Lauren Grace wrote:
Forget the FBI, police, prosecuting attorneys, or judges... none of them could do one ounce of comparable harm to me or the photographer if my mama found out I was a-posin nekkid for the photographer man when I was 17. haha I would hope all of you would attend my funeral, because ladies and gentleman I would most cetainly be dead (as would the photographer)!! lol

Ruh Roh Scooby....  your mom has my home address!!

I appreciate how this thread has made the laws SO crystal clear...

About the only thing I now know for sure is that we don't want to piss off Lauren's mom and that we don't like profiles written in the 3rd person.

(Where or what is this rule about profiles written in the 3rd person?)

PhotoSportNW wrote:
Ruh Roh Scooby....  your mom has my home address!!

I appreciate how this thread has made the laws SO crystal clear...

About the only thing I now know for sure is that we don't want to piss off Lauren's mom and that we don't like profiles written in the 3rd person.

(Where or what is this rule about profiles written in the 3rd person?)

The Laws, for all 50 States, regarding nudity of an underage individual.

Summary of the above link: It is legal to shoot an underage model nude.

PYPI FASHION wrote:
The last time I saw so much bullshit was on an episode of Dirty Jobs. Some needs to get Mike Rowe in here for clean up.

I got dirty today at work. It was horrifying!

But at least I didn't post a thread telling off on someone else's private business, which should have been handled privately.

Paul Bryson Photography wrote:

I got dirty today at work. It was horrifying!

But at least I didn't post a thread telling off on someone else's private business, which should have been handled privately.

As someone noted earlier, this thread must be the brainchild of the attention-whoring of the OP.

PeterSalama Photography wrote:

You are definitely wrong on this one... Posing nude is not illegal for her BUT it is for the photographer and is considered Child Pornography. Go read the federal law... This can result in a felony if the police and prosecutor decide to make an issue of it.

What if the photographer is underage as well?
Just curious.

Angie Borras wrote:
She did say the photographs were sexual in a couple of post down. So I would think is illegal.

Yes, but having not seen the work in question, if we are going to take the opinion of one observer as absolute fact, and not as an opinion, then we are screwed.

She said "sexual", she didn't describe what was being done to make her believe so. What if showing a bit of collarbone is sexual in the OPs eyes? I'm not saying that's the case, I'm saying we have no specific information to work off of other than the word of an outside observer.

Witnesses are good to help support evidence, but when ALL you have is a witness, and no other evidence...you have nothing.

Nirrimi Photography wrote:

What if the photographer is underage as well?
Just curious.

A minor can still make child pornography. The stupidity in the statement above abounds, mostly in that it is not illegal for HER or the Photographer.

The validity of your question is above that statement, thankfully. Yes, it is still illegal even if the photographer is underage, to create child pornography. And it is still legal, even if the photographer is underage, to take pictures of an underage model nude.

J C ModeFotografie wrote:

Y - E - S.  The trouble with people like you is that you think that people's 18th birthday is some kind of magical day when POOF! children automatically become adults . . .

. . . and for every finger you point, there are three pointing back at you.

agree 100 % !!!

J C KUNSTFOTOGRAFIE wrote:

As someone noted earlier, this thread must be the brainchild of the attention-whoring of the OP.

I didn't see that, but there's probably truth to it. Seven pages is a lot to read more my short attention span.

Odin's Eye wrote:

The Laws, for all 50 States, regarding nudity of an underage individual.

Summary of the above link: It is legal to shoot an underage model nude.

Oh, I was asking about 3rd person profiles...

The legality of shooting underage models nude is of little importance to me personally, as I have absolutely no interest in ever doing so.

I do not shoot nudes, and when/if I do, I most certainly will be checking ID to make sure they are over 18...   

IMHO, under 18, no thank you, whether the law allows it or not.

Under 18, I don't even want to see it...  and IIRC, neither does MM.

J C ModeFotografie wrote:
Y - E - S.  The trouble with people like you is that you think that people's 18th birthday is some kind of magical day when POOF! children automatically become adults . . .

. . . and for every finger you point, there are three pointing back at you.

Matus wrote:
agree 100 % !!!

Double-cosign.

Odin's Eye wrote:

The Laws, for all 50 States, regarding nudity of an underage individual.

Summary of the above link: It is legal to shoot an underage model nude.

In Ohio: (B)(2) Mistake of age is not a defense to a charge under this section.

Tim Little Photography wrote:
Is this really the moral battle you want to fight? The right to take naked pictures of children without their parents being aware? Is this really where you want to stand and be counted? Are you ready to stand in the town square and pronouce to all that you photograph children with their clothes off and it is legal for you to do so? ARE YOU ready to take on the full-on assault of the law? ARE YOU ready to lose everything and go to jail for your right to shoot naked kids? ARE YOU?

J C ModeFotografie wrote:
Y - E - S.  The trouble with people like you is that you think that people's 18th birthday is some kind of magical day when POOF! children automatically become adults . . .

. . . and for every finger you point, there are three pointing back at you.

Matus wrote:
agree 100 % !!!

Paul Bryson Photography wrote:
Double-cosign.

