This thread was locked on 2014-09-05 00:15:24
Photographer
StephenEastwood
Posts: 19585
Great Neck, New York, US
ACPhotography wrote:
Steven, I'm a retired NY cop and I can tell you that if a parent makes a complaint you are going to get locked up... There is no gray area here... You may be innocent, but do you want to go through the humiliation and the lawyer fees? that is not the point, as a cop you should be familiar with the law, the law is what it is, denying it just gives people this false sense of reality. I prefer educating them, so maybe one day someone will be active to change it, to add one, to be more firm on the age and limits. Pretend its already there, and no one acts to change it.
Its actually showing peoples ignorance of both the laws and the use of the interent to find the laws.
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Photographer
H5D PHOTOGRAPHER
Posts: 3837
Gig Harbor, Washington, US
StephenEastwood wrote:
the defintion or art nude vs porn is a very, very subjective one. And I often think strangely about those who want to shoot underage girls or boys nude when there are so many of leagal age willing. 
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com my thoughts exactly!
Photographer
R A V E N D R I V E
Posts: 15867
New York, New York, US
everyone is making up vigilante laws again?
Federal Law prohibits the production of "child pornography" defined as depictions of genitalia on a minor (which is anyone UNDER 18, for 18 and up adults there is no law about it). Genitalia means the penis on a male, the vagina on a female, and the bare breasts/nipple on a female.
You can SHOOT nudes or implied nudes, you can't have any of that displaying: the law prosecutes PRODUCING child pornography as defined. As with any shoot with minors you need permission from their parents for any release form, the parents don't have to be there for the actual shoot, especially for agency represented minors. But if you are dealing with that cute teenager you have known all your life or through a friend, then you will want the parents there.
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36332
San Francisco, California, US
ACPhotography wrote:
Steven, I'm a retired NY cop and I can tell you that if a parent makes a complaint you are going to get locked up... There is no gray area here... You may be innocent, but do you want to go through the humiliation and the lawyer fees? The lawyer fees will be pretty small compared to the civil award against the city after the lawsuit.
Photographer
A_Nova_Photography
Posts: 8652
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, US
NYC Studios wrote:
...you can have sex with a 17 year old, ok. That does not mean you can photograph them. Politicians make laws, ADA's interpret them and Cops enforce them... Someone needs to go digging through case law, even if there isn't an actual law on the books there's always a prior case to refer back to (never want to be the test case) and see what the outcome was... Unfortunately if some judge/Jury has decided that in their minds it's illegal to photograph a minor nude and convicted someone they are going to charge you...
Photographer
c_d_s
Posts: 7771
Lubbock, Texas, US
Ravendrive Productions wrote:
As with any shoot with minors you need permission from their parents for any release form, they have to be there, especially for agency represented minors. Is this one of those vigilante laws you just made up?
Photographer
StephenEastwood
Posts: 19585
Great Neck, New York, US
ACPhotography wrote:
Politicians make laws, ADA's interpret them and Cops enforce them... Someone needs to go digging through case law, even if there isn't an actual law on the books there's always a prior case to refer back to (never want to be the test case) and see what the outcome was... Unfortunately if some judge/Jury has decided that in their minds it's illegal to photograph a minor nude and convicted someone they are going to charge you... actually, they lost the case when it had been tried, repeatedly.
So if more people know that, and disapprove, maybe they will want that to change and elect people who will enact those laws.
Or you could continue to make up some stuff that makes them feel all warm fuzzy and safe without actually offering any real protection.
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Photographer
R A V E N D R I V E
Posts: 15867
New York, New York, US
c_d_s wrote:
Is this one of those vigilante laws you just made up? No, a minor cannot sign a legally binding contract so their parents need co-sign it, that should read "they [the parents] *don't* have to be there" I will edit.
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
In general you can shoot anyone nude at any age. However, as others have rightfully noted, shooting people under the age of 18 nude can bring EXTREMELY negative consequences EVEN IF the act of taking the pictures is legal and the content of the photos is legal. See this thread: https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 3295&page= for a story about an upstate NY photographers who had her life ruined because she shot an 18 year old who was still in the local high school. If she'd actually shot 16 or 17 year olds nude (as she was originally accused of doing) I can only imagine how much worse it would have been.
Photographer
Thornton Harris
Posts: 1689
San Francisco, California, US
Ravendrive Productions wrote:
everyone is making up vigilante laws again?
