of 12 year old in thongs unless you aren't getting three meals a day and you don't have cable tv, so you'd prefer to be in jail.

And then, there is the case where the 16 year old has been emancipated. No longer a child, they can even get jobs serving alcohol and work in strip clubs, legally, because the right to hold a job is a right, and to deny the legal aged person [a 16 year old emancipated person is of legal age] is against the law. That 16 year old can also legally have nude photos, but there is a glitch here. She/he can do it, but they [the pics] must not cross state lines. However, if the person who is uploading them to the internet cannot be found and it is not the photographer, then the law cannot do anything to the photographer.

The laws are so convoluted and screwed up that no one can keep them straight.

Now as to exploitation, it is very difficult to get any child to follow any law. They have sex when they want to regardless of laws, and they lie to get what they want, they make false IDs, and they do all the drugs that are known in the world. Before 1995 and the Redbook hearings about Tracy Lords, none of this made any difference. Things change then, and good or bad, if the item was made before 1995 it can still exist. The movie Pretty Baby can still be rented, and it is not edited, David Hamilton can still be found in legitimate bookstores, and to me, the biggest problem is all the publicity that is given by the press about all this. Make something taboo, you get a huge demand for it.

Even the age of consent is not consistent from state to state. There are still some states with the age being 14 years old, some 15, and so forth. In Louisiana where I am, you can legally take all the naked shots of a 17 year old that you want. Just do not let them get to the internet. I think it is crazy, and we can pretty much blame the religious right for most of the problems, and with their hypocracy, it might not change until we get a president in office who is not one of them.

Jon Barry

swhnyc wrote:
I think I know the port in question, and when I saw it I thought it was tasteless and not particularly artistic (isn't art supposed to express something creatively?).

Why do you assume that this person,whoever it is, is trying to make art?

glamour pics wrote:
If you're interested in protecting girls this age (10-12 or so), why not lobby about the Chinese "toddler" Girls Olympic team?

The girls, having been tested for athletic ability at toddler age, are taken from their families at the age of toilet-training, and raised by the state. About a decade or so later, as 11-12 year-olds, they perform in the Olympics having been issued fraudulent passports showing them as 16 and 17-year olds.

Most people would consider it child abuse to take a girl from her family at 3 or 4, and raise her by the totalitarian state to turn her into a gymnastic robot. Does dressing a young girl inappropriately rise to the same level of abuse?

BTW, one of the reasons the Chinese fraud is so clear, is that prior to the rule change requiring girls to be at least 16, the Chinese were entering girls in various junior level and novice tournaments ... complete with genuine birth/provincial documents showing the true age(s).

I do have to hand it to the Chinese girls, though, for a batch of 12-year olds they are certainly great gymnasts.

The gymnasts are not the only ones removed from their families at a young age.   

Frankly, I lived in China for a time and this is really not the biggest problem to worry about.  There are much worse things going on, it's very silly to worry about these girls too much.

Sarah Threlkeld wrote:
I just got really offended by a photographer's work. I am all for crazy art. But this wasn't exactly "professional" style work... this photographer has shots of a little girl (Maybe 10-12?) in a short skirt, revealing top and heels in provocative poses.. To me, it was horrifying! I was like, where is this girl's mother?!

But there were a lot of comments on there from female models who were all for it. The majority of his other pictures included girls who obviously looked way underage in stripper heels, thongs, school girl outfits... (I didn't check ID's so they might have been of age) but it was like, whoa, pervert. I felt it was glorified kiddie porn, am I just overreacting?!
I was offended. Perhaps its just a taboo? I understand the demand for girls who can fit into a "teen porn" category, yes. But I don't understand the need to photograph a prepubescent child in 4 inch heels and booty skirt and revealing tops in provocative poses even slightly ethical in our society! And to boot, the poses of the faux kiddie porn around it...

And yet huge numbers of our society finds this acceptable and even celebrated:

http://www.universalroyalty.com/best2.jpg

LaRana wrote:

The gymnasts are not the only ones removed from their families at a young age.   

Frankly, I lived in China for a time and this is really not the biggest problem to worry about.  There are much worse things going on, it's very silly to worry about these girls too much.

Perhaps so, considering the occupation of Tibet and the atrocities they have done there.

There is also a huge amount of murder of female newborns, as a combination of Chinese family size restrictions and the preference for males...

The Chinese are also wiping out entire species of animals because of their cultural notions that some animal parts (Bear gallbladders, various parts of Tigers, for example) have special powers to make men more studly.

And then there is Darfur.

So our learned colleague is correct. Compared to their other atrocities, the use or abuse of underaged girl gymnasts is pretty mild stuff.

glamour pics wrote:

Perhaps so, considering the occupation of Tibet and the atrocities they have done there.

There is also a huge amount of murder of female newborns, as a combination of Chinese family size restrictions and the preference for males...

The Chinese are also wiping out entire species of animals because of their cultural notions that some animal parts (Bear gallbladders, various parts of Tigers, for example) have special powers to make men more studly.

And then there is Darfur.

So our learned colleague is correct. Compared to their other atrocities, the use or abuse of underaged girl gymnasts is pretty mild stuff.

Beauty queen children etc may have some severe problems as most of us are aware of, but saying there's babies being killed in China doesn't make those beauty queen children's problems any less real or significant. There will always be someone with a worse problem than your own, it doesn't mean your own problem isn't the hardest thing you've been though at that point of your life.

Countess_Grotesque wrote:
I am a very open minded, new age type person but my morels are very much old fashioned. I am offended when I things like children's Gstrings for sale!
Or even worse, children's stripper poles that come with a how-to-dance video and a garter belt.
When I was little I wore cute outfits for my age. These days kids run around in adult clothes..
I just don't like how they're making them lose their innocence.

