photodorset wrote:
Just  a thought, is the 1970's film 'Walkabout' seen in the US? In the film there are loads of sexual inuendos and Jenny Agutter (16 at the time) and her brother in the film (age about 10) fully naked (everything shown).

In the 1970s version of Romeo and Juliet, Juliet is in bed with Romeo - both naked but only a quick 'flash' of Juliet as she gets out of bed - the actress is 15!!

Most laws are aimed at preventing exploitation. If you take images of an under 18 naked for 'art's sake' that's fine. If you take the images to pass around dirty old men, it's wrong!!!

In the "1970's" not the 21st century. 

Of course you could shoot a 16 year old topless, breast feeding her own baby and call it educational.

Tim Hammond wrote:

Out where?  Alaska?  More like a few libertarians mixed in with a mass of religious conservatives and paranoid reclusives.

I know. My wife's from Wasilla.

Tim Foster wrote:

I know. My wife's from Wasilla.

Oh, well then you understand.  Wasilla, huh?  Tell her congratulations on her escape!

TA Craft Photography wrote:
In the "1970's" not the 21st century.

It was a time with a more healthy sexual outlook and more reasonable morals.

JP PHOTOGRAPHY OF CT wrote:
we have all see brooke shieilds naked at 10, and there are the sally mann shots of her kids naked and david hamilton photos. What are your thoughts of phtographing a 16yr old possible toplless ...nothing porn...nothing sexual

Seriously, how did this start here, clearly stating nothing sexual and end up talking about the risk you'd take shooting or "researching" child porn.


NON porn nudes, even though have an inherent risk thats slightly more risky than shooting older subjects, I'll grant. But if you do it in a professional way, clear of the pretty well defined guidelines of the legal definitions and tests of "porn", the risks are still pretty darn low.

CGI Images wrote:
Seriously, how did this start here, clearly stating nothing sexual and end up talking about the risk you'd take shooting or "researching" child porn.


NON porn nudes, even though have an inherent risk thats slightly more risky than shooting older subjects, I'll grant. But if you do it in a professional way, clear of the pretty well defined guidelines of the legal definitions and tests of "porn", the risks are still pretty darn low.

Because when you are discussing photographing 16yr old girls topless the link is very direct in the eyes of the police, social services & the press.

Perhaps you could try going into your local bar sometime... & when someone asks what you did today, as an experiment, tell them you photographed a 16yr old girl with her tits out... I am guessing the reaction would not be positive... the conclusion that would be reached by those that heard would be that you are a pervert... & perverts like to do more than photograph boobs!... That is how most people tend to think!

What do you think a local Sheriffs Dept officer would do if he/she heard that an Adult Male was photographing a topless 16yr old? Perhaps no specific law is being broken,, but he or she is sure as hell going to check it out to be on the safe side.... they have to cover their ass as they have no idea what is going on behind closed doors. If they decide to take that person with them for further questioning, its only a matter of time before local press get wind of it... because it makes a juicy story on the 6pm news.. even if the individual is released the damage has already been done!

That is how we end up with a link from 16yr old bare boobs & child porn... I dont see how hard that is to work out?

H3D PHOTOGRAPHER wrote:
Because when you are discussing photographing 16yr old girls topless the link is very direct in the eyes of the police, social services & the press.

Perhaps you could try going into your local bar sometime... & when someone asks what you did today, as an experiment, tell them you photographed a 16yr old girl with her tits out... I am guessing the reaction would not be positive... the conclusion that would be reached by those that heard would be that you are a pervert... & perverts like to do more than photograph boobs!... That is how most people tend to think!

What do you think a local Sheriffs Dept officer would do if he/she heard that an Adult Male was photographing a topless 16yr old? Perhaps no specific law is being broken,, but he or she is sure as hell going to check it out to be on the safe side.... they have to cover their ass as they have no idea what is going on behind closed doors. If they decide to take that person with them for further questioning, its only a matter of time before local press get wind of it... because it makes a juicy story on the 6pm news.. even if the individual is released the damage has already been done!

That is how we end up with a link from 16yr old bare boobs & child porn... I dont see how hard that is to work out?

Its not hard to work out if you equate nudity and porn.  I'd have no problem telling my law enforcement buddies I took images of nude people under 18, I've been a nudist most of my life and seen countless family images taken at the camps and beaches, and many people know of them.  I've known many law enforcement people at those camps.  I've NEVER heard of a single issue.

And like I've always said, do it in an appropriate and professional manner if your going to do it.

I'd hardly think going around bragging that you took pictures of a "16yr old with her tits out" is being professional.


But if your so certain such things are such a high risk, point to some court cases.  if its SO risky, then surely there would be dozens of easily found cases where people have been charged for taking nude images of "minors", non porn ones.  All the nudist family pictures for example.

xaveir wrote:
Never in th US but everywhere else its acceptable

Really? Not in ANY Muslim country, which is 1/4 of the world or so...

