ei Total Productions wrote:
The problem is that the definition of "lascivious display of the genitals" is so convoluted, that anybody who dances around it at all is taking a risk.  There are many who argue that Dost just makes it more difficult to understand.

I think anyone interested in that subject should actually read a variety of court cases involving images that were meant to be tested.

The jury and judges don't tend to be as prude as the forums here may have you believe.

I wish I had the citations on hand to link you all to, one case in 1991 featured an underage boy on a bed, eyes closed and partially erect. In this case the judge noted that an erection does not necessarily denote sexual thoughts...... go ask what they think of images showing an erection in the 'model colloquoy' forum, I imagine people's perceptions of lewd and what the courts think are very different.

Ravendrive Productions wrote:
I wish I had the citations on hand to link you all to, one case in 1991 featured an underage boy on a bed, eyes closed and partially erect. In this case the judge noted that an erection does not necessarily denote sexual thoughts...... go ask what they think of images showing an erection in the 'model colloquoy' forum, I imagine people's perceptions of lewd and what the courts think are very different.

I don't disagree with you, but my question is, can you look at an image in the "grey zone" and tell me for certain if it is or is not a lascivious display of the genitals?

Mike Collins wrote:
Just be glad most of the world thinks his work is the art that it is.

And just as a little side note, David Hemmings, who stared in "Blow Up" said he actually based his character on David Hamilton and not David Bailey as so many have thought. 

Funny how there is also a thread about David Bailey on here these past few days.

I'm not sure if I find that reassuring...........given the other parts that the late Mr. Hemmings played.

Paul Maher Jr wrote:
I ask because at a Boston bookstore, I saw them selling among other photography books like Leibowitz's, his books with underaged nude teen girls frolicking among one another etc.

He has enough money and clout to make them legal.

Let the average photographer try the same and see what happens.

Paul Maher Jr wrote:
I'm not saying it should be illegal, I am just asking how it IS legal? If you or I shot the same kind of photos and posted them here in MM, how would that be received?

Because it isn't pornography involving underaged individuals.

ei Total Productions wrote:
I don't disagree with you, but my question is, can you look at an image in the "grey zone" and tell me for certain if it is or is not a lascivious display of the genitals?

In those "grey zone" cases the only certainty is uncertainty.

Studio36

Aberotica wrote:
Quite simply - it hasn't always been seen as "perverted" to photograph children or young people nude. The Victorians, yes they of the ultra prudish morals, thought it was completely acceptable to photograph young children nude. Something to do with "childlike innocence."

Our present hysteria about paedophiles is most likely a product of the internet age. When David Hamilton was one of the most successful photographers ever, hence the amount of books he had published, it was seen as art, not perversion. The only thing that has changed is our perception of what we are seeing.

Let me make myself clear - I will never condone the sexual abuse of children in any way. Real paedophiles should get life - without parole.

No - it's a product of the Christian Fundamentalist / NeoCon Moron "Majority" . . . they are the American equivalent of the Taliban . . . the operative word being "ban" . . . as in ban anything that resembles real life, real desires, real passion . . .

Paul Maher Jr wrote:
I dont think his books are offensive, I just want to know what is the legal protocol with photography like that . . . . I thought I made that clear.

the books are legal because there is nothing illegal in them...
nudity of any age is legal...

from what i understand hamilton was into post pubescent females and maybe not a great guy..but dependent on where he is, the behavior might be legal or not...

Doug Swinskey wrote:

the books are legal because there is nothing illegal in them...
nudity of any age is legal...

from what i understand hamilton was into post pubescent females and maybe not a great guy..but dependent on where he is, the behavior might be legal or not...

When I saw his photos years ago I never thought that there was anything wrong with them!  They are beautiful!

ei Total Productions wrote:
I don't disagree with you, but my question is, can you look at an image in the "grey zone" and tell me for certain if it is or is not a lascivious display of the genitals?

from reading a handful of 2257 related cases from different times and different district courts, I know what to say or needs to be said to rationalize the image(s) presented.

from what I can tell (contrary to what i believed when I had only browsed the forums here), the judges aren't out to get you. As far back as 1991 in that particular case, the judge admitted that 'lascivious' is not the most clear term and that an erection doesn't necessarily mean anything sexual

Ravendrive Productions wrote:
The jury and judges don't tend to be as prude as the forums here may have you believe.

No, but there're a lot of cops, prosecutors, and local politicians who are and they're certainly willing to ruin someone's life (which can easily be done even without a conviction) if they think it will bring them political benefit.

SLE Photography wrote:
political benefit.

This sadly drives most of the modern "sexual witchunt" over justice.  I for one feel like it leaves true victims and true crimes lacking the attention they deserve.

I still think if you do it in a professional manner with a professional attitude the risks of running into someone trying to make an 'example' out of you are extremely rare.

