This thread was locked on 2008-08-23 02:18:26
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
StephenE wrote:
well the standards have been lowered  You've been talking to my wife, haven't you?
Seriously, guys, listen up - the laws regarding minors and nudity are nuanced and many, and in no case do any of them cross the line of defining nudity as illegal. It's all about intent, when the rubber hits the road (pun unintended), and if you don't understand this, you just make yourself look silly when you claim, with authority and vigor, that anyone under 18 naked is breaking the law.
Okay? Can we just take that as an axiom and prevent you all from looking even sillier than you already do?
Likely not.
Model
StephenE
Posts: 2629
Great Neck, New York, US
Greg Kolack wrote:
It amazes me someone who make a claim like that, then post the law to back it up which actually proves them wrong!
WTF.
Seems like a brigging for stating balatantly wrong info in an industry thread is due. I am not sure we can brig for being totally wrong, especially when helping to provide the evidence to prove your own wrongfullness.
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Greg Kolack wrote:
But is she doing anything illegal? Being a minor, even if she is doing sexually suggestive work, is she actually breaking the law?
I'm asking because I'm unsure - I'm not making a statement of fact.
Wouldn't only the photographers be breaking a law? How would I know?
the OP basically is asking what she should do. Sounds like she wants her to stop. If she won't, then report her.
If she's not doing anything illegal, they'll tell her to go pound sand.
if she is doing something illegal, then they'll bring up charges or something and it'll all get resolved legally one way or another.
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
StephenE wrote:
I am not sure we can brig for being totally wrong, especially when helping to provide the evidence to prove your own wrongfullness. I think, in cases like these, you cross a line (that we just crossed) where the err of the poster's ways have been shown.
Brigging, in my decidedly non-mod opinion, should be warned at that point and then used if and only if the poster continues to insist that s/he's right and pushes the issue. While an apology and an, "oops, I guess I was wrong," would be helpful for others, it surely can't be required.
Photographer
J C KUNSTFOTOGRAFIE
Posts: 2691
Los Angeles, California, US
speedsamurai wrote:
I am a prosecutor. It's illegal because it is legally defined as child porn. Contact me. #1 What is your name?
#2 What county or district are you a "prosecutor" in?
P.S. I LOVE the porn shots in your portfolio, by the way - well done!
Photographer
Mike Irish
Posts: 446
Brockton, Massachusetts, US
Photographer
OLJ studio
Posts: 1550
Winnetka, California, US
ei Total Productions wrote:
but being stupid doesn't necessarily make it illegal. Although Talleyrand said , "c'est pire qu'un crime; c'est une faute" (it's worse than a crime; it's a mistake).
Model
StephenE
Posts: 2629
Great Neck, New York, US
Model
StephenE
Posts: 2629
Great Neck, New York, US
 Moderator Warning! Sophistocles wrote:
I think, in cases like these, you cross a line (that we just crossed) where the err of the poster's ways have been shown.
Brigging, in my decidedly non-mod opinion, should be warned at that point and then used if and only if the poster continues to insist that s/he's right and pushes the issue. While an apology and an, "oops, I guess I was wrong," would be helpful for others, it surely can't be required. 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
Photographer
Karl Blessing
Posts: 30911
Caledonia, Michigan, US
StephenE wrote:
I am not sure we can brig for being totally wrong, especially when helping to provide the evidence to prove your own wrongfullness.
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com Course the prosecutor offering legal advice, which turned out not only to be wrong, but out of his jurisdiction (and if he's not indeed a prosecutor or someone licensed by the bar) could be illegal activity.
 Just saying (if you needed an excuse).
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 36555
San Diego, California, US
Kimberly Sun wrote:
No one including the parents have any control whatsoever over her. She turns 18 in November. In this case, it looks like she's on her own.
Buyer beware.
PS .. "The" parents? Are they not your parents too? Is she your sister, or do you mean that like a sorority sister?
If she is not your blood sister, you are not responsible for her behavior. If she is your family, then you have the responsibility to tell her to knock it off as her older sister.
