Greg Kolack wrote:

What?

It was a reply to someone else, sorry, maybe it should have been a PM so as not to be misinterpreted.

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.

Aaron Cota wrote:
Dang this thread is still going on?

Dang, yes it is!

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

Kristen Jeanne wrote:
Under what law?

It's "porn" and illegal and he hasn't even seen it.

Pretty quick decision making!

I guess that's why he's "speedy samurai"!

Aaron Cota wrote:
Dang this thread is still going on?

when it is clearly implied  by the OP, that the 17 year old is an emancipated youth and therefore not subject to the same laws as a 17 year old under parental care.

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

I didn't know model mayhem had prosecuter accounts now...ill informed ones at that.

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?

Maybe you should just let her make her own mistakes (if it is one) and stay cool for a few months. I would, if I were you, have a sister to sister talk about your concerns and then leave it alone.

DESPERATE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
Yes its illegal (the light) but did i really run the thing?

Wait a minute. Illegal light? Oh, I see what you mean. You "illegally ran" the light. Glad you made it.

DESPERATE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
OK, this may sound INCREDIBLY stupid and ill-informed, but

WHO CARES.... yes shes underage, yes it seems like laws may prohibitit but at teh same she seems to be emancipated and clearly (like above) not judged by the same laws, and regulations. Ok so heres my thing how can any one in there right mind go on and on and on about a picture they havent seen.... I think to be declared - "sexual" one must understand what they are looking at, and im really trying to not sound like a perve or a createn, but lets see the pic, link to her MM, since obviously its already public, you would be accountable any, so we can actually judge whether anythign needs to be done or not.

simple as that, How can you be blamed for running a red light if no one was arround to see it. Yes its illegal (the light) but did i really run the thing?

Posting a link to the models page would be outing and is not allowed.

How can you be blamed for running a redlight if no one was around to see it?
Cameras.

And unfortunately for your arguement, someone has seen the photos. Based on the information given, everyone has posted either their informed or uninformed opinions/information.

Soft Shadows Art Photo wrote:
A minor is defined by any person under the age of 18....In this country it is ILLEGAL to photograph a minor nude without consent from the minors parent or guardian in writing and can still be considered child pornography.

If you know the photographer(s), I suggest you warn them...as for your sister, tell her to wait a few more months and she can do anything she wants when she hits 18.

This is a lot of BS and not anywhere close to being correct.

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...

Yes, that 3rd person shit is really irritating.  Maybe someone else had to write it for her. 

Greg Kolack wrote:

In the OP's defense, she never said it was pornography.

then its for a gerber ad?

Vinyl doll wrote:

then its for a gerber ad?

Hah! That made me laugh.

Sophistocles wrote:
Okay, so someone PM'd me the MM profile of the underage individual (unsolicited, but thanks).

Her profile states she's 18.

There are nudes in the profile as well as bondage work.

My personal opinion is that the pictures in the profile are 100% legal, even for 17. But that's my personal opinion.

They are not, however, within Model Mayhem's rules if the model in question is, indeed, under 18. But short of an age check, how would anyone at MM know?

shouldnt they always ask for ID? and if they dont, then its their fault for getting introuble due to some girl who couldnt wait a few months. where are her parents anyway!?

i didnt even know what i looked like naked at 17!

Vinyl doll wrote:

shouldnt they always ask for ID? and if they dont, then its their fault for getting introuble due to some girl who couldnt wait a few months. where are her parents anyway!?

i didnt even know what i looked like naked at 17!

If you read through the thread you'll get your answers. She's emancipated.

And yes, it would be their fault if they did'nt ask to see any identification to confirm her birth date...if it were illegal.

Antonella Castaldo wrote:
I would be carefull in making any kind of statement since its well known that F.B.I spend a tremendous time reading the MM forums.

I dont take pictures of underage girls/boys/koalas....just for the record.

To the OP: do what you think its the best and good luck.

Are you only making that statement for the record, in order to throw the FBI off when they read your post?

BW SMITH wrote:
Are you only making that statement for the record, in order to throw the FBI off when they read your post?