PYPI FASHION wrote:

He's making a reference to Roman Polanski.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=506864

Actually I wrote that before Polanski was arrested, I was referring to France's more tolerant attitude toward these types of things.

The other thing is that it is enlightening to see how people will jump to the wrong conclusions in here.

1) I do not condemn his books, nor do I have any use for them. I saw them in a bookstore and wondered how they were able to be there legally.

2) I do not have a desire to work in that direction. It's nothing that cannot be achieved using legal aged women.

Paul Maher Jr wrote:
2) I do not have a desire to work in that direction. It's nothing that cannot be achieved using legal aged women.

This part of your statement is confusing and cotradictory to your question in the first place.

The question was, and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, how are his books legal?

And the answer was "because there is nothing in them illegal".

But then you say "legal aged women", "in that direction".  The women in those books were legal for that "direction" hence the books are "legal".  So what "legal women" are you refering to exactly?

Paul Maher Jr wrote:
David Hamilton: How are his books legal?

Emeritus wrote:
This formulation always strikes me as the wrong question.

If something is judged "illegal", you ought to be able to point to a law which makes it illegal.  If you can't, it isn't.

So start from the law, and work backwards to the work in question.  That you have asked the question you did suggests you have not read the relevant laws.  if this is a field of interest or concern to you, you should.

Raising this question also makes me wonder why the OP thought they weren't.

Paul Maher Jr wrote:
If you don't know who he is, here is a Wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hami … grapher%29

I ask because at a Boston bookstore, I saw them selling among other photography books like Leibowitz's, his books with underaged nude teen girls frolicking among one another etc.

This, in essence, doesn't perturb me, but I am just wondering where the gray line is between art and child porn, and the legal attitude of the United States?
If you are shooting, say, a 17 yr old girl and her shirt is wet and sticking, is this testy?

Simple... There is no age limit to art... sorry for the people that are so closed to that idea... but art is about curves and lines to me and if a 16 year old has it... I would work with her if I would be harassed by every one in this whole bloody country for doing so.

It's so sad that some girls that want to participate in art have to wait till they are 18... no wonder so many construe art with porn... because you have to be 18+

Lame.

Tim Hammond wrote:
I deal with this all the time in my day job.  Hardly a day goes by when I don't hear someone cry "how is that legal?!"  The answer is simple: it's legal because it's not in violation of the law.  Far too many people believe that the law says what they think it should say, or says what they've been told it says, but they never bother to read what it actually says.  The problem with that approach is tha the people who think the law should impose their moral, social and/or political views on everyone else are always the most vocal segment of society, so if you go by what you've heard is legal/illegal or what you think must be legal/illegal, you're almost always going to fall into the trap of confusing someone's moral indignity with the law.

In fairness, often it isn't what the law SAYS but rather how some jury INTERPRETS the law.

Dost Test anyone?

RSM-images wrote:
ex post facto law is not allowed
.

You are mistaken. The implementation of the "3 Strikes Laws" are precisely ex post facto, as to punishment, because they add punishment long after the fact.

Parallel ex post facto laws have been used by the gun-ban crowd to ban people from owning firearms, years or decades after minor matters were fully-resolved.

I don't say I agree with the above-described schemes. In fact, I think they ARE outrageously ex post facto. However, they exist, as do similar unfair schemes.

J C ModeFotografie wrote:

No - it's a product of the Christian Fundamentalist / NeoCon Moron "Majority" . . . they are the American equivalent of the Taliban . . . the operative word being "ban" . . . as in ban anything that resembles real life, real desires, real passion . . .

Some of the push has come from militant feminist groups. The feminist leader Andrea Dworkin often said that, "All sex is rape," and opined that "marriage is just slavery with frills." It is both dishonest and factually wrong to rail ONLY against purported conservatives and ignore the feminist involvement.

I am aware of an incident at the ultra-liberal, ultra-leftist, U.C. Santa Cruz. A photographer, advertising for fine art figure models, placed ads in the school newspaper, City On A Hill Press. However, the Leftist, Feminist "Collective" that ran the paper decided (I beileve unanimously) that "all modeling is demeaning to women," and banned the ads. The N.O.W. has also sent extremely mixed, and often violently phrased, messages about feminine beauty, sexuality, and modeling.

Ravendrive Productions wrote:

Its not prohibited in the US and not everyone pay attentions to people's perceptions of it being prohibited.

You are mistaken in believing these laws constitute what lawyers call a "bright line," in which a thing is CLEARLY legal or illegal. In fact, both in the law and in practical application, the area of underage nudes is EXTREMELY gray, and EXTREMELY subject to local variation per the beliefs of the local community, and the political needs of judges, prosecutors, bureaucrats, and other people.

