Retoucher
IdontKnowIForgot
Posts: 3829
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
lol moral fail for the OP
Photographer
Jon in KC
Posts: 122
Kansas City, Missouri, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
Banning adult networking here has nothing to do with being prudes and everything to do with the VAST majority of members not wanting to do adult work and not wanting to be bothered by constant solicitations for it. Take that shit to OMP and 2Kmodels, thanks. Guess I touched a nerve!!
Photographer
DMesser Photography
Posts: 1288
Oceanside, California, US
It is just wrong. There is no need to understand anything else. If it is a minor, bikini is o.k. as long as mom is there and signs an underage model release.. She will approve every shot you take..
Photographer
StephenByron
Posts: 55
Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
If you go to the biennial at the Whitney Museum in NYC, you'll see one of those Brooke Shields photographs. You know the Gary Gross ones where she's like 10 all oiled up in a jacuzzi.
Thats art right?????
I mean it's in the Whitney!!!!
Photographer
Barrett Graphics
Posts: 882
Overland Park, Kansas, US
Indigo Dream Images wrote:
For all you Photographers out there that think youre safe, you wanted links...here you go....Pay close attention to the bottom of the article about Stone....
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,51 … 62,00.html
Follow-up article....
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/0,51 … 55,00.html
And here is Arizona Law on "exploitive exhibition"...
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/03553.htm
I can go on and on. Do you REALLY think it Is it worth it? You make the choice. And as for those earlier responses assuming that I may not be a professional, at least I know the laws in the State I reside in...lets hope you know yours... I'm pretty sure he got in trouble for photographing her genitals and trying to convince her to stick things in her cooch (attempted sodomy). Not for lingerie photos.
Photographer
Indigo Dream Images
Posts: 641
Tucson, Arizona, US
Doesnt mater. However, even if it does, read the Az Statute I posted. depending on the Judge/Jury, this could EASILY fall under that category...
Photographer
Tony Lawrence
Posts: 21526
Chicago, Illinois, US
DaaR Photography wrote:
trueteenbabes expose. For those interested.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/ … 5423.shtml The site is still up. The owner won in court. I won't offer my view
of the site. However the decision was made that the site was legal.
Immoral or poor taste is another matter. Something most of us
would allow our daughters to do, no.
However there still has to be a place between legal and decent.
A mother was arrested after a Wal-Mart clerk saw her innocent
nude shots of her kids playing. She was later cleared of any wrong
doing. Photos of a 17 year done as a advertising piece or as a
fashion level shoot seems harmless. That people in this thread have
decided that it means more says more about them then anything.
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
Banning adult networking here has nothing to do with being prudes and everything to do with the VAST majority of members not wanting to do adult work and not wanting to be bothered by constant solicitations for it. Take that shit to OMP and 2Kmodels, thanks. Jon in KC wrote:
Guess I touched a nerve!! Uh, yeah. Actually your previous post was total bullshit. Excuse me for explaining the real reasons. Frankly, it sounds like *I* touched a nerve.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Indigo Dream Images wrote:
For all you Photographers out there that think youre safe, you wanted links...here you go....Pay close attention to the bottom of the article about Stone....
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,51 … 62,00.html
Follow-up article....
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/0,51 … 55,00.html
And here is Arizona Law on "exploitive exhibition"...
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/03553.htm
I can go on and on. Do you REALLY think it Is it worth it? You make the choice. And as for those earlier responses assuming that I may not be a professional, at least I know the laws in the State I reside in...lets hope you know yours... all sexual in nature and not what we are talking about...
so instead of accepting that you were wrong, you decided to research something off topic and present us with links......
ok, whatever...
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
DMesser Photography wrote:
It is just wrong. There is no need to understand anything else. If it is a minor, bikini is o.k. as long as mom is there and signs an underage model release.. She will approve every shot you take.. Jesus X Christ on a patent leather crutch. 