And did you get a look at the avatar of that guy I was replying to???  Talk about sexualizing girls in grade-school uniforms!

PhotoSportNW wrote:
Oh, I was asking about 3rd person profiles...

The legality of shooting underage models nude is of little importance to me personally, as I have absolutely no interest in ever doing so.

I do not shoot nudes, and when/if I do, I most certainly will be checking ID to make sure they are over 18...   

IMHO, under 18, no thank you, whether the law allows it or not.

Under 18, I don't even want to see it...  and IIRC, neither does MM.

(3) No personal attacks: There's no need.  This isn't a schoolyard.  Except for "yo mama" insults.  Those are allowed.

NOT ALLOWED ON MM
Shots that contain:

- Spread shots (vaginal or anal)
- Erect penises
- Explicit sexual content *
- Shots that focus primarily on the genitals or anus


== Third-Person Profiles ==, no rule against, just uncalled for.

Janice Marie Foote wrote:

In Ohio: (B)(2) Mistake of age is not a defense to a charge under this section.

True. But note that you are referring to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2907.323, which is about Obscenity, not about Nudity. The law regarding nudity is further down, here:

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2907.323

Odin's Eye wrote:
(3) No personal attacks: There's no need.  This isn't a schoolyard.  Except for "yo mama" insults.  Those are allowed.

(PhotoSport's edit: blah blah blah)

Totally not making an attack on anyone... certainly not against someone who did such a nice job retouching one of my photos...

FWIW, it HAS been stated by Tyler and Mods that MM does not permit nude photos of models under 18...   but you are correct, that is not clearly stated in the MM rules, which is a fact that has been pointed out to them previously.

michaelsdigitalimaging wrote:
Someone wanted me to quote the law for AZ which is where I had my "problem" so here it is. In my case a girl provided false identification AND signed a contract stating that she was at least 18. IT DOES NOT MATTER. It cost me a 10k with a top criminal attorney. Oh, it was nude photography. Just her. Not porn!


Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3552. Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor; classification
A. A person commits commercial sexual exploitation of a minor by knowingly:

1. Using, employing, persuading, enticing, inducing or coercing a minor to engage in or assist
others to engage in exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct for the purpose of producing any
visual depiction or live act depicting such conduct.

2. Using, employing, persuading, enticing, inducing or coercing a minor to expose the genitals or
anus or the areola or nipple of the female breast for financial or commercial gain.

3. Permitting a minor under such person's custody or control to engage in or assist others to
engage in exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct for the purpose of producing any visual
depiction or live act depicting such conduct.

4. Transporting or financing the transportation of any minor through or across this state with the
intent that the minor engage in prostitution, exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct for the
purpose of producing a visual depiction or live act depicting such conduct.

B. Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor is a class 2 felony and if the minor is under fifteen
years of age it is punishable pursuant to § 13- 604.01.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3553. Sexual exploitation of a minor; evidence; exemption; classification

A. A person commits sexual exploitation of a minor by knowingly:

1. Recording, filming, photographing, developing or duplicating any visual depiction in which a
minor is engaged in exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct.

2. Distributing, transporting, exhibiting, receiving, selling, purchasing, electronically transmitting,
possessing or exchanging any visual depiction in which a minor is engaged in exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct.

C. Sexual exploitation of a minor is a class 2 felony and if the minor is under fifteen years of age
it is punishable pursuant to § 13-604.01.

This has been posted quite a few times already, along with the laws for every other state. Did any money exchange hands between you and the model? Because if so "for financial or commercial gain" would apply.

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?

I can only assume by the highlighted statement that your "Sister" doesn't live at home and is on her own, therefor is EMANCIPATED and CAN sign a contract or pose nude as she pleases since she would be considered an adult.
(funny this wasn't mentioned - or I just missed it)

PhotoSportNW wrote:

Totally not making an attack on anyone... certainly not against someone who did such a nice job retouching one of my photos...

FWIW, it HAS been stated by Tyler and Mods that MM does not permit nude photos of models under 18...   but you are correct, that is not clearly stated in the MM rules, which is a fact that has been pointed out to them previously.

Oh, wasn't saying you were, just thought it was fun that we are allowed to attack each other with "yo mama" jokes, according to the rules. And yes, the Rules of MM are a rather live entity and constantly changing, but the base remains the same. The rule not permitting nude photos of underage models makes sense, just to avoid the potential of hassle.

Odin's Eye wrote:
The Laws, for all 50 States, regarding nudity of an underage individual.

Summary of the above link: It is legal to shoot an underage model nude.

Ala. Code § 13A-12-192. Possession of obscene matter
(a) Any person who knowingly possesses with intent to disseminate any obscene matter
containing a visual reproduction of a person under the age of 17 years engaged in any act of sado-
masochistic abuse, sexual intercourse, sexual excitement, masturbation, breast nudity, genital
nudity, or other sexual conduct shall be guilty of a Class B felony. Possession of three or more
copies of the same obscene material is prima facie evidence of possession with intent to
disseminate the same.
(b) Any person who knowingly possesses any obscene matter containing a visual reproduction of
a person under the age of 17 years engaged in any act of sado- masochistic abuse, sexual
intercourse, sexual excitement, masturbation, genital nudity, or other sexual conduct shall be
guilty of a Class C felony.

