|
Forums >
General Industry >
When is a under age model exposing too much
I recently saw an image of a under 18 year old model exposing her breast from a profile, her nipple was not showing. I am asking for honest feedback. is that going too far? Somewhat related is under 18 models listing lingerie as a type of modeling they will do. It this going too far? Jul 06 05 08:59 pm Link Posted by DarrelB: Probably an FBI agent. They hate showing their nipples. Jul 06 05 09:05 pm Link Depends on whether you like jail or not. Jul 06 05 09:06 pm Link Between seeing a bare nipple and one through a wet T-shirt I find the former just fine and the latter obscene. Jul 06 05 09:09 pm Link Excellent question Darrel, I will not photograph anyone under the legal age with any adult content, nudity or even implied nudity. Standing in fear of the legal system as well as moral issues, I draw the line at 18 as stated in Washington where I live and work. Even at 18, some models do not need to expose any skin to make the photograph work. Iâm a firm believer in âless is moreâ?. Answer Darrel, Yes, thatâs too far Craig Next question is, where is the parent or guardian of the model while these photos were being taken or why are they posted? What was the photographer thinking? Jul 06 05 09:10 pm Link I'm scared to shoot models under 18. I'll only do it in the presence of their parents or guardian. Jul 06 05 09:28 pm Link Posted by DarrelB: Definately going too far in both situations. Jul 06 05 09:32 pm Link I think i know which model you're referring to. If her profile didn't say she was under 18 she could easily pass as 18. That said, CThompson's question regarding the parents' participation is very valid. I'm not going to pass judgment; I'm only going to say that these people are treading ground that could very well collapse. Jul 06 05 09:34 pm Link I'm at the point where I won't shoot a model under 30 actually. The more I see and hear, the more I think that some [not all] young women shouldn't be trusted with major decisions until well into their 20s. My best recent experiences have all been with models 30 years old and above. The next model I'm hoping to work with is 54! Jul 06 05 09:39 pm Link Sometimes people under 18 have been emancipated so it's alright. Jul 06 05 09:56 pm Link Arrest me...I'm looking for a 1st Amendment battle. Jul 06 05 10:02 pm Link Isn't this another one of those grey areas?? The laws all read things like "obscene" and "explicit" - doesn't it come back to the question of whether a tit is obscene? (I think they aren't, and so do a lot of nursing mothers) mjr. Jul 06 05 10:02 pm Link Whether a model is emancipated might have some bearing on whether the model release is legal, but it has NOTHING to do with whether she can do adult content. She can't. Period. (That's not the same thing as saying you can never take a naked picture of someone under 18, which is another argument. But no adult/erotica/glamour.) If you take a naked glamour photo of a 17-year and 364-day old emancipated minor who's already been married, divorced, and remarried, and get her signature, her parents' and her current and former husband's, you have STILL violated Federal law in the United States. Period, end of sentence, end of discussion. Don't do it. M Jul 06 05 10:03 pm Link Posted by Kasondra: Wrong. Jul 06 05 10:05 pm Link Posted by XtremeArtists: There's no way DOJ is going to go after the art community. Remember what happened to Jock Sturges - they didn't charge him with anything and by the time all the lawsuits are done, a bunch of careers at the FBI will be sidelined and no legal precedents will have been set. DOJ is super careful not to lose any battles that force a Supreme Court decision - which could easily happen to fall the wrong way. I think the nation's politics are turning a bit right-leaning but the Supreme Court has actually acted fairly reasonably in favor of The Constitution in most cases. All DOJ needs is one decision from The Supremes that "tits aren't obscene" and, oh, boy, would things get interesting. The Supremes have been dodging that decision for a very very long time because they know how it'd have to fall. Jul 06 05 10:09 pm Link Posted by StMarc: Glamour photo or explicit/obscene photo? I've been trying to figure out what, exactly is going on with the law. Jul 06 05 10:12 pm Link When the person your sitting next to eyes pop outa thier sockets!! Jul 06 05 10:14 pm Link Posted by Monsante Bey: OK so the partent is present and is Ok with her child be nude. Does that make a difference? Jul 06 05 10:18 pm Link I see profiles for models that are 16 and 17 that say they do