... And you're making up a non-existent law too. Maybe you should go read what the federal definition of child pornography actually says at 18 usc 2256.
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
Ravendrive Productions wrote:
everyone is making up vigilante laws again?
Federal Law prohibits the production of "child pornography" defined as depictions of genitalia on a minor (which is anyone UNDER 18, for 18 and up adults there is no law about it). Genitalia means the penis on a male, the vagina on a female, and the bare breasts/nipple on a female.
You can SHOOT nudes or implied nudes, you can't have any of that displaying: the law prosecutes PRODUCING child pornography as defined. As with any shoot with minors you need permission from their parents for any release form, they have to be there, especially for agency represented minors. But if you are dealing with that cute teenager you have known all your life or through a friend, then you will want the parents there. You left the word LEWD out of there. The law says the LEWD depiction of.
Edited to add: My bad, the word is "lascivious" not "lewd." I got the 2 mixed up.
Alan corrected me: https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … ost7915351
Photographer
UCPhotog
Posts: 998
Hartford, Connecticut, US
![https://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g285/webpager/jeeziz3.jpg]() There are SO many models who are willing to shoot nudes, and a lot of them may look younger than their age (or younger than legal age). Save yourself any grief. While it may be legal to shoot someone under the age of 18, why risk some father, boyfriend or worse, prosecutor (who just got elected or going for reelection) looking to make an example of you. The bf might assault you. The father might kill you. The prosecutor might bankrupt you fighting it in court. My 2¢, take it for what it's worth. Marc Stevenson aka UCPhotog Ãmar wrote:
Does anyone know what is the legal age for a model to pose for nude shots?
Photographer
The Drunken Beagle
Posts: 437
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
StephenEastwood wrote:
Or you could continue to make up some stuff that makes them feel all warm fuzzy and safe without actually offering any real protection.
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com There are plenty of pictures of my two year old naked butt on a bear skin rug. Sadly, the photographer was never imprisoned. It really should have been a crime - I have to relive those pictures every thanksgiving.
Model
StephenE
Posts: 2629
Great Neck, New York, US
The Drunken Beagle wrote:
There are plenty of pictures of my two year old naked butt on a bear skin rug. Sadly, the photographer was never imprisoned. It really should have been a crime - I have to relive those pictures every thanksgiving. I know that feeling................
I remember the first time they came out with a girlfriend present 
Lucky I was impressive even then 
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Photographer
Darrin Acreman
Posts: 45
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Australian Viewpoint the NSW government is currently undertaking a review to determine what is or isn't defined as "Child Pornography" here is a link to an overview, with a link to the briefing paper which will be used as a reference by politicians conducting this review. http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/p … ographyLaw What worries me is that the Bill Henson case, (even after it was decided that no action would be taken against the photographer) is the opening paragraph in a discussion paper on child pornography. BTW for those of you who dont read the full PDF file, the seems to be several contradictory laws under the Crimes Act by attempting to have a distinction between "sexual activity or indecent sexual manner" (age limit 16) and "pornographic purposes"(age limit 18).
Photographer
SunArcher Photography
Posts: 7669
Washington, District of Columbia, US
Jose G Photo wrote:
All I'm saying is why risk any potential problems? Is this model really sooooo amazing to risk such a huge potential melee of issues? Who cares? The OP asked a question. Our personal opinions don't matter. Maybe the OP did a risk analysis and has decided that it's worth it, hence the question even being asked.
How I (or anyone else) feel(s) about it has no bearing whatsoever on what the law says.
Photographer
Jake Garn
Posts: 3958
Salt Lake City, Utah, US
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
Ravendrive Productions wrote:
Federal Law prohibits the production of "child pornography" defined as depictions of genitalia on a minor (which is anyone UNDER 18, for 18 and up adults there is no law about it). Genitalia means the penis on a male, the vagina on a female, and the bare breasts/nipple on a female. Where do you come up with these things? There is so much wrong with this thread, but alas, I have no time for it right now.
This post is just so far off in left field. There is nothing in 18 USC 2256 which makes it illegal to show genitalia.
What the law prohibits is the depiction of real or simulated sex or a lascivious display of the genitals. Note the word "lascivious." There is a big difference between merely showing the genitals and a lascivious display. In fact, a lascivious display doesn't necessarily need to be nude.
Please read the statutes before you interpret them, since, in this case, your interpretation is wrong. But don't feel bad. So much of this thread is wrong.
Kudos Stephen for staying on point!
