Odin's Eye wrote:
Hey wait...is she in Ohio?

Apparently it IS illegal in Ohio, if I'm reading this properly.

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2907.323

Or maybe you need to read it again.

Odin's Eye wrote:
Hey wait...is she in Ohio?

Apparently it IS illegal in Ohio, if I'm reading this properly.

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2907.323

Well, since I'm a teacher, I guess I would be okay... if I were willing to risk the pr nightmare that would inevitably ensue...

Kimberly Sun wrote:
I've seen other MM profiles with artist statements written in the third person.

My husband assists me on my assignments. IE -> helps me get dressed,

Your husband/manager helps you get dressed?!?!?!?!

ei Total Productions wrote:
Or maybe you need to read it again.

The point of me asking others if I am reading it properly is because I think I am missing an important word or two, and want to check if that is or is not the case.

Alright, there it goes: Subjective phrase: "Bona Fide artistic...or other person having a proper interest in the material or performance" such as a gallery owner.

Nope, still not illegal, just worded with more leeway to bend over an "offender".

Kenzphotos wrote:

Why don't you ask "Kimberly" to talk further with her sister about it.

While you are at it...

Ask; Why did "Kimberly" write her main profile in the 'third person'?
Just wondering...

Probably because her manager, that goes to all shoots, wrote it..

Kimberly Sun wrote:
My little 17 year old sister has started posing nude. She says she's not lying about her age to her affiliates, but she lies on her profile. I'm confused about what to do. I am concerned about her safety, future (as a model) and the careers of the people she works with.

No one including the parents have any control whatsoever over her. She turns 18 in November.

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

Illegal or not and I hope it is, the unfortunate part to me, being the parent of a 17 year old and having obviously been 17 once, you do things at this age that you may choose as mistakes later in life.  If nude is where she wants to go when her brain is more mature, then so be it, but for now, it's sad to me to think that a 17 year old has nude images out there.  And makes me ill to think a photographer would be interested in shooting an 17 year old if they knew her age.  Surprised how many people think this is ok.  Maybe you don't have kids, dunno.

mar-C shots     wrote:

Illegal or not and I hope it is, the unfortunate part to me, being the parent of a 17 year old and having obviously been 17 once, you do things at this age that you may choose as mistakes later in life.  If nude is where she wants to go when her brain is more mature, then so be it, but for now, it's sad to me to think that a 17 year old has nude images out there.  And makes me ill to think a photographer would be interested in shooting an 17 year old if they knew her age.  Surprised how many people think this is ok.  Maybe you don't have kids, dunno.

"When her brain is more mature"?
Like..........in a few months when she's 18? 

mar-C shots     wrote:
Illegal or not and I hope it is, the unfortunate part to me, being the parent of a 17 year old and having obviously been 17 once, you do things at this age that you may choose as mistakes later in life.  If nude is where she wants to go when her brain is more mature, then so be it, but for now, it's sad to me to think that a 17 year old has nude images out there.  And makes me ill to think a photographer would be interested in shooting an 17 year old if they knew her age.  Surprised how many people think this is ok.  Maybe you don't have kids, dunno.

or maybe she isn't "wild" but already is mature, informs the photographers of her age, and is taking completely non-sexual images.

Being a parent and objecting to it based on a maturity level, when we know nothing about the maturity level of the model in question, nor of the actual nature of the photos, is a little short sighted.

Objecting to it on a personal level, go right ahead, just don't expect every one to agree.

MelissaLynnette LaDiva wrote:

"When her brain is more mature"?
Like..........in a few months when she's 18? 

maturity comes from the blowing out of 18 plus 1 candles or greater 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

MelissaLynnette LaDiva wrote:

"When her brain is more mature"?
Like..........in a few months when she's 18? 

No, I don't believe it happens when you turn 18. If you want the scientific answer, it's when your 25.  But while parents have control you take it and sadly, when they turn 18 there isn't much you can do, but at 17 there is.

michaelsdigitalimaging wrote:
Please contact the photographers. They can do up to 15 years for each picture taken even if they had copies of ID's and a signed contract!

I agree. If they truly believe she is of-age and photograph her, they can be in horrible trouble for it.

Odin's Eye wrote:

or maybe she isn't "wild" but already is mature, informs the photographers of her age, and is taking completely non-sexual images.

Being a parent and objecting to it based on a maturity level, when we know nothing about the maturity level of the model in question, nor of the actual nature of the photos, is a little short sighted.