I would not consider shooting nudes or erotica of someone who isn't over 18 with ID to prove it. I think of it like flying without checking the weather, or driving without a seat belt. It is bad judgment that may, sooner or later, smite you.

Paul Maher Jr wrote:
I ask because at a Boston bookstore, I saw them selling among other photography books like Leibowitz's, his books with underaged nude teen girls frolicking among one another etc.

You have to consider when and where the photos were taken.  Someone can certainly correct me if I'm wrong, but the bulk of his work was shot in Europe using European models (a couple of decades ago.)  Makes a bit of difference.

Paul Maher Jr wrote:
I am just wondering where the gray line is between art and child porn, and the legal attitude of the United States?
If you are shooting, say, a 17 yr old girl and her shirt is wet and sticking, is this testy?

Shooting Hamilton-esque images of a minor in our current social state would likely result in the photographer having to answer a lot of questions (and possibly being charged under some "indecency" law.)  Now, the outcome of said photographer's trial would depend entirely on what judge and what time of day.  The current laws are so subjective.

Here's a question you have to ask yourself... "Would this image that I'm taking of this naked minor give a middle-aged judge a hard-on?"  If you answer in the affirmative, you probably shouldn't click the shutter. 

Yeah, that's an over-simplification, but not by much.

William Kious wrote:

Paul Maher Jr wrote:
I ask because at a Boston bookstore, I saw them selling among other photography books like Leibowitz's, his books with underaged nude teen girls frolicking among one another etc.

You have to consider when and where the photos were taken.  Someone can certainly correct me if I'm wrong, but the bulk of his work was shot in Europe using European models (a couple of decades ago.)  Makes a bit of difference.


Shooting Hamilton-esque images of a minor in our current social state would likely result in the photographer having to answer a lot of questions (and possibly being charged under some "indecency" law.)  Now, the outcome of said photographer's trial would depend entirely on what judge and what time of day.  The current laws are so subjective.

Here's a question you have to ask yourself... "Would this image that I'm taking of this naked minor give a middle-aged judge a hard-on?"  If you answer in the affirmative, you probably shouldn't click the shutter. 

Yeah, that's an over-simplification, but not by much.

This is an extremely perceptive statement. Yes, he shot in Europe, mostly Scandinavian girls and mostly shooting at his villa in Southern France. I suspect Hamilton's books are insulated from harassment to a degree, because of his worldwide fame, and the tremendous skill of the photos. The authorities may well be reluctant to act because they got such a black eye over the Sturgis matter. In addition, at this time, Obama's appointments are not interested in going after erotica OR porn per se. Some of his top people actually have a background as lawyers defending companies in the adult industry. I suspect that if a US-based photographer got US 13-14 year old girls, and shot them in the Hamilton manner in the USA, he'd be wearing steel bracelets very soon. I have read that Sally Mann, whose work is more fine artsy than Hamilton's, and nowhere near as erotic, has received veiled threats from law enforcement agencies.

Ultra Magnus wrote:
Since you started this thread, we can assume you find his books offensive?

If you find his books offensive, no explanation can help you.

I guess we... could assume that... but not sure why anyone would though, as the original post makes it clear:

Paul Maher Jr wrote:
This, in essence, doesn't perturb me, but I am just wondering where the gray line is between art and child porn, and the legal attitude of the United States?

I'd be more likely to guess Mr. Maher could wish to shoot something along those lines, and wants to understand the law's attitude first. Or is simply curious

Lumigraphics wrote:

In fairness, often it isn't what the law SAYS but rather how some jury INTERPRETS the law.

Dost Test anyone?

True, but the jury's or judge's interpretation generally has some degree of connection to the wording in the law.  The moral indignity of people who believe something should be illegal doesn't, and people who say "I heard" or "I think" that's illegal are generally on the "no logical connection" side of the line.

PYPI FASHION wrote:

He's making a reference to Roman Polanski.
Who, I imagine, is regretting that trip to Switzerland...
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=506864

DigitAl Photographix wrote:
Times change.

In the 60s there were heaps of Hamilton style works around  . . and even a movie, Bilitis or someting similar.

What was once avant garde or what was once art is now on the verge of taboo . . . here in Australia there has been furore over one photographer's artistic interpretations.

In short, the net has caused an explosion in blatant pornography and a huge increase in paedophelia (or maybe the detection and prosecution of it).

As I said, times change . . . and the world has certainly changed since the Hamilton era.

And unfortunately some people only see the nude body as "spank bait" and hence why most see a nude child as taboo, for fear some pervert will "do his thing" to with the image.

William Kious wrote:

Paul Maher Jr wrote:
I ask because at a Boston bookstore, I saw them selling among other photography books like Leibowitz's, his books with underaged nude teen girls frolicking among one another etc.

