Sabrina Maree wrote:

Murder isn't illegal if it's in "self defense" either.

Exceptions, exceptions.

Which is absolutely true and doesn't take a huge argument to agree upon, but for some reason this topic does?...

Greg Kolack wrote:

I think that is what most people are saying here tonight.

While I admire Sabreena's feelings on the moral side of the issue, I think she is letting that cloud her interpretation of the law.

I actually don't feel the way you think on the moral side of the issue.
I think, frankly, To Catch a Predator is disgusting, exploiting men who may be making mistakes by the law but following nothing other than basic biology. It's one thing to be sexually attracted to a child (before puberty) it's another for a sexually matured human (whatever age that may be). Same applies to nude photos. But I do think we should protect dumb teenagers. We've all been one. BUT we learn from our mistakes. Hopefully

I just do not think pushing envelopes is the way to change the law. I like this industry. I don't like the bad stuff in the news. And unfortunately, this country is based on some very old-school puritan values.

Anywho. It has nothing to do with morality. Trust me.

Kimberly Sun wrote:
Should I contact authorities? Should I contact the photog(s) and inform them that she is currently 17?

is she doing pornography?

I'd say you sould talk to her about not being able to sign a model's release without guardian in most states until she is 18.

Should you turn her in? for what offense?

Do your homework before you jump on the paranoia train as an american. This country just LOVESW blood and guts not allowed on EU programming but is screeming mimis about nudity while the EU is nonchalant about the issue 16 and older in most cases.

So if she's into porn - you have to turn her in - if not - why use common sense?

Cazee wrote:

is she doing pornography?

I'd say you sould talk to her about not being able to sign a model's release without guardian in most states until she is 18.

Should you turn her in? for what offense?

Do your homework before you jump on the paranoia train as an american. This country just LOVESW blood and guts not allowed on EU programming but is screeming mimis about nudity while the EU is nonchalant about the issue 16 and older in most cases.

So if she's into porn - you have to turn her in - if not - why use common sense?

Agreed!

eyelight wrote:

It strikes me that the separation of commercial from financial would suggest that if the pictures are posted in a portfolio to garner more business it could be construed by an overzealous prosecutor (not that there are any of those these days) as commercial in nature.

As for those that want to talk, erroneously, about obscenity statutes, the case referenced below turned the Miller test of "contemporary community standards" on its head.

http://www.newstatesman.com/law-and-ref … ity-google

I think I have to agree with eyelights here.  The AZ law does not mention sexuality or obscenity in item 2, it only mentions nudity.  Posting a work of art would supposedly serve to enhance the reptutation of the photog, thereby, I think making it a commercial device to increase business.

(Just a thought...)

Joe Tomasone wrote:
This post has gotten WAY off topic.   

The issue of the legality of shooting minors in the nude is a non-issue.   Federal law does not prohibit it, and virtually all State laws permit it either in total or under certain circumstances (such as Ohio, requiring parental consent and a legitimate purpose, art being one such purpose).

As such, no further debate on this will be permitted as it is off topic from the OPs question.   Posts furthering this debate in this thread may subject the offenders to brigging.

Back on topic, please.

I thought we were on topic. OP asked if she should go to the authorities and we have been trying to show her that action like this would be fruitless. The rest of the discussion seemed to ba a natural progression of conversation.

Gibson Photo Art wrote:
I thought we were on topic. OP asked if she should go to the authorities and we have been trying to show her that action like this would be fruitless. The rest of the discussion seemed to ba a natural progression of conversation.

OP asked if she should go to the authorities or inform the photographer.   The "natural progression" has turned into a debate on the legality of photographing minors in the nude, with some people claiming it's illegal and others pointing out that this is not the case.   The question is moot, so the discussion should get back to the question of what the OP should do.

Studio 925 wrote:
There's sooooo many damn fine beautiful super gorgeous women OVER THE AGE OF 18 out there.  So little time to photograph them.

Heard that!

Joe Tomasone wrote:
This post has gotten WAY off topic.   

The issue of the legality of shooting minors in the nude is a non-issue.   Federal law does not prohibit it, and virtually all State laws permit it either in total or under certain circumstances (such as Ohio, requiring parental consent and a legitimate purpose, art being one such purpose).

As such, no further debate on this will be permitted as it is off topic from the OPs question.   Posts furthering this debate in this thread may subject the offenders to brigging.

Back on topic, please.

Joe - With respect, I would like to point out that earlier in this thread, a MOD (Stephen) posted:

StephenE wrote:
I can agree with that.

So here is the warning, bring actual evidence of a law which clearly states that being photographed nude, or photographing a minor nude is a crime in the US, not porn, not being photographed nude while robbing a bank, killing a celebrity or anything else, only being nude and being underage and photographed, or photographing a nude under the age of 18 in non explicit ways.

Other BS will not be tolerated.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

I understood this to mean it was OK to discuss the issue of the legality of nude photography of minors, as long as blatantly false information was not given out. In fact, Stephen was an active participant in the discussion of the legal aspects of it.

I would also argue that part of the OP's question was the legality of what her sister was doing.

If you don't want the discussion to continue, I would respectfully suggest you lock the thread for good, because the OP clearly doesn't care any more.

Kimberly Sun wrote:
Also for the people that actually care about the issue at hand, I have decided to ignore the situation. Ironically, she has removed the images.

Shows over folks. Thanks for your input.

I would also point out that quite a few people here are candidates for the brig, as many have come here posting blatatnly wrong info AFTER Stephen's warning.

(And I'm not referring to Sabrina, by the way. I think that her comments have led to a discussion of interpretation of the law, which has been interesting. She is at least backing herself up with information. We may not agree with her, but she is presenting thought out arguements.)

And that's all I have to say about that.

Joe Tomasone wrote:

OP asked if she should go to the authorities or inform the photographer.   The "natural progression" has turned into a debate on the legality of photographing minors in the nude, with some people claiming it's illegal and others pointing out that this is not the case.   The question is moot, so the discussion should get back to the question of what the OP should do.

That is the problem. There are people on both sides and we are trying to resolve the legality to see if she can go to the authorities. Both sides are posting links to law and cases to show what is legal and what is not. Armed with this info the OP can decide how to approach her issue with her sister. That's why I was trying to get proof either way.

Greg Kolack wrote:
If you don't want the discussion to continue, I would respectfully suggest you lock the thread for good, because the OP clearly doesn't care any more.

Kimberly Sun wrote:
Also for the people that actually care about the issue at hand, I have decided to ignore the situation. Ironically, she has removed the images.

Shows over folks. Thanks for your input.

Sounds reasonable to me.   Locked.