JP PHOTOGRAPHY OF CT wrote:
we have all see brooke shieilds naked at 10, and there are the sally mann shots of her kids naked and david hamilton photos. What are your thoughts of phtographing a 16yr old possible toplless ...nothing porn...nothing sexual

what are the toughts

Depends what country you are in - some are still free

JP PHOTOGRAPHY OF CT wrote:
we have all see brooke shieilds naked at 10, and there are the sally mann shots of her kids naked and david hamilton photos. What are your thoughts of phtographing a 16yr old possible toplless ...nothing porn...nothing sexual

what are the toughts

Honestly I don't get it. Over the past 10 years most are calling this porn... we have as a society changed the way we consider art...as art.

But today, its got to be more about not art but who is watching that 16 yr old...and in their haste to protect most girls and the showing of young breasts... the catholic church along with the christian right has combined it with pornographic images...

Girls at ages 18 and younger just don't need to be photographed in the USA showing mature images!!

Otherwise you will have to answer to some judge and spend months in jail with criminals of all sorts...

Love live art and long live the freedoms we once had... cuz they are gone.

Otherwise move to Europe.

JP PHOTOGRAPHY OF CT wrote:
we have all see brooke shieilds naked at 10, and there are the sally mann shots of her kids naked and david hamilton photos. What are your thoughts of phtographing a 16yr old possible toplless ...nothing porn...nothing sexual

what are the toughts

i think photography is about shooting anything, i doubt that her parents would sign a release, and you would be a fool to shoot without a release or consent.

photography is art

JP PHOTOGRAPHY OF CT wrote:
we have all see brooke shieilds naked at 10, and there are the sally mann shots of her kids naked and david hamilton photos. What are your thoughts of phtographing a 16yr old possible toplless ...nothing porn...nothing sexual

what are the toughts

Yes, you've seen the images. What do you know about the above photographers? Do some research on the life of Richard Prince before and after those images, including the one of Brooke Shields. If you then think the shoot you have in mind is worth it, then you should move forward.

Right/wrong, legal/illegal, moral/immoral is irrelevant. Even your intent holds little weight. It's the perception of the viewer, which is unpredictable at best, that dictates the outcome.

And maybe it's just me, but I just get the creeps when someone who can't spell or use proper punctuation and grammar wants to discuss shooting nude underage girls. Again, maybe I'm wrong, but it's all about perception.

CGI Images wrote:
Its not hard to work out if you equate nudity and porn.  I'd have no problem telling my law enforcement buddies I took images of nude people under 18, I've been a nudist most of my life and seen countless family images taken at the camps and beaches, and many people know of them.  I've known many law enforcement people at those camps.  I've NEVER heard of a single issue.

And like I've always said, do it in an appropriate and professional manner if your going to do it.

I'd hardly think going around bragging that you took pictures of a "16yr old with her tits out" is being professional.


But if your so certain such things are such a high risk, point to some court cases.  if its SO risky, then surely there would be dozens of easily found cases where people have been charged for taking nude images of "minors", non porn ones.  All the nudist family pictures for example.

I think you are missing the point... I do not state anywhere that I equate Nudes with Porn... that is you're conclusion.

However ... ask your neighbors what they think about an Adult Male photographing a topless 16 yr old girl & you might get an interesting reaction! If you choose to believe that the climate in this country is one of tolerance & artist freedom of expression over shooting topless underage teens then you are in for a rude awakening.. LOL!

Here are the examples of court cases arising from minors being photographed nude you asked for. It took me about 5 minutes on Bing & Google to find these... trust me there were lots more!

http://www.azcentral.com/community/peor … t0919.html

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/123427

http://www.newsweek.com/id/184814

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/1020288/detail.html

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/425988/

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/arti … raphy.html

.....

What seems to be clear is that once the press gets involved, things take a very fast turn for the worst.

Bottom line... underage teen nudity + photography = flammable situation best avoided.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
Yes, you've seen the images. What do you know about the above photographers? Do some research on the life of Richard Prince before and after those images, including the one of Brooke Shields. If you then think the shoot you have in mind is worth it, then you should move forward.

Right/wrong, legal/illegal, moral/immoral is irrelevant. Even your intent holds little weight. It's the perception of the viewer, which is unpredictable at best, that dictates the outcome.

And maybe it's just me, but I just get the creeps when someone who can't spell or use proper punctuation and grammar wants to discuss shooting nude underage girls. Again, maybe I'm wrong, but it's all about perception.

100% agreement.

Funny how the OP is nowhere to be seen in this discussion... hmmm

CGI Images wrote:

Seriously, how did this start here, clearly stating nothing sexual and end up talking about the risk you'd take shooting or "researching" child porn.