lingerie and glamour and I am "What are their parents thinking"? Do they not know what these styles involve. I've seen models that are 16 posing in thongs and I just don't get it. I'm only 36 so I don't think I am being conservative. I am extremely liberal, but I just think parents need to really check into what styles their daughters are saying they are willing to model in. Jul 06 05 10:19 pm Link Posted by Todd Steinwart: I agree with Todd, there's actually a model on this site who is 16 and has photographs up which are boardering on soft core. America is very conservative, even implied or sheer or any other form of sexuality in todays culture, when a minor is in question, can put you in a small room with a guy named Borris who likes you a we bit too much. Jul 06 05 10:19 pm Link Yeah, at least you know where they are when you need to call Child Services. Jul 06 05 10:21 pm Link Y'know this whole thing is freakin' nuts. Why? Statistics show that something like 10% of 14-year-olds are sexually active. 20% of 15-year-olds, etc. Even in the 70's when I went to an inner city public school, there were teenage mothers bearing young at 15, 16, or 17 years of age. My buddies were getting laid at 14, 15, 16. I was a slow-starter; my first girlfriend was 15 and I was 17. Talk about a ridiculous standard!! Kids are out there having sex, which is perfectly normal - indeed, any male will tell you that biology is most insistent on that topic starting around 14 or 15 years of age. I'm sorry if it's not politically correct but it's completely normal and we all know it's true. So we have a situation in which people are poking their eyes out with knitting needles to avoid seeing a 17-year-and-11-month-old nipple, when most of us were groping all over the darned things in high school!!! I had a weird email exchange on MM the other day with an underage model, in which she pointed out that my portfolio was invisible to her, mostly, because it's full of nudes. OK. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that they're art nudes of women. What, does the law think that this 17-year-old model doesn't know what a nude woman looks like? She is one. She can see all the nude girl she can handle just by LOOKING IN A MIRROR. She probably touches underage titties all the time and has been doing it for years every time she puts a damn bra on! Heck, I saw an erect nude male penis pretty much every morning from 1976 until 1999 and I still see one at least twice a week! And it was underaged until 1985 or so! LOCK ME UP! I CONFESS!(I even touched it, but I didn't inhale) America is a great country, a wonderful place to live, a damn fine idea - the best political system that's been implemented on earth, yet. But DAMN we have some DUMB ASS ideas, sometimes!! mjr. Jul 06 05 10:23 pm Link I think back to when I was under 18..I think I knew it all...which is the case with most teenagers so my guess is this model didn't think twice about it. The photographer should have never have thought to shoot the girl that way. A photographer to a young girl like that can have way too much influence. It's not okay because children (under 18 is a child even if they are physically matured..emotionally they are not) should not be looked at in a sexual way ( I know it happens all the time on the street..I am talking photo wise!!). To shoot a picture with the intent to evoke a sexual reactions is the problem. Just my opinion Jul 06 05 10:28 pm Link Well then Marcus, would you shoot an admitted under-18yo model in your style? Just asking.... Jul 06 05 10:31 pm Link Posted by Todd Steinwart: That's a toughie! Jul 06 05 10:37 pm Link I agree that photographing someone under 18 nude is not a cool thing to do at all, however; a lot of you need to check the laws in your respective states. In many states, a 17 year is not considered a minor. My state, Louisiana, is such a state. The law sees them and treats them as an adult. I have never, and will never photograph any model under the age of 18 years +1 day (for technicality reasons such as the time of birth being 5:00pm and the shoot is at 10:00am) nude. I think it's wrong and Karma is a mother. Especially to those of us with young daughters ourselves. I always ask myself what if this was my daughter!! Tim Jul 06 05 10:38 pm Link Thank you Marcus, for this great post. It's exactly what I am thinking as well, especially growing up in Europe (Germany), which is much more liberated and doesn't have the burden of puritan/victorian centered moral code towards nudity. Double standards... Some rulings and religious centered beliefs about nudity are just RIDICULOUS. Just watching all