If she is too stupid and hard headed to ignore everyone, then it would be a professional courtesy to tip off photographers who you know enough to get involved and tip them off.
I would like to know if a model is lying to me. I'm sure others would too.
As mentioned above, if she has an MM account, CAM her, and sink her ship now. She deserves to be canceled from MM for her deception and fraud, not to mention her immature juvenile behavior.
Model
StephenE
Posts: 2629
Great Neck, New York, US
Karl Blessing wrote:
Course the prosecutor offering legal advice, which turned out not only to be wrong, but out of his jurisdiction (and if he's not indeed a prosecutor or someone licensed by the bar) could be illegal activity.
Just saying (if you needed an excuse). Yes, what does he prosecute? he may be the team prosecuter for his volly ball league 
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Photographer
C h a r l e s D
Posts: 9312
Los Angeles, California, US
Sophistocles wrote:
I think, in cases like these, you cross a line (that we just crossed) where the err of the poster's ways have been shown.
Brigging, in my decidedly non-mod opinion, should be warned at that point and then used if and only if the poster continues to insist that s/he's right and pushes the issue. While an apology and an, "oops, I guess I was wrong," would be helpful for others, it surely can't be required. Why is it so impossible for people to admit they're wrong. I'm wrong about once a month here, depending how much I've injested. I just do another post, "oops silly me," and move on. I just don't get it.
Photographer
Xeris - Dwight
Posts: 4369
Austin, Texas, US
Stephen Fletcher wrote:
Read the post you were responding to. The subject was the Photographer getting in trouble while not doing anything that was illegal. If you think I was spreading innunendo about you, I was not. I was just pointing out the danger a photographer might be in if a local newspaper or other media chose to make a big issue about it. Yet you chose to specifically use MY name to make your point and that was NOT needed. It would be like me linking Stephan Fletcher to a false newspaper story about a photographer that has been charged with multiple child rapes. Totally unnecessary and you seem to be intelligent enough to find other ways to make your point without stooping to that level, yet you chose to not do so.
Photographer
Zion Imaging
Posts: 890
Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, US
Aaron Cota wrote:
HAHAHA, it must have been DeVry.... Maybe University of Phoenix.... online..
Photographer
Karl Blessing
Posts: 30911
Caledonia, Michigan, US
speedsamurai wrote:
I am a prosecutor. It's illegal because it is legally defined as child porn. Contact me. J C KUNSTFOTOGRAFIE wrote:
#1 What is your name?
#2 What county or district are you a "prosecutor" in?
P.S. I LOVE the porn shots in your portfolio, by the way - well done! I see someone has difficulties defining pornographic materials too... (MM doesn't allow porn... those are not porn).
Model
Matus
Posts: 519
Tustin, California, US
JRProductions wrote:
Sorry but I have to agree here. THANK YOU 
only in USA this can be an issue !!!
Photographer
Karl Blessing
Posts: 30911
Caledonia, Michigan, US
JRProductions wrote:
Sorry but I have to agree here. Matus wrote:
THANK YOU
only in USA this can be an issue !!! LoL apparently people don't watch the news lately either (or they wear horse blinders to the events in the rest of the world).
Photographer
Mike Irish
Posts: 446
Brockton, Massachusetts, US
Zion Imaging wrote:
Maybe University of Phoenix.... online.. HA
Photographer
Stephen Fletcher
Posts: 7501
Norman, Oklahoma, US
Xeris - Dwight wrote:
Yet you chose to specifically use MY name to make your point and that was NOT needed. It would be like me linking Stephan Fletcher to a false newspaper story about a photographer that has been charged with multiple child rapes. Totally unnecessary and you seem to be intelligent enough to find other ways to make your point without stooping to that level, yet you chose to not do so. Actually Stephen Fletcher is my real name. I assumed "Xeris-Dwight" was your MM name and used it to illustrate how badly you might be portrayed by the Media. And can you kindly tell me what "false newspaper story about a photographer that has been charged with multiple child rapes" I linked you to? Because I am not aware of any.