Objecting to it on a personal level, go right ahead, just don't expect every one to agree.

She said they were sexually explicit.  Do you have kids?  I do, he does stupid things all the time, he's 17.  Not quite an adult but not a child either, only somewhat capable of making good decisions.  I was mature at 17 but you can't have life experiences past those years that you have lived.  Short sighted, nope, just a parent of a 17 year old and a step mother to a 17 year old.

StephenE wrote:

maturity comes from the blowing out of 18 plus 1 candles or greater 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

That must be why I'm so immature.  I stopped blowing out candles when I was like, 10. 

mar-C shots     wrote:

No, I don't believe it happens when you turn 18. If you want the scientific answer, it's when your 25.  But while parents have control you take it and sadly, when they turn 18 there isn't much you can do, but at 17 there is.

What does parental control have to do with the brain's maturity?

Odin's Eye wrote:

or maybe she isn't "wild" but already is mature, informs the photographers of her age, and is taking completely non-sexual images.

Being a parent and objecting to it based on a maturity level, when we know nothing about the maturity level of the model in question, nor of the actual nature of the photos, is a little short sighted.

Objecting to it on a personal level, go right ahead, just don't expect every one to agree.

Also, it would seem to be that a responsible photographer would want the parent involved if photographing their daughter nude.  I think the parent should have that option being it is their child and they are legally responsible for them until they are 18.   Anyone taking nude pics of my kid better be ready to battle.

MelissaLynnette LaDiva wrote:

What does parental control have to do with the brain's maturity?

What a stupid question?  Clearly haven't raised a teenager.  Good luck when you do.

mar-C shots     wrote:
Also, it would seem to be that a responsible photographer would want the parent involved if photographing their daughter nude.  I think the parent should have that option being it is their child and they are legally responsible for them until they are 18.   Anyone taking nude pics of my kid better be ready to battle.

For this one here, I agree; the parent SHOULD be informed/involved. I have no idea what actions the photographers in question are taking, so I am not commenting on it at all.

Please also keep in mind, being told something is sexually explicit does not necessarily mean that it is. Now if it was something specific like "She's masturbating on camera, she's using sex toys on herself, etc", yes that should be questioned and would fall into the realm of being illegal. Simply being nude is not, which is the point that I am making; without having any evidence other than the word of a single observer, we can't go crucifying unless we are prepared to believe EVERYTHING that observer says at all times.

As to the ability to make good decisions: I know a good deal of "Adults" in the 35-60 range who make more stupid mistakes now than I ever made as a teenager. I know many teens who have been through more experiences than many adults, including military service, loss of limb/mobility/hearing/sight, various types of abuse and the like. You are going to tell me that, because they are 17, as opposed to 25+, they are not as mature as the other people who have been through the same experiences with them?

And as to raising teenagers: I'm sick of raising kids and teens, and I don't even have any of my own. Just a ridiculously large family that likes to take in strangers kids, too!

mar-C shots     wrote:

What a stupid question?  Clearly haven't raised a teenager.  Good luck when you do.

Of course I haven't raised a teenager.
But again I ask what does parental control have to do with the brain's maturity?

In other words:  What does the legal guardianship a parent has over their minor child have to do with whether or not that child is mature enough to pose nude?

Especially since at 17 years and 364 days you seem to think that they do not possess it, but at 17 years and 366 days they magically acquire it.

Jesus Mary and Joseph.  It's not that hard.  Maybe raising teenagers has killed off some of your brain cells. 

mar-C shots     wrote:

If you want the scientific answer, it's when your 25.

thats the scientific answer?!?

mar-C shots     wrote:

Illegal or not and I hope it is, the unfortunate part to me, being the parent of a 17 year old and having obviously been 17 once, you do things at this age that you may choose as mistakes later in life.  If nude is where she wants to go when her brain is more mature, then so be it, but for now, it's sad to me to think that a 17 year old has nude images out there.  And makes me ill to think a photographer would be interested in shooting an 17 year old if they knew her age.  Surprised how many people think this is ok.  Maybe you don't have kids, dunno.

Oh ya because every day they grant children emancipation between 13 and 17. I was granted it a day after 17. That means I must not have been as mature as I would have been 18. I find it sad everyone relies so heavily on numbers when its actually a person

michaelsdigitalimaging wrote:
Please contact the photographers. They can do up to 15 years for each picture taken even if they had copies of ID's and a signed contract!

Puppy Darling wrote:
I agree. If they truly believe she is of-age and photograph her, they can be in horrible trouble for it.