those discussions, even here, were people don't know where pornography begins. You don't know how often I am shaking my head when people discuss a half nekkid woman, touching her crotch and looking at the camera... and some people call it pornography and are serious about it. It's like America is a 12 year old, supersized kid, that is stronger than it's peers... but girls are 'yucki" at this stage of it's development... *the boy is now giggling and looking insecure around if girls are watching*... Jul 06 05 10:38 pm Link In a lot of ways, it is going to far. Even if the picture was not exposing nipple, the thoguht of an under 18 model doing anything that would be implied, is not good. I am not sure what the law says about it, but to me, I would not do anything like that. As far as the lingerie issue, well, Department store catalogues anbd flyers do have underage models posing in underwear. Its not to sell sex, but to showcase the product, they are selling. So in that sence, OK, but if it were for anything else outside of that realm, I would say definately not. Jul 06 05 10:42 pm Link Oh ok i dont sell sex i sell underwear! Jul 06 05 10:44 pm Link Being someone that draws woman and most of my work is nude I feel that any model that is under 18 should not be posing for anyone nude weather there parents are there or not period, not a good thing to even chance in this day and age and a girl who is under 18 to me just doesn't know what she may be getting herself into. I even feel that 18 maybe a little young for that as well a girl that young doesn't have to pose nude to get her point across as a model. well thats my two cents take it or leave it t.c.cor Jul 06 05 10:44 pm Link Posted by Kasondra: Emancipated ???? What are you kidding me? Jul 06 05 10:45 pm Link So many great points on both sides...But I think it is mostly a personal decision as I look at it from the emotional well being of the young girls. The models without a doubt will be looked at in sexual way. But may I ask Marcus do you think it is okay to shoot a under age with the concept of capturing a sexual image. There is nothing wrong with the naked body at all. In fact it is beautiful. But I think it may add to the problem if underage girls are shot in a sexual way on purpose. And yes as I am sure some have guessed I have a daugther and I am looking at it from that standpoint more than a model. Jul 06 05 10:46 pm Link I can see how, properly photographed, even a just-budding girl could be breath taking and emotionally uplifting. I also know that it could, in the wrong hands, lead to carnal thoughts and possibly deeds. I don't think it's fair to judge this country as immature because it has laws to protect those who cannot protect themselves when there are so many depraved souls out there who will take advantage of them. At the end of the day there's NO REASON to photograph underage girls (or boys for that matter). There are plenty of old-enough girls out there. Jul 06 05 10:49 pm Link I think - as Marcus and others have implied - that it's very difficult to make distinctions between art, erotica and pornography and rather than open the subject to mature discussion, the legal watchdogs have opted for the easy way out. Religious conservatives would probably find Marcus's work offensive, while other groups would deem even Robert Mapplethorpe's most provocative photographs banal. Jul 06 05 10:55 pm Link Posted by Todd Steinwart: Well... there are weird people out there that have broom fetishes... they get off seeing broom handles... should we lock all away because some weirdo sees more in a broom handle than the average person (it's an analogy!). Jul 06 05 10:57 pm Link Posted by Kevin Rodgers: The laws are abundantly clear? Since when? Jul 06 05 11:12 pm Link Posted by Udo R Photography: Posted by Todd Steinwart: Well... there are weird people out there that have broom fetishes... they get off seeing broom handles... should we lock all away because some weirdo sees more in a broom handle than the average person (it's an analogy!). Yes, our forefathers took a great big religious dump on this country when they founded the first colonies here in 16 mumble mumble mumble. You wouldn't expect people who dressed like they did to be exactly enlightened would you? Jul 06 05 11:19 pm Link Posted by Todd Steinwart: Love your summary! Jul 06 05 11:23 pm Link Posted by Kevin Rodgers: No, the laws are abundantly unclear, and that's why there is this big discussion. Jul 06 05 11:33 pm Link Does MM allow models from european nations the laws are different in some countries; allowing nudity at 16 or 17 Jul 06 05 11:34 pm Link |