Here is the problem. We now live in a world wide system. The internet knows no boundaries. In Europe, not only do most women have zero problem with nudity, and for sure going topless is nothing at all. The children on those beaches are dressed exactly the same as the other people. In the parks in Germany at lunch time there are literally thousands of sunbathers there during their breaks. On the weekends the kids are there with their parents. These pics show up here and everywhere.

In Brazil, everybody wheres thongs, the kids included. The taboos are within this country, and we try to make everybody's rules. There is a big difference between taking seedy children porno pics and satisfying the perverse thrills of those who feed off seeing children doing things sexual and the natural urge by every child who ever existed to run around naked. By making these things that are natural into dirty and nasty happenings I fault the religious right. In Europe and most other places of the world other than Islamic but to include Christians nudity is about as normal as you can get. What happened here. Who is it who has the right to determine what everybody does. And this affects nudity for those who are not underage. How many models in this and every model site says...what happens if someone sees these and later on in life I get fired from my job because I was nude.

To me, this is the attitude that feeds those who want to devour children who by the way, these days are hardly innocent. They can access anything they want to on the internet, and child protection software is controlled by these kids who are much better at the computers than are their parents, and porn is about as normal to them as is to eat breakfast. Who is kidding who about all this stuff. I am not condoning taking advantage of children, but for sure those who make all these stupid rules are about the biggest hypocrites I have ever seen.

I shoot nudes, lot of them but my nudes are never as vulgar as the implied nudes and the glamour garbage that is slung around on Maxim and other sites promising everything but......

What happened to making women pretty and beautiful. What happened to people just being natural? Why does every shot have to be "edgy" meaning almost nude, almost engaged in sex, but safe because there is no nipple or vagina. This is total garbage.

I do not really mind the glamour, but when I see models saying that they will never do nude and then I look in their port and see what they are doing is advertising that they for sure are very sexually active. That is hypocrisy.

I can understand those who have issues with their bodies and for those reasons they do not do nude. Not everyone has a great body, but other than that, what makes nudity bad?

Jon Barry

Marc Grant wrote:
Why do you think someone would photograph a 12 year old girl as described above?  In the name of art?  lol.......   I think you're wanted over on the forum at www.brandnewlawyers.com. 

Sophistocles wrote:
You deliberately ignored the question and, instead, levied a personal attack.

Bravo.

Standard operating procedure for a WK. He should have to show his official badge before posts like this though.

Sophistocles wrote:
I'll ask it again: right or wrong, how do you justify making it your business? Be specific.

The problem with that is it will require rational thought to reply.

Some get too much out of their moral indignation.  Some get peculiarly too much out of their moral indignation.

Jon Barry wrote:
I think it is crazy, and we can pretty much blame the religious right for most of the problems, and with their hypocracy, it might not change until we get a president in office who is not one of them.
Jon Barry

yes!its all the religious rights fault!
/sarcasm

Jon Barry wrote:
By making these things that are natural into dirty and nasty happenings I fault the religious right.
Jon Barry

so, its the religious rights fault for making the natural thing that is a 12 year old girl dressed like a stripper with the intention of being provacative a bad thing?

swhnyc wrote:
I think I know the port in question, and when I saw it I thought it was tasteless and not particularly artistic (isn't art supposed to express something creatively?).

What is/isnt art, what is/isnt viewed as creative is subjective. Like the art that is handfuls of fresh poop thrown on a picture of jesus or the virgin mary, some think thats the best thing since sliced bread. I personally dont think its art, I think its extreemly discusting.
And for the record, I would think the same if it was poop flung on a picture of Allah, Buhda, or any other religious icon.

JDP Photo wrote:

Jon Barry wrote:
I think it is crazy, and we can pretty much blame the religious right for most of the problems, and with their hypocracy, it might not change until we get a president in office who is not one of them.
Jon Barry

yes!its all the religious rights fault!
/sarcasm

Jon Barry wrote:
By making these things that are natural into dirty and nasty happenings I fault the religious right.
Jon Barry

so, its the religious rights fault for making the natural thing that is a 12 year old girl dressed like a stripper with the intention of being provacative a bad thing?


What is/isnt art, what is/isnt viewed as creative is subjective. Like the art that is handfuls of fresh poop thrown on a picture of jesus or the virgin mary, some think thats the best thing since sliced bread. I personally dont think its art, I think its extreemly discusting.
And for the record, I would think the same if it was poop flung on a picture of Allah, Buhda, or any other religious icon.

No..it is not the religious right thing that puts the girl in the clothes of a stripper. That is the parents. But there would not be a market for it were it not for the religious right.

Jon Barry wrote:
No..it is not the religious right thing that puts the girl in the clothes of a stripper. That is the parents. But there would not be a market for it were it not for the religious right.

How exactly does the religious right create a market for a 12 year old girl in stripper cloths? please, do tell.

ei Total Productions wrote:

Except Miley wasn't even close to nude.

True!!!
The news media gave that excess coverage.

JDP Photo wrote:

How exactly does the religious right create a market for a 12 year old girl in stripper cloths? please, do tell.

It is something that to a degree involves my opinions and observances, and it is not worth arguing about because I am sure that you feel differently and all it can do is cause hard feelings.

a HUMAN ad wrote:

Broke was 15/16 years old here, before The Blue Lagoon she did Pretty Baby at age 13; in it she was also totally nude

she wasnt totaly nude btw.

Sophistocles wrote:

You deliberately ignored the question and, instead, levied a personal attack.

Bravo.

I'll ask it again: right or wrong, how do you justify making it your business? Be specific.

It's everyones business.  re-hitler