Photographer
Greg Kolack
Posts: 18392
Elmhurst, Illinois, US
Mike Irish wrote:
since everyone wants a link to the law this is what i found i dont really care either way lol
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html That was already posted and thoroughly discussed on the last page.
You should read the whole thread before posting.
Photographer
glamour pics
Posts: 6095
Los Angeles, California, US
"Can't we all just get along?" - Violent felon Rodney King
Learned colleagues:
* Mere nudity of a minor is not illegal. The issue has been much-tested involving nudist magazines.
* Explicit or erotic nudity of a minor IS illegal. See, inter alia, 18 USC 2256 & 2257.
Between those extremes lies a vast and dangerous wasteland, abounding with land mines, punji spikes, and wild beasts known as politicians, a place without maps, with fog hanging and obscuring the dangers. A place of vague and endless dangers.
An ambitious politician can easily use such an incident to destroy a photographer for the politician's own gain. The photographer's life is destroyed on Page 1 and the Evening News. And the error is "corrected" a week later in tiny type in the gutter on page 15.
My own opinion is that: 1. It is profoundly foolish to shoot nudes of anyone under 18; and 2. The colleague who claimed to be a prosecutor is not being candid.
Model
Frances Jewel
Posts: 9149
Dayton, Ohio, US
StephenE wrote:
do they have access to your portfolio and profile here?
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com I have noticed quite a few "managed" profiles lately......./TJ apologies again...
Model
Bon voyage MM
Posts: 9508
Honolulu, Hawaii, US
Ok, everyone that thinks there is no risk here...
please, send a picture of a minor into the FBI. Plain old nude pic.
Let's see, once and for all, what happens.
Photographer
Xeris - Dwight
Posts: 4369
Austin, Texas, US
Stephen Fletcher wrote:
Actually Stephen Fletcher is my real name. I assumed "Xeris-Dwight" was your MM name and used it to illustrate how badly you might be portrayed by the Media. And can you kindly tell me what "false newspaper story about a photographer that has been charged with multiple child rapes" I linked you to? Because I am not aware of any. Oh, I made it up about you. Just like the newspaper headline you made up involving my name. Seemed like if we were going to roll around in the gutter.....
Photographer
Stephen Fletcher
Posts: 7501
Norman, Oklahoma, US
Sabrina Maree wrote:
Ok, everyone that thinks there is no risk here...
please, send a picture of a minor into the FBI. Plain old nude pic.
Let's see, once and for all, what happens, please. You don't even need to send it to the FBI, try your local Department of Human Services, Children and Youth Protective Services or what ever you call it in your State.
But only if you want to see the poor photographers crucified.
Photographer
Greg Kolack
Posts: 18392
Elmhurst, Illinois, US
speedsamurai wrote:
I am a prosecutor. It's illegal because it is legally defined as child porn. Contact me. J C KUNSTFOTOGRAFIE wrote:
#1 What is your name?
#2 What county or district are you a "prosecutor" in?
P.S. I LOVE the porn shots in your portfolio, by the way - well done! Karl Blessing wrote:
I see someone has difficulties defining pornographic materials too... (MM doesn't allow porn... those are not porn). I think JC was being sarcastic - since the "prosecuter" was claiming nude shots are porn.
Photographer
Karl Blessing
Posts: 30911
Caledonia, Michigan, US
Sabrina Maree wrote:
Ok, everyone that thinks there is no risk here...
please, send a picture of a minor into the FBI. Plain old nude pic.
Let's see, once and for all, what happens. As an FBI agent has once said, 90% of what people think is child porn online, is indeed legal. A mere nude picture is not illegal unless there is something in the picture to somehow suggest sexual intent or abuse.
Shooting a minor nude has proven to cause more harm from society than the legal system. (the younger, the more 'outraged' the public gets. 17 merely would be about as much outrage as girls-gone-wild not reading the ID correctly, where as 12 nude might ruin a photographer's reputation despite everything was legally kosher).
