rp_photo wrote:

If they lie about being an adult, they should be charged as an adult.

the reason youth  are not treated as adults is that they lack the capacity of adults -therefor their behavior is not judged in adult terms ( except on rare occassions in extreme cases such as homicide )

Garry k wrote:

the reason youth  are not treated as adults is that they lack the capacity of adults -therefor their behavior is not judged in adult terms ( except on rare occassions in extreme cases such as homicide )

If they misrepresent themselves and produce a fake ID to buy alcohol they are too.

Naughty by Nature wrote:

The calls I get from 000-000-0000 are always from Blockbuster looking for an overdue movie.

Block Buster is run by the FBI....

JEM model wrote:
WOW - thats scary...

...even scarier...i got a call from a 000-0000 number before. HMM....lol

I would call you too if I were with the FBI. I would use it to impress you into shooting with me

White Lace Studios wrote:

+1 - Always

I make a copy of the drivers license and stape it to the release and file it.

Myself...I photograph the model HOLDING the ID beside his/her face close enough to be able to read the entire ID as well as getting a close up  of the model and the photo on the ID. I keep it on CD on file with the entire shoot result set. I Also check ID of parents signing for the minor.
I ALSO have a statement that I have ANYONE sign who doesnt or cant provide proof at the time of shoot stating that until the ID is provided, no images will be processed AND that the images no matter of content will not be given to the model unless he/she provides ID.

StudioCMC II wrote:

Indeed we can, let the Mayhem decide if there is Religious controls, or if the FBI just calls people for the hell of it..

A scenario, just "For the Hell of It"

Nero - Hey Agent Smith.
Agent Smith - What do you need Mister Anderson?
Nero - Some parents called in about multiple photographers taking age inappropriate photos of their daughter. I have started an investigation since this falls within our jurisdiction. 
Agent Smith - No it doesn't.
Nero - Uhm, yeah, it does. It's a felony. Investigating felonies is our job.
Agent Smith - Nu-uh!
Nero - Uh-Huh!
Agent Smith - Nu-uh!
Nero - Uh-Huh!
Morpheus - I believe that tonight, a crime has been committed.
Nero - Whoa! Where did you come from?
Agent Smith - Yeah. I didn't even see you come in. Spooky. Hey, tell Nero this isn't part of our job. 
Morpheus - It is part of your job.
Agent Smith - Nu-uh!
Nero - UH-HUH! (Twirls his arms, then stops them quickly and dust wafts off his shirt)
Agent Smith - No, it doesn't. You know what, screw it. I'm bored. Let's investigate child abuse just "for the hell of it"

End scenario.

M BEALS STUDIOS wrote:
I ALSO have a statement that I have ANYONE sign who doesnt or cant provide proof at the time of shoot stating that until the ID is provided, no images will be processed AND that the images no matter of content will not be given to the model unless he/she provides ID.

Umm that might work so long as the pics are not a nude covered by 2257.  If they are, you are required to inspect and copy the ID BEFORE you shoot.  If you shoot first and check later, you may have just committed a crime whether you publish the images or not.

RGK Photography wrote:
I don't have the patience to read this post, but why would you shoot with a minor who lied and caused others to go to jail.

Please confirm that this entire story is BS

a)If you dont know he/she is a minor...well thats an answer in itself,

b)If they lied to other photogs claiming to be 18+...do you really believe he/she is going to tell you they lied to others?   DUH

c) there are people out there that WILL shoot minors without regard to the law AND theres also people who shoot images in violation of 2257 with minors anyway.(sick but true) These kids are glad to put you at risk and it can happen.

d) IF you dont have time to READ the post......why bother replying to it?

Chuckarelei wrote:
000-0000 is an unknown number for certain call ID.

I'm not a telcomm person but I do know that if you run your own PBX it is possible to assign a bogus number for all outgoing calls. Being a three letter govt agency is not a requirement - it's a function of the PBX.

Jake Garn wrote:

The legal authorities and protocol experts on MM are very amusing to me.  Do you have any advice about fixing my microwave as long as you're spewing nonsense?

Which kind, kitchen or long haul?

Chuckarelei wrote:
000-0000 is an unknown number for certain call ID.