Absolutely not.

PS: my cousin (mom side) has a half brother who hangs out with a guy who used to live nextdoor to a lawyer. I am covered.

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

As much as I agree with the findings, it has nothing to do with statues involving minors.....which , of course, is the main topic of this discussion and is stil illegal accordign to state statutes~

Greg Kolack wrote:

You just made yourself look like you can't read the law.

Everything in that statute uses the words "sexually explicit" - nothing in there says "nude."

Nude DOES NOT equal sexually explicit.

I was about to make the same statement. It amazes me as to how people can read this and think that nudity is the same as "sexually explicit". I guess they add or delete whatever they want in order to satisfy their own opinions.

JRProductions wrote:

Sorry but I have to agree here.

u have to agree with her or him? who are u sorry for?

Sabrina Maree wrote:
And really, if someone wants to prosecute you, they will. There are 18 year old boys that listed as sexual predators because they had sex with their underage girlfriends.
Why take the chance?

That would be an adult having sex with a minor which is illegal in any court of law.

Taking a nude photo of an underage model is legal, as long as it's not provocative or sexual in any way. The body is a wonderful thing, what's wrong with photographing the changes through time, no matter what age?

Sabrina Maree wrote:
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.

-- No mention that the depiction has to make profit --

SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT - Actual or simulated sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse;  or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person. 18 USC

I'm missing the confusion here.

And really, if someone wants to prosecute you, they will. There are 18 year old boys that listed as sexual predators because they had sex with their underage girlfriends.
Why take the chance?

Your misunderstanding lies in the use of the qualifying word "lascivious."

Antonella Castaldo wrote:
PS: my cousin (mom side) has a half brother who hangs out with a guy who used to live nextdoor to a lawyer. I am covered.

Well I have a friend who knew someone who played a lawyer on TV (until the show was cancelled).  So there!

Sabrina Maree wrote:
And really, if someone wants to prosecute you, they will. There are 18 year old boys that listed as sexual predators because they had sex with their underage girlfriends.
Why take the chance?

Those 18 year-old boys broke a clear and unambiguous law.

Shooting a 16 year-old in the nude with no sexual intent or content breaks no law, clear, ambiguous or otherwise.

There's a difference.

BW SMITH wrote:
That would be an adult having sex with a minor which is illegal in any court of law.

Taking a nude photo of an underage model is legal, as long as it's not provocative or sexual in any way. The body is a wonderful thing, what's wrong with photographing the changes through time, no matter what age?

The word "provocative" isn't in any legal definition in any state.

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.

If the author of this took the time to read any of the statutes he would realize how ignorant of the law he was since numerous staes find filming a minor nude is a felony....and last time I checked, that was against the law~

ei Total Productions wrote:

Well I have a friend who knew someone who played a lawyer on TV (until the show was cancelled).  So there!

I'll see that, and raise you - I'm friends with one of the top constitutional lawyers in the country who has a sister who played a lawyer on television on one of the highest-rated legal shows in the past decade. You'd know her name if I said it.

So I know both the real lawyer AND the TV lawyer! Pththththt!

Shanna wrote:
idk what you people are talking about

its completely illegal and even if shes a day under 18, or even after she turns 18 they still consider the photos "child pornography" and the photographers can go to prison for quite a few years.
If you ask me its just complete stupidity on thier part and they aren't very professional or smart for that matter risking this just to see a 17 year old girl naked.

You should read the thread.

Triphammer wrote:

Your misunderstanding lies in the use of the qualifying word "lascivious."

I'm interpreting the word "lascivious" the way I assume the outwardly conservative politicians and judges do in an effort to cover their own faults.
If not the jury members with wayward children.
How would you choose to interpret it? There won't be that many compassionate photographers on the jury, I promise.

Add in the claim that there is bondage involved. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking in the REAL world, bondage is going to be coined lascivious.

This isn't about what you think is right or wrong...
it's keeping a good name for the industry, so those of us that want to be lascivious in the most legal of conditions can!