I'm not sure if this applies, but if he shot pictures of her breasts or genitals he might have a Class B felony charge to deal with. I guess it depends on his intent to disseminate it (like putting it in his portfolio and showing it to people), and that would be for the court to decide. I bet a zelous prosecutor would have a field day with it, and get re-elected for life as a defender of children and slayer of child pornographers.
It isn't worth the risk when there are so many lovely people to take pictures of who are actually old enough.

William Robb wrote:
I'm not sure if this applies, but if he shot pictures of her breasts or genitals he might have a Class B felony charge to deal with. I guess it depends on his intent to disseminate it (like putting it in his portfolio and showing it to people), and that would be for the court to decide. I bet a zelous prosecutor would have a field day with it, and get re-elected for life as a defender of children and slayer of child pornographers.
It isn't worth the risk when there are so many lovely people to take pictures of who are actually old enough.

Read it carefully, it isn't just nude, it has to be both nude and obscene.  Something isn't obscene simply because it is nude.

William Robb wrote:
Ala. Code § 13A-12-192. Possession of obscene matter
(a) Any person who knowingly possesses with intent to disseminate any obscene matter
containing a visual reproduction of a person under the age of 17 years engaged in any act of sado-
masochistic abuse, sexual intercourse, sexual excitement, masturbation, breast nudity, genital
nudity, or other sexual conduct shall be guilty of a Class B felony. Possession of three or more
copies of the same obscene material is prima facie evidence of possession with intent to
disseminate the same.
(b) Any person who knowingly possesses any obscene matter containing a visual reproduction of
a person under the age of 17 years engaged in any act of sado- masochistic abuse, sexual
intercourse, sexual excitement, masturbation, genital nudity, or other sexual conduct shall be
guilty of a Class C felony.

I'm not sure if this applies, but if he shot pictures of her breasts or genitals he might have a Class B felony charge to deal with. I guess it depends on his intent to disseminate it (like putting it in his portfolio and showing it to people), and that would be for the court to decide. I bet a zelous prosecutor would have a field day with it, and get re-elected for life as a defender of children and slayer of child pornographers.
It isn't worth the risk when there are so many lovely people to take pictures of who are actually old enough.

I'm not going to say if it's worth the risk or not. I'm just putting information and a summation. The link is there so the specifics can be checked for each persons state. I mean hell, what if the shots were bare buttocks and topless? It would fall within the scope of the law, still be a nude shot, but the same issue would still exist of people not thinking it should be done.

Can we have a "Not Enough Information", and put it at the start of this thread, for those who won't read passed the first page or even the first post?

EDIT
Read exactly what it says, I just did: "Under 17 years of age". Therefore, while elsewhere it is illegal to create porn until 18, under this law it would be legal to create it at 17. Since the OP's question was regarding a 17 year old model, and our discussion has been about "underage" models, the law above doesn't apply, as the Model is 17, inside the legal scope of shooting erotic nude content in that locality, and thus NOT underage.

Xeris - Dwight wrote:

Why? Do you have some proof or reason to believe that the images are porno or sexually suggestive. Nudity, in and of itself, is NOT illegal. There need to be other factors involved.

all it takes is some squeamish individual to see some nips and its porn..

let the photographers know she is underage and its up to them if the want to stoke the fire or put water on it..

Odin's Eye wrote:

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.

Neither is Dr. Phil's...

Greg Kolack wrote:

Neither is Dr. Phil's...

Actually, as of 2008, Dr. Phil isn't even practicing psychology, at least not as of January of this year. NY Post Article Here.

I'll stick to taking advice from people who aren't lying, manipulative, unethical, hypocrites.

shiraz mangi wrote:
the people she works with.  are criminals

Maybe in your country, but not here in the USA.

michaelsdigitalimaging wrote:

It was for commercial gain.

Yeah, so therein lies the problem. Not that it was illegal to shoot in and of itself, but that the intended usage of the shot was illegal.

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?

Don't hate.

speedsamurai wrote:
I am a prosecutor. It's illegal because it is legally defined as child porn. Contact me.

Thank you for stepping in, as there were many who were clearly confused.

Mark Fix wrote:

Thank you for stepping in, as there were many who were clearly confused.

I trust you are being sarcastic?

Odin's Eye wrote:
Yeah, so therein lies the problem. Not that it was illegal to shoot in and of itself, but that the intended usage of the shot was illegal.

I don't think many of us who shoot nudes do not use them for some form of commercial gain even if we just add them to our ports it is illegal!

michaelsdigitalimaging wrote:

I don't think many of us who shoot nudes do not use them for some form of commercial gain even if we just add them to our ports it is illegal!

What?

michaelsdigitalimaging wrote:

I don't think many of us who shoot nudes do not use them for some form of commercial gain even if we just add them to our ports it is illegal!

For your portfolio isn't necessarily classified as being a commercial usage.
Being able to SELL the image you took of her, or having been PAID to take that image, is.