You have to consider when and where the photos were taken.  Someone can certainly correct me if I'm wrong, but the bulk of his work was shot in Europe using European models (a couple of decades ago.)  Makes a bit of difference.


Shooting Hamilton-esque images of a minor in our current social state would likely result in the photographer having to answer a lot of questions (and possibly being charged under some "indecency" law.)  Now, the outcome of said photographer's trial would depend entirely on what judge and what time of day.  The current laws are so subjective.

Here's a question you have to ask yourself... "Would this image that I'm taking of this naked minor give a middle-aged judge a hard-on?"  If you answer in the affirmative, you probably shouldn't click the shutter. 

Yeah, that's an over-simplification, but not by much.

The Supreme Court (Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it") has addressed this issue and, yes, to a degree it appeals to the so-called "reasonable person" standard.  Later, the Court addressed this and provides no test for pornography but does for "obscene."  The test is called (S)LAPS (aka Miller Test) - that is, does a work contain Serious Literary, Artistic, Political, or Scientific value.  Part of this test does reflect the interests of the community but also considered (and required to "fail" the test) is the "reasonableness" of the objection taken across the US as a whole.

Aretaic Photography wrote:
The Supreme Court (Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it") has addressed this issue and, yes, to a degree it appeals to the so-called "reasonable person" standard.  Later, the Court addressed this and provides no test for pornography but does for "obscene."  The test is called (S)LAPS (aka Miller Test) - that is, does a work contain Serious Literary, Artistic, Political, or Scientific value.  Part of this test does reflect the interests of the community but also considered (and required to "fail" the test) is the "reasonableness" of the objection taken across the US as a whole.

(S)LAPS... LOL!  How ironic. 

I'm sorry... I'm not being flip about the validity of your post... just calling the test "slaps" is... yeah...

Gotta love our courts, yeah?

Extreme Body Art wrote:

And unfortunately some people only see the nude body as "spank bait" and hence why most see a nude child as taboo, for fear some pervert will "do his thing" to with the image.

I guess underlying then that would imply that many people think "spanking" is a bad thing to begin with.

CGI Images wrote:

This part of your statement is confusing and cotradictory to your question in the first place.

The question was, and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, how are his books legal?

And the answer was "because there is nothing in them illegal".

But then you say "legal aged women", "in that direction".  The women in those books were legal for that "direction" hence the books are "legal".  So what "legal women" are you refering to exactly?

18 and over . . . the unconfusingly simple "legal"

Novi-Novi wrote:

Ultra Magnus wrote:
Since you started this thread, we can assume you find his books offensive?

If you find his books offensive, no explanation can help you.

I guess we... could assume that... but not sure why anyone would though, as the original post makes it clear:


I'd be more likely to guess Mr. Maher could wish to shoot something along those lines, and wants to understand the law's attitude first. Or is simply curious

Nop,e just a question I was curious to have answered so I posed it to professionals?

I could have just as well asked how whole books about photographed shoes could ever find a publisher?

Ümar wrote:
Can anyone provide some internet links to where one can see the photographs and works of David Hamilton?

http://www.hamilton-archives.com/

DigitAl Photographix wrote:
Times change.

In the 60s there were heaps of Hamilton style works around  . . and even a movie, Bilitis or someting similar.

What was once avant garde or what was once art is now on the verge of taboo . . . here in Australia there has been furore over one photographer's artistic interpretations.

In short, the net has caused an explosion in blatant pornography and a huge increase in paedophelia (or maybe the detection and prosecution of it).

As I said, times change . . . and the world has certainly changed since the Hamilton era.

I disagree.  Nothing is new under the sun.  Paedophilia has always been a part of human existence ever since the first humans set foot on Earth.  Even in ancient Greece and Rome, it was not uncommon to see grown men having sex with young boys in the streets until people like the Apostle Paul petitioned the governments to have it stopped.  To say that paedophilic crimes have increased since the advent of the internet is akin to saying that the moon is made of green cheese - they've just become reported a lot more than they were in previous decades because the perpetrators would swear the kids to an oath of silence. 

I have also got a book by David Hamilton in my collection which I bought at QBD in the 90's.  His other books are also readily available in many large bookshops and fine art shops alike in Australia, and there's never been any major media fracas over them.

Though of course you would be familiar with the roasting that Bill Henson got from Hetty Johnson and Kevin Rudd last year, which I frankly thought was a storm in a teacup upon seeing the images they were complaining about.

studio36uk wrote:

With howls of derision [not to mention a stout rope and some burning torches]. How else?



Studio36

thats awesome

like freedom of speech watch what you say....(( public enemy ))

Paul Maher Jr wrote:

18 and over . . . the unconfusingly simple "legal"

Yeah, but the girls in David Hamiltons books are legal and under 18.. so your talking about porn then?