NON porn nudes, even though have an inherent risk thats slightly more risky than shooting older subjects, I'll grant. But if you do it in a professional way, clear of the pretty well defined guidelines of the legal definitions and tests of "porn", the risks are still pretty darn low.

Sadly, a huge amount of the public (especially in the Bible Belt and where I live) think that ANYTHING nude is automatically porn. Nothing will change their narrow minds about it.

At least with an adult model, there is nothing LEGAL they can do about it. With a 16yo, lots of people are going to run around screaming "child porn."

Hell, I had the local Nazis police tell me that if I was shooting nudes in my apartment it would be considered an "adult-oriented business." Fuck those assholes!

H3D PHOTOGRAPHER wrote:
What do you think a local Sheriffs Dept officer would do if he/she heard that an Adult Male was photographing a topless 16yr old? Perhaps no specific law is being broken,, but he or she is sure as hell going to check it out to be on the safe side....

I was shooting a 19yo model fully clothed and had the local assholes here giving me shit for a whole hour. I'm STILL pissed off about it. We were doing pictures like this:

Nicky Reyes Photography wrote:
get an 18 year old kid who looks like a 16 year model and that would take of the problem. why risk getting caught when there are some ways to do it. make-up, styling, digital manipulation, etc. why take a photo when you can't show it.

It's been done. There was a recent forum regarding advertising of sports type underwear and the models being 18+ yrs old.
People complained that the models looked underage and the ads. were pulled.

Kens Lens wrote:
I'm extremely liberal but that is way to young.

So you must disagree with all those people in that other thread that the full nudes of Brooke Shields at 10 years old are unacceptable too?

Lumigraphics wrote:

So you must disagree with all those people in that other thread that the full nudes of Brooke Shields at 10 years old are unacceptable too?

It might have helped to make her a big star & she is reaping the rewards, but I would have to say it's to young.

Lumigraphics wrote:
Sadly, a huge amount of the public (especially in the Bible Belt and where I live) think that ANYTHING nude is automatically porn. Nothing will change their narrow minds about it.

At least with an adult model, there is nothing LEGAL they can do about it. With a 16yo, lots of people are going to run around screaming "child porn."

Hell, I had the local Nazis police tell me that if I was shooting nudes in my apartment it would be considered an "adult-oriented business." Fuck those assholes!

And it's probably the bible bashers who are sitting infront of their monitors jerking of to porn on the net. Then feel guilty and go to church on Sunday and do it all again.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
And it's probably the bible bashers who are sitting infront of their monitors jerking of to porn on the net. Then feel guilty and go to church on Sunday and do it all again.

+100

4-Real Photography wrote:
Remember the movie "American Beauty"?
Thora Birch was 16 when she did that Nude scene and it was a mainstream movie that won lots of awards.

Double standard.

Go figure.

Money talks.

H3D PHOTOGRAPHER wrote:
It took me about 5 minutes on Bing & Google to find these...

That sounds like a station on the London Underground.

Creative Works LLC wrote:
Interesting discussion.  Allow me to toss in another bit of perspective:
http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

Vatican State 12 !

Lumigraphics wrote:
There is a 17yo model here who I have worked with before who actually asked about doing some topless shots, her mom thought it would be ok,

Just wait until a week after the shoot when mom decides she doesn't like it and realizes what a big stick she has.

Lumigraphics wrote:
There is a 17yo model here who I have worked with before who actually asked about doing some topless shots, her mom thought it would be ok, I had to tell her nope wait until next Feb when she turns 18. No sense in risking problems. But once she's 18, I probably will do the shoot.

There you have it. Simple solution, no worries.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

It's been done. There was a recent forum regarding advertising of sports type underwear and the models being 18+ yrs old.
People complained that the models looked underage and the ads. were pulled.

That was the American Apparel Ads in the UK.... The Model was 23 but 1 person complained that "she looked about 16"... so there was an investigation & the Ad was pulled... this is what we are dealing with.... so imagine what would have happened if it had turned out the Model was 16!... The Model wasnt even topless... she was wearing a hoody with a zip that wasnt closed....

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

Vatican State 12 !

In the OP's state (Connecticut) it's 16.

Lumigraphics wrote:
There is a 17yo model here who I have worked with before who actually asked about doing some topless shots, her mom thought it would be ok, I had to tell her nope wait until next Feb when she turns 18. No sense in risking problems. But once she's 18, I probably will do the shoot.

Its the smart thing to do... I would have done the same thing myself.

IMO the people that harp on about "artistic freedom" & shooting nudes with underage models being OK if they are "shot professionally"......... I seriously have to question the motives of a photographer that wants to photograph a random 16yr old girl topless/implied/nude when its purely for "portfolio" purposes! Its just bloody creepy!