That number will come up when someone calls from basic (free) Skype, or certain PBX switchboards

Odin Photo wrote:

A scenario, just "For the Hell of It"

Nero - Hey Agent Smith.
Agent Smith - What do you need Mister Anderson?
Nero - Some parents called in about multiple photographers taking age inappropriate photos of their daughter. I have started an investigation since this falls within our jurisdiction. 
Agent Smith - No it doesn't.
Nero - Uhm, yeah, it does. It's a felony. Investigating felonies is our job.
Agent Smith - Nu-uh!
Nero - Uh-Huh!
Agent Smith - Nu-uh!
Nero - Uh-Huh!
Morpheus - I believe that tonight, a crime has been committed.
Nero - Whoa! Where did you come from?
Agent Smith - Yeah. I didn't even see you come in. Spooky. Hey, tell Nero this isn't part of our job. 
Morpheus - It is part of your job.
Agent Smith - Nu-uh!
Nero - UH-HUH! (Twirls his arms, then stops them quickly and dust wafts off his shirt)
Agent Smith - No, it doesn't. You know what, screw it. I'm bored. Let's investigate child abuse just "for the hell of it"

End scenario.

Odin.. I really am letting the people decide on if Jake is under the gun of the FBI. You seem to be defending Utah and the Mormon Church. Frankly I could care less if you are LDS as well as Jake is. The point here is that the Church is constantly on the look for Child Predators, because of the FLDS.. If you need a clue, your simply clueless and are in the Box Eldar County.. In the sticks.

So look my friend, there is A LOT of attention because Utah is trying to keep the "Pedo" limited because of the FLDS.. Perhaps your a California Transplant from long ago.. I grew up in Utah, and I never joined the Club.

Jake took some shots, Jake is an admitted LDS follower.. Jakes's art crosses the line to what the LDS is all about.. So. Clue me in on how he is not in strife with the Church.

I am not here to nail Jake, but Utah is NOT the leader in the OPEN IDEAS of Art, that is depeicted here at Model Mayhem. Thus there is a Bias to the order of operations to how the State will take on ANY case that has ANYTHING to do with kids..

I totaly understand that Jake is only trying to help us all out with some info. But when the REST of the 49 States get a notice, the Police usualy do that.. NOT THE FEDS (FBI)..

So Process that for a bit, and understand that UTAH, is in a totaly diffent state of mind, and the core reason is the FLDS.. and its only amplifyed by TV shows such as HBO's "Big Love"..

And if you Must know, I was in West Valley, then moved to Sandy.. So I am NOT so clueless as you might think I am.

ei Total Productions wrote:

Umm that might work so long as the pics are a nude covered by 2257.  If they are, you are required to inspect and copy the ID BEFORE you shoot.  If you shoot first and check later, you may have just committed a crime whether you publish the images or not.

SO true! Then again.......I wont shoot any content material that may violate 2257 without age verification anyway. It does work though as an "in confidence" type of thing. I got checked on once about the same issue. Since no images violated 2257, the case worker said everything was in order.....the form I use really only is there just to show reasonable deniability. It only establishes a case for fraudulent behavior on the part of the model to add to the release that I use which ALSO states that he/she has agreed to be 18 or older. But in response to MAY have comitted just by shooting....YEP youre right so I make sure I dont violate any of the 2257 laws on any shoot at all......better safe than sorry!

PTPhotoUT wrote:
My only experience was the proverbial knock on the door, followed by confiscating my computer, hard drives, cell phones with photo capabilities, negatives, prints, CD's, DVD's, Memory Cards, address books, and more. Since I never violated any laws, no charges have ever been filed. I can't get back my property because the investigation is still "open". That was two years ago.

All photo shoots start with photo ID verification. I also photograph the model holding the ID up by her face and I take another closeup of the ID. Those stay with the model's pics as well as being copied to another "ID" file. If I work with the same model again, the pic of the ID is on the release.

That's pretty lame, if something like that happened here, there'd be a shit storm.

PTPhotoUT wrote:
In this state, teens who "sext" each other are actively prosecuted.

Ludicrously stupid.

Remind me not to visit the U.S. out of disgust.

StudioCMC II wrote:
And, let me emphasize the full understanding of the Mormon Church:

The Colbert report:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber … respassing

This is how the Church Manipulates the State.. And in turn uses the Feds to exercise its will over the People.

And this is supposed to be an "industry forum"? It is laughable to read most opinions on the matter with the lunacy their are writing and it is even more hilarious to read the conspiracy theorists and paranoid talking about how a religion affects the government and to top that seriously disturbing that people actually believes in this kind of sh*t...

StudioCMC II wrote:

Odin.. I really am letting the people decide on if Jake is under the gun of the FBI. You seem to be defending Utah and the Mormon Church. Frankly I could care less if you are LDS as well as Jake is. The point here is that the Church is constantly on the look for Child Predators, because of the FLDS.. If you need a clue, your simply clueless and are in the Box Eldar County.. In the sticks.

So look my friend, there is A LOT of attention because Utah is trying to keep the "Pedo" limited because of the FLDS.. Perhaps your a California Transplant from long ago.. I grew up in Utah, and I never joined the Club.