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
Darrin Acreman wrote:
Australian Viewpoint That is interesting but irrelevant to this discussion. The OP asked a question relative to New York.
Photographer
Jake Garn
Posts: 3958
Salt Lake City, Utah, US
SLE Photography wrote:
In general you can shoot anyone nude at any age.
However, as others have rightfully noted, shooting people under the age of 18 nude can bring EXTREMELY negative consequences EVEN IF the act of taking the pictures is legal and the content of the photos is legal.
See this thread:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 3295&page=
for a story about an upstate NY photographers who had her life ruined because she shot an 18 year old who was still in the local high school.
If she'd actually shot 16 or 17 year olds nude (as she was originally accused of doing) I can only imagine how much worse it would have been. It should be noted that the article clearly references a photographer shooting for an adult website. The U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee the protection of obscene speech or self-expression, if you're an artist not working for the adult industry then it's pretty silly to live in fear of the government's reaction to your expression. That's the beauty of this great country, the constitution will free you at the end of the day... regardless of the fear-mongering on MM. Not that I shoot nudes... but I am anti-fear-mongering.
Photographer
bmiSTUDIO
Posts: 1734
Morristown, Vermont, US
Ãmar wrote:
I failed to specify in the State of New York. When can a model be considered of legal age to pose nude without parental consent.
I am talking about artistic nudes not porn You shouldn't be photographing anyone, clothed or nude, under the age of 18 without parental consent.
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
Jose G Photo wrote:
All I'm saying is why risk any potential problems? Is this model really sooooo amazing to risk such a huge potential melee of issues? No. What you said was that "THE LEGAL AGE TO POSE NUDE IS STILL 18"--and it's incorrect. As noted before your post, there's a huge difference between what's wise and what's legal
What's worse is that you knew it was incorrect, yet stated it as if it were true.
Doing what's legal may still cost your a bleep-load of money, your reputation in the community, and cause other problems. That doesn't make it illegal; merely extremely unwise.
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
ei Total Productions wrote:
Where do you come up with these things? There is so much wrong with this thread, but alas, I have no time for it right now.
This post is just so far off in left field. There is nothing in 18 USC 2256 which makes it illegal to show genitalia.
What the law prohibits is the depiction of real or simulated sex or a lascivious display of the genitals. Note the word "lascivious." There is a big difference between merely showing the genitals and a lascivious display. In fact, a lascivious display doesn't necessarily need to be nude.
Please read the statutes before you interpret them, since, in this case, your interpretation is wrong. But don't feel bad. So much of this thread is wrong.
Kudos Stephen for staying on point! Whoops, Alan's right, the word's "lascivious." I incorrectly stated "lewd" earlier.
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
Jake Garn wrote:
It should be noted that the article clearly references a photographer shooting for an adult website. The U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee the protection of obscene speech or self-expression, if you're an artist not working for the adult industry then it's pretty silly to live in fear of the government's reaction to your expression. That's the beauty of this great country, the constitution will free you at the end of the day... regardless of the fear-mongering on MM. Not that I shoot nudes... but I am anti-fear-mongering. If you'll note the details of the article the PAPER characterized it as an "adult website" but in fact the images displayed there are all simple nudes of solo women, photographed by other women. No sex, no hardcore, etc. The images in question were topless photos. So obscenity doesn't enter here.
Photographer
Jake Garn
Posts: 3958
Salt Lake City, Utah, US
SLE Photography wrote:
If you'll note the details of the article the PAPER characterized it as an "adult website" but in fact the images displayed there are all simple nudes of solo women, photographed by other women. No sex, no hardcore, etc. The images in question were topless photos. So obscenity doesn't enter here. That point is irrelevant. Content cannot be disassociated from context, and an adult website doesn't really have what I would describe as a bullet proof legal status, nearly but not quite. I'm not going to argue whether or not the photographer's work was obscene, since neither of us happen to be on the Supreme Court that argument would be futile... but I would say that a photographer creating photos with serious artistic value would generally not sell said photos to an adult website. That is just plain common sense and falls directly into (a) - see below.
"The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Photographer
SunArcher Photography
Posts: 7669
Washington, District of Columbia, US
BMImages Studio wrote:
You shouldn't be photographing anyone, clothed or nude, under the age of 18 without parental consent. Even if they're emancipated?
My goodness, these threads...my head hurts.
I called it on page 1. Stephen, you're the man, dude.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
ei Total Productions wrote:
That is interesting but irrelevant to this discussion. The OP asked a question relative to New York. uggghhhh.......ei... pass the advil please.