You clearly havn't read all of this thread.

And since you havn't please cite the legal statute that supports this.

Odin's Eye wrote:

For this one here, I agree; the parent SHOULD be informed/involved. I have no idea what actions the photographers in question are taking, so I am not commenting on it at all.

Please also keep in mind, being told something is sexually explicit does not necessarily mean that it is. Now if it was something specific like "She's masturbating on camera, she's using sex toys on herself, etc", yes that should be questioned and would fall into the realm of being illegal. Simply being nude is not, which is the point that I am making; without having any evidence other than the word of a single observer, we can't go crucifying unless we are prepared to believe EVERYTHING that observer says at all times.

Agreed, I suppose there is no way to confirm the truth of the matter.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not against nudity, but at some point you have to draw the line and I guess the law decided the line was at 18.  Better 18 than 12.  Kids are just that, kids, even at 18 and they don't make the smartest moves always.  There are always exceptions to the rules.  Adults are expected to know better, so assuming what she said was true and the photographer did know she was 17, explicit or not, I think as an adult, it's a bad move to make, especially w/o the parent.  If a 17 old approached me to do a nude, I would turn them down in a NY minute.  If an 18 year old approached me I PERSONALLY still would not do it.  It's just me.  I don't want to be responsible for anyone that is too young to make a decision they may regret.  I guess that's all I have to say.  I'm speaking in circles and it's just my personal opinion.

mar-C shots     wrote:

If you want the scientific answer, it's when your 25.

Care to post a link to reliable scientific evidence that a brain is mature at the age of 25? Never before, never after? --AT-- TWENTY FIVE?

Or did you just happen to make that up?

AB Young wrote:

Oh ya because every day they grant children emancipation between 13 and 17. I was granted it a day after 17. That means I must not have been as mature as I would have been 18. I find it sad everyone relies so heavily on numbers when its actually a person

Actually, this is a good point here too: If you are legally emancipated, you are LEGALLY an Adult, and no longer a Minor, thus can enter into contracts, and make the decision for yourself if you wish to do the nudes while signing paperwork. You still can't do erotic/sexual content because you're underage, but you can sign off on working nude since you are your own legal guardian.

AB Young wrote:

Oh ya because every day they grant children emancipation between 13 and 17. I was granted it a day after 17. That means I must not have been as mature as I would have been 18. I find it sad everyone relies so heavily on numbers when its actually a person

AT some point you have to draw the line as I said below.  You legally went through a process to make that happen.

LelaHazary wrote:

thats the scientific answer?!?

That's what Dr Phil says:-)  But you can Google it up, the range is early 20's.

Tim Little Photography wrote:
I'm amazed by the way we split hairs here when it won't make a damn bit of difference in the real world. Some say its against the law for a minor to pose nude period. Others say its legal if it isn't sexual. I would just LOVE to see someone try to explain to a jury how naked pictures of a teenage girl are not sexual.

Uh...behind the scenes documentary type pictures during Fashion Week for example.

MelissaLynnette LaDiva wrote:

Of course I haven't raised a teenager.
But again I ask what does parental control have to do with the brain's maturity?

In other words:  What does the legal guardianship a parent has over their minor child have to do with whether or not that child is mature enough to pose nude?

Especially since at 17 years and 364 days you seem to think that they do not possess it, but at 17 years and 366 days they magically acquire it.

Jesus Mary and Joseph.  It's not that hard.  Maybe raising teenagers has killed off some of your brain cells. 

I don't think they are magically mature at 18.  I just think that while a parent has control they have the legal right to take it.  My brain cells are fine, thank you.

mar-C shots     wrote:

Agreed, I suppose there is no way to confirm the truth of the matter.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not against nudity, but at some point you have to draw the line and I guess the law decided the line was at 18.  Better 18 than 12.  Kids are just that, kids, even at 18 and they don't make the smartest moves always.  There are always exceptions to the rules.  Adults are expected to know better, so assuming what she said was true and the photographer did know she was 17, explicit or not, I think as an adult, it's a bad move to make, especially w/o the parent.  If a 17 old approached me to do a nude, I would turn them down in a NY minute.  If an 18 year old approached me I PERSONALLY still would not do it.  It's just me.  I don't want to be responsible for anyone that is too young to make a decision they may regret.  I guess that's all I have to say.  I'm speaking in circles and it's just my personal opinion.

And like I said, I'm not going to argue against your personal opinion; it stems from being a parent, and how you feel towards your own child.