Jake took some shots, Jake is an admitted LDS follower.. Jakes's art crosses the line to what the LDS is all about.. So. Clue me in on how he is not in strife with the Church.

I am not here to nail Jake, but Utah is NOT the leader in the OPEN IDEAS of Art, that is depeicted here at Model Mayhem. Thus there is a Bias to the order of operations to how the State will take on ANY case that has ANYTHING to do with kids..

I totaly understand that Jake is only trying to help us all out with some info. But when the REST of the 49 States get a notice, the Police usualy do that.. NOT THE FEDS (FBI)..

So Process that for a bit, and understand that UTAH, is in a totaly diffent state of mind, and the core reason is the FLDS.. and its only amplifyed by TV shows such as HBO's "Big Love"..

And if you Must know, I was in West Valley, then moved to Sandy.. So I am NOT so clueless as you might think I am.

I was simply responding, tongue in cheek (as long as they're over 18) to your last line about the FBI calling people just "for the hell of it."

Like most religions they have SOME good ideas and ideals, and benefit SOME parts of the community, but since it is a "full meal deal" I will never defend the Mormon Church as an institution. I have no love for the institution of the LDS church and it's policies. In fact I have written against the institution several times.

Living in Utah I do have Mormon friends and acquaintances. I am not speaking against Mormon people in general, in fact some of them are among my favorite people, but once again, I would NEVER defend the LDS church as a whole.

Michael McGowan wrote:
Does anybody think that Sears or Olan Mills or Glamor Shots goes through all these gyrations to take a picture of a teenager?

Actually, I worked for Sears many years ago and YES they do. Since none of these studios you named do Boudior and Nude or pornographic work, they rarely need to check ID.......Heres a loophole.....since the work is portrait AND usually done in a PUBLIC viewable studio, and none of the work is covered under 2257, it is completely legal to photograph minors without parental permission (not a real good idea, but legal) if the minor pays for the images to be taken without being solicited to do so. Many times, they do ask for ID when the prints are paid for though. If the images are boudior or nude however....then 2257 applies.

Eduardo Frances wrote:
Jake! it pays to do everything by the book!!!


And this is supposed to be an "industry forum"? It is laughable to read most opinions on the matter with the lunacy their are writing and it is even more hilarious to read the conspiracy theorists and paranoid talking about how a religion affects the government and to top that seriously disturbing that people actually believes in this kind of sh*t...

Then sir, you need to Visit Utah..

"Eat, drink and be Merry, for tomorrow you might be in Utah"

Google that phrase.. Then be welcomed to the "Real world"

ei Total Productions wrote:

Umm that might work so long as the pics are a nude covered by 2257.  If they are, you are required to inspect and copy the ID BEFORE you shoot.  If you shoot first and check later, you may have just committed a crime whether you publish the images or not.

ummm 2257 is about the the primary producer of material that is in some way published.  the mere act of shooting without verifying ID is not a 2257 problem until you do something with it such as post to a website or make a book or movie out of it.  The shoot may be in violation of other laws for various reasons (or not) but it's not a 2257 issue just for clicking the shutter.

SPierce Photography wrote:
Want to know something worse? A model who is longer on MM wanted to shoot with me--- I was told by her and her mom she was 16. Guess how old she really was? 14! and HER MOM was the one who told her it was okay to lie! ALWAYS check ID before shooting ALWAYS. Had i seen that even for the non nude shoot we were planning on doing, I would have turned around and sent them both home.

not only that, but the only time they confessed to me (we never did set up a shoot) was for them to tell me they were being booted off MM, but to contact them at a different email address to set up a shoot. Neither of them could understand why the photographers objected to not being told about her real age ahead of time.

here is another model who profile says 16, so i asked him If we could do a HS senior photo shoot. He said he is 13......

John Jebbia wrote:

Reminds me of the guy who phoned Taco Bell pretending to be a cop and got the register jockey to strip search one of the customers for shoplifted merchandise. I shit you not:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/ … 1210.shtml

But the OP is right. CYA.

  DAMN!!!  I can't believe he could get away with that!!!

AlphaPhotoandvideo wrote:

here is another model who profile says 16, so i asked him If we could do a HS senior photo shoot. He said he is 13......

There's an assload of kids on MM that aren't 16, both models and photographers of both genders...

Odin Photo wrote:

I was simply responding, tongue in cheek (as long as they're over 18) to your last line about the FBI calling people just "for the hell of it."

Like most religions they have SOME good ideas and ideals, and benefit SOME parts of the community, but since it is a "full meal deal" I will never defend the Mormon Church as an institution. I have no love for the institution of the LDS church and it's policies. In fact I have written against the institution several times.