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
Jake Garn wrote:
That point is irrelevant. Content cannot be disassociated from context, and an adult website doesn't really have what I would describe as a bullet proof legal status, nearly but not quite. I'm not going to argue whether or not the photographer's work was obscene, since neither of us happen to be on the Supreme Court that argument would be futile... but I would say that a photographer creating photos with serious artistic value would generally not sell said photos to an adult website. That is just plain common sense and falls directly into (a) - see below.
Following these guidelines will keep you well within the safety of Constitutionally guaranteed free speech. Simple as that, leave the fear mongering at the door.
"The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." That entirely misses the point that this person was falsely accused of shooting minors, she was shooting images that were PERFECTLY legal, and she got literally run out of town on a rail regardless.
Photographer
SunArcher Photography
Posts: 7669
Washington, District of Columbia, US
SLE Photography wrote:
That entirely misses the point... As does many posts in this thread. But hey, maybe they're starting a fan club.
The OP's question (well, BOTH of them) was answered on page 1. But quit hogging the popcorn, SLE, we can't miss a devolving MM thread, can we?
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
oh, and I dont have the time or the blood pressure medication for it, but anyone wondering if "nude" images of underage are illegal in general, just freakin google "family nudist camps", and it will pull up about 100 perfectly legal family nudist camps in the country or go to AANR (american association of nude recreation)'s website and look at the pictures, you'll easily find several with people of ALL ages running around butt naked.
like it was pointed out dozens and dozens of times in this thread and countless others that came before it the LAW and any interpretations on the law focus on "context", not the level of clothing.
Photographer
Fiddlers Green Photo
Posts: 1350
Edmonds, Washington, US
If some cop or prosecutor has some point to make you will end up in the frying pan, you can end up in the frying for almost nothing and you won't like it. Avoid minors in your lens is the best advice I have ever heard or given. Good luck with that!
Photographer
Jake Garn
Posts: 3958
Salt Lake City, Utah, US
SLE Photography wrote:
That entirely misses the point that this person was falsely accused of shooting minors, she was shooting images that were PERFECTLY legal, and she got literally run out of town on a rail regardless. It misses no point. I got yelled at and chased by a crazy guy the other day for driving 27 mph in a 25 mph zone - some people are crazy, but I'm not going to leave my car in the garage over it.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
SLE Photography wrote:
That entirely misses the point that this person was falsely accused of shooting minors, she was shooting images that were PERFECTLY legal, and she got literally run out of town on a rail regardless. Damn this society and its evil, evil body pleasure and consentual making each other feel good...
Quit enjoying natural arousal, body pleasure and consentual nerve ending stimulation would you people. Go out and rob, mame, humiliate or hurt unwilling people would you please....
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Roger Barnstead wrote:
If some cop or prosecutor has some point to make you will end up in the frying pan, you can end up in the frying for almost nothing and you won't like it. Avoid minors in your lens is the best advice I have ever heard or given. Good luck with that! This is a valid point, but IF some "cop or prosecutor" is out for you, what your are or are not doing is probably mute. They will find a way to nail you.
honestly doing things professionaly and with some sense of business savy, if it is your business is always prudent.
Photographer
Eduardo Frances
Posts: 3227
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Consult a lawyer they are the ones that know the law of your state. I hope this isn't because you want to shoot a underage model... But as Stephen said with all the models of legal age that are willing to be nude in front of a camera is suspicious if someone is asking about shooting an underage ........
Photographer
MJ Mack
Posts: 248
Aspen, Colorado, US
In most pf the civilized states of the union. the minimum age is 18, unless there is a written consent form from a legal guardian or parent(preferably notarized), and to cover your ass there should be an escort at the shoot.
Any doubts about shooting underaged models, move to Cap D'Adge France and shoot away!!
Photographer
Fiddlers Green Photo
Posts: 1350
Edmonds, Washington, US
Agreed, there is no armor against the powers that be, and it is going to get worse.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
MJ Mack wrote:
In most pf the civilized states of the union. the minimum age is 18, unless there is a written consent form from a legal guardian or parent(preferably notarized), and to cover your ass there should be an escort at the shoot.
Any doubts about shooting underaged models, move to Cap D'Adge France and shoot away!! what... ?? the "minimum" age for what exactly?
Photographer
Sam Photoes
Posts: 299
Gurnee, Illinois, US
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
|
........