But what we are discussing isn't so much personal opinion as to whether or not it is legal or illegal for the model to be nude while under 18 years of age. And it is. Yes, the law decided 18, and even with that you just stated that you personally wouldn't shoot someone who was 18 for it either.

You may want to check into some other news also, more important than if an underage model can pose nude is that many states are looking to put the drinking age back to 18, instead of it's current 21. That would concern me more as a parent, because it can have a direct effect on my child.

Summary of Thread:
It is NOT illegal to photograph an underage model nude.
It IS illegal to photograph an underage model in sexual acts, real or simulated, dressed or not.

Personal Opinion is NOT Law.

mar-C shots     wrote:

That's what Dr Phil says:-)  But you can Google it up, the range is early 20's.

So now we have gone from 25 to a range of the early 20s. It is hard to argue with a made up moving target.

Kimberly Sun wrote:
I've seen other MM profiles with artist statements written in the third person.

There's a fine line between "artist's statement" and "pretentious/managed profile."

Kimberly Sun wrote:
My husband assists me on my assignments. IE -> helps me get dressed, drives for me, knows my appointment dates and helps make sure I don't over book myself etc. He does not sign in to any of my accounts or communicate on-line for me.

So he's not really a manager?

Kimberly Sun wrote:
I was a thunderous silence because I was busy reading e-mails from photogs who would rather write me directly than bicker back and forth with the same people.

Of course.  People who know they're wrong & don't want to be challenged publicly.

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.

In other words what should have happened to begin with.

Kimberly Sun wrote:
Shows over folks. Thanks for your input.

Have fun getting past the negative impression you've made. 

Xeris - Dwight wrote:

So now we have gone from 25 to a range of the early 20s. It is hard to argue with a made up moving target.

Google it up for yourself, geez!

mar-C shots     wrote:
That's what Dr Phil says:-)  But you can Google it up, the range is early 20's.

Dr. Phil is speaking ahead of himself. It is SUGGESTED by studies being done currently that the brain reaches PHYSICAL maturity in the early 20s range, assuming no outside damage, environmental factors, or use of drugs/alcohol. The Physical maturity makes EMOTIONAL maturity more likely, because the connections are firing faster/easier. But it doesn't make it an absolute.

Comparison: Just because you finish puberty around the age of 17 (don't jump folks, I'm just going with a baseline) doesn't mean you will know everything there is about your body or sexuality-just that physically, it is mature.

The study, as mentioned in The Albuquerque Tribune

Also Dr. Phil? Really? Could you pick someone with a bit more credibility? Celebrities aren't really known for the accuracy of their statements.

mar-C shots    wrote:
Google it up for yourself, geez!

No one else should have to look up something to defend your claim, only to refute it.

Odin's Eye wrote:

And like I said, I'm not going to argue against your personal opinion; it stems from being a parent, and how you feel towards your own child.

But what we are discussing isn't so much personal opinion as to whether or not it is legal or illegal for the model to be nude while under 18 years of age. And it is. Yes, the law decided 18, and even with that you just stated that you personally wouldn't shoot someone who was 18 for it either.

You may want to check into some other news also, more important than if an underage model can pose nude is that many states are looking to put the drinking age back to 18, instead of it's current 21. That would concern me more as a parent, because it can have a direct effect on my child.

Summary of Thread:
It is NOT illegal to photograph an underage model nude.
It IS illegal to photograph an underage model in sexual acts, real or simulated, dressed or not.

Personal Opinion is NOT Law.

I can't believe I've wasted this much time defending if shooting a 17 old naked is legal, illegal, right or wrong.  Geez!  I'm done!  Thanks for coming.

Kimberly Sun wrote:

THANK YOU. Someone else has a fully functioning brain in here.

Ummmmm, no, no fully functioning brain here. Looks like you are looking for validation. Jealous much?

mar-C shots     wrote:

I can't believe I've wasted this much time defending if shooting a 17 old naked is legal, illegal, right or wrong.  Geez!  I'm done!  Thanks for coming.

You haven't. You've been defending your personal opinion that it is wrong, and SHOULD be illegal.

But your opinion isn't law. It is legal.

Sophistocles wrote:

No, you're not. Frankly, and without reservation, I flat-out don't believe you. Yes, I'm calling you a liar.

Please back-up your claim and I will gladly apologize.

Ditto! I often wonder if the OP (and their converts, like the supposed DA) are not one and the same. It just stinks.