Living in Utah I do have Mormon friends and acquaintances. I am not speaking against Mormon people in general, in fact some of them are among my favorite people, but once again, I would NEVER defend the LDS church as a whole.

If this is True Odin, the be welcomed to the "New World Order"

Why is it that the Spanish population surrounds you.. The Mormons are importing them.. Wake up, the Art that Jake shoots so well is NOT a welcome Idealistic concept for them.

The Church (in Utah) controls everything, and they call the FBI, when they are at risk.. Thus, there is now a file on Jake. And even he can be excommunicated from the church because of it.

This church does not fuck around.. It goes for the throat.

Don't think that this thread, and ALL of its contents are not of the Church's interest.

Jake Garn.. Is a past Governor, you didn't think it was his REAL name did you?

HarryL wrote:

+1

I agree here too....When I was contacted by a case worker for a similar  instance....they wouldnt discuss anything at all. I was notified by phone that I needed to make myself available for an interview with the bureau but was not given any idea what it was about until they met me at my office.When they showed up, they openely provided ID for themselves. During the interview, I was asked IF i would be willing to produce the images taken.....I DUH agreed AND produced all the documentation that I had regarding the shoot. I got a letter about 2 months later that informed me the case had been closed.

PTPhotoUT wrote:
My only experience was the proverbial knock on the door, followed by confiscating my computer, hard drives, cell phones with photo capabilities, negatives, prints, CD's, DVD's, Memory Cards, address books, and more. Since I never violated any laws, no charges have ever been filed. I can't get back my property because the investigation is still "open". That was two years ago.

All photo shoots start with photo ID verification. I also photograph the model holding the ID up by her face and I take another closeup of the ID. Those stay with the model's pics as well as being copied to another "ID" file. If I work with the same model again, the pic of the ID is on the release.

In this state, teens who "sext" each other are actively prosecuted.

  OMG!!!  How can they do that?!!  If there's no charges, how can they just barge into your studio and take your stuff?!!!!  And not give it back?!  So what do you do now for a camera, computer, and cell phone?!!!

M BEALS STUDIOS wrote:

Actually, I worked for Sears many years ago and YES they do. Since none of these studios you named do Boudior and Nude or pornographic work, they rarely need to check ID.......Heres a loophole.....since the work is portrait AND usually done in a PUBLIC viewable studio, and none of the work is covered under 2257, it is completely legal to photograph minors without parental permission (not a real good idea, but legal) if the minor pays for the images to be taken without being solicited to do so. Many times, they do ask for ID when the prints are paid for though. If the images are boudior or nude however....then 2257 applies.

Huh? First you say the pictures are in public, and no need for ID. Then you say if they're nude or boudoir, that 2257 applies.

When's the last time any of the places I mentioned did boudoir or nude pictures of anybody, much less teenagers.

My point is that it's perfectly OK to do photos of teenagers as long as they aren't age-inappropriate. The only reason there was any investigation of the model in the OP is that somebody apparently shot some inappropriate images.

The whole idea of being soooo paranoid about shooting pictures of teens is mind-boggling.

For instance, I published photos of kids who were in a dance recital several years ago. The two were both under 15. The parents didn't sign anything. The kids didn't sign anything. And nobody got arrested.

The vast majority of mainstream photo-shooting and publishing isn't worrying about all this stuff. They're just going on with business, and nobody's getting into trouble.

M BEALS STUDIOS wrote:

a)If you dont know he/she is a minor...well thats an answer in itself,

b)If they lied to other photogs claiming to be 18+...do you really believe he/she is going to tell you they lied to others?   DUH

c) there are people out there that WILL shoot minors without regard to the law AND theres also people who shoot images in violation of 2257 with minors anyway.(sick but true) These kids are glad to put you at risk and it can happen.

d) IF you dont have time to READ the post......why bother replying to it?

Because of this DA

Fast forward two months later and she received legitimate permission from her parents and the shoot proceeded

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
I don't even talk to anyone under 18 . . .

Who needs the hassle ?



KM

Word..

PTPhotoUT wrote:
My only experience was the proverbial knock on the door, followed by confiscating my computer, hard drives, cell phones with photo capabilities, negatives, prints, CD's, DVD's, Memory Cards, address books, and more. Since I never violated any laws, no charges have ever been filed. I can't get back my property because the investigation is still "open". That was two years ago.

This is what some of us have been trying to tell a few hard heads here, for years.

And it does not matter if the Model lied, her Mommy lied, and she had a fake ID.

A. Your stuff is still not back, and they took everything.

B. If the model lied, and her Mommy lied,and she had a fake ID, it's not a legal defense.

Now let's have somebody post "Oh that would never happen."

It does happen, wise up ya'll.