Photographer
AMCphotography
Posts: 439
Los Angeles, California, US
Zion Imaging wrote:
Maybe University of Phoenix.... online.. Oh ya! I heard that one is actually the best one, since you can get your degree in as little as six weeks...
Photographer
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS
Posts: 1466
FRESH MEADOWS, New York, US
glamour pics wrote:
"Can't we all just get along?" - Violent felon Rodney King
Learned colleagues:
* Mere nudity of a minor is not illegal. The issue has been much-tested involving nudist magazines.
* Explicit or erotic nudity of a minor IS illegal. See, inter alia, 18 USC 2256 & 2257. not only is explicit or erotic images of a nude minor illegal, but so are explicit and erotic images of a clothed minor.
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Model
Bon voyage MM
Posts: 9508
Honolulu, Hawaii, US
2257
definition of sexually explicit:
Sexually explicit material (video, photography, creative writing) presents sexual content without deliberately obscuring or censoring it. The term sexually explicit media is often used as euphemism for pornography. It includes unsimulated sex acts, sexual intercourse and uncovered genitalia.
So I guess it would be reasonable to say we don't know about topless minors. Bottomless is another story.
Photographer
Xeris - Dwight
Posts: 4369
Austin, Texas, US
Sabrina Maree wrote:
Ok, everyone that thinks there is no risk here...
please, send a picture of a minor into the FBI. Plain old nude pic.
Let's see, once and for all, what happens. Exactly WHO said there was no risk? Many of us have stated there is no LAW. That does not mean that you cannot be falsely accused, charged, and prosecuted. That is a risk. Which is why I very seldom shoot 17 year olds, and never shoot minor nudes. Does that clear it up for you?
Photographer
Stephen Fletcher
Posts: 7501
Norman, Oklahoma, US
Xeris - Dwight wrote:
Oh, I made it up about you. Just like the newspaper headline you made up involving my name. Seemed like if we were going to roll around in the gutter..... No more for me.
"Never argue with a fool....someone may be watching and not know who is who."
Photographer
Greg Kolack
Posts: 18392
Elmhurst, Illinois, US
Sabrina Maree wrote:
Ok, everyone that thinks there is no risk here...
please, send a picture of a minor into the FBI. Plain old nude pic.
Let's see, once and for all, what happens. What are you thinking will happen?
Are you claiming it is illegal?
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
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 found it!!!
www.lawzrus.com/unitedstates/under18/nakedisporn.html
1. Thou shalt not take photograph(s), video(s), fax(es), cop(ies), nor use memor(ies) to capture, replay, or remember naked people that have yet to reach age 18 years from date of their birth.
Photographer
Brian Baybo
Posts: 1417
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
Matus wrote:
so what ???
Good for her ! Oh Boy....
Photographer
Allure Vision
Posts: 1438
Atlanta, Georgia, US
This post is becoming more and more crazy. Why anyone would want to shoot a minor naked is beyond me anyway. Any nudity can be forseen as porn. Shyt there are pics people call porn when a grown man or womans private areas are covered with clothing. So it can definately be considerred porn. But why are so many people concerned about what the laws are on it anyway? That's whats beyond me. And why anyone would want to shoot a minor naked is beyond me also.
Model
Bon voyage MM
Posts: 9508
Honolulu, Hawaii, US
Xeris - Dwight wrote:
Exactly WHO said there was no risk? Many of us have stated there is no LAW. That does not mean that you cannot be falsely accused, charged, and prosecuted. That is a risk. Which is why I very seldom shoot 17 year olds, and never shoot minor nudes. Does that clear it up for you? Good. Then don't encourage it. Thank you.
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
Sabrina Maree wrote:
Ok, everyone that thinks there is no risk here...
please, send a picture of a minor into the FBI. Plain old nude pic.
Let's see, once and for all, what happens. It's legal to take a picture of someone flipping off the camera, but sending it in to the FBI would have similar effects.
The exercise wouldn't demonstrate the issue you think it would.
|
Moderator Warning!
Just saying (if you needed an excuse).