Photographer
Jon in KC
Posts: 122
Kansas City, Missouri, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
Lumigraphics wrote:
Banning adult networking here has nothing to do with being prudes and everything to do with the VAST majority of members not wanting to do adult work and not wanting to be bothered by constant solicitations for it. Take that shit to OMP and 2Kmodels, thanks. Uh, yeah. Actually your previous post was total bullshit. Excuse me for explaining the real reasons. Frankly, it sounds like *I* touched a nerve. Not at all.....relax a bit!!
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Indigo Dream Images wrote:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2007/Bills/Senate/HTML/S132v3.html
read Section 1, #5 part D.... ok, now its getting real hard to comment on your intelligence without making it sound like a personal attack....
so i will ignore your dribble from now on...
Photographer
Indigo Dream Images
Posts: 641
Tucson, Arizona, US
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
all sexual in nature and not what we are talking about...
so instead of accepting that you were wrong, you decided to research something off topic and present us with links......
ok, whatever... I believe I just put up links like you suggested and now you try to blowback what you wanted. ncie...you really need to learn to accept that your wrong.
Oh, and read the last link I posted if you need further clarification. I believe youve been faced.
Photographer
Indigo Dream Images
Posts: 641
Tucson, Arizona, US
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
ok, now its getting real hard to comment on your intelligence without making it sound like a personal attack....
so i will ignore your dribble from now on... Um...yeah...You asked for links (or am I wrong?), I posted.
Photographer
Tony Lawrence
Posts: 21526
Chicago, Illinois, US
Indigo Dream Images wrote:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2007/Bills/Senate/HTML/S132v3.html
read Section 1, #5 part D.... Simple nudity or lingerie shots like I imagine the OP is
doing would not be a problem. Example; Lets say, I photograph a
male teenager without his shirt on. Porn? Illegal?
No. However that same teen shown in a sexual situation, yes.
The problem is always how a DA or the police decide to interpret
the law. Arrests can always be made but charges are often dropped
after a judge reviews the case. Usually the reasons charges are
brought is because of a angry parent. In his case the mom is fine
with the images.
Lets not confuse our personal and moral views with the law.
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
Banning adult networking here has nothing to do with being prudes and everything to do with the VAST majority of members not wanting to do adult work and not wanting to be bothered by constant solicitations for it. Take that shit to OMP and 2Kmodels, thanks. IMHO you're delusionary on what goes on in the hallowed halls of MM. There is a fuckton of adult work that happens with members on MM.
Photographer
Brandphoto
Posts: 67
Oldham, England, United Kingdom
I appreciate the OP's point of hypocrisy, in many ways the OP's correct. Here in the UK it's perfectly legal to have sex with a girl of 16, she can bear children and tend for them perfectly legally. At 17 they can sign up and die for their country, yet they can't vote, can't drink and can't pose for 'sexy' pictures. Yes, there's hypocrisy but that's the way it is, that's the status quo so we abide by it.
I think what said it all for me was when the OP made the comment of the models mum was attending, so the OP backed off the idea. That to me answered their own question.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Indigo Dream Images wrote:
I believe I just put up links like you suggested and now you try to blowback what you wanted. ncie...you really need to learn to accept that your wrong.
Oh, and read the last link I posted if you need further clarification. I believe youve been faced. i said cite a case that doesn't include verbage of anything sexual, implied sexual or displays of genitalia
all of your links do...
and for this:
d. An act or condition that depicts torture, physical restraint by being fettered or bound, or flagellation of or by a person clad in undergarments or in revealing or bizarre costume.
are you fucking serious?...you have to be joking, no one is that stupid...
and i have been faced?????????
this has got to be a gag posting...
Photographer
Revenge Photography
Posts: 1905
Horsham, Victoria, Australia
Paolo Diavolo wrote:
seriously?? you really have to ask?
thats sick.
its not the amount of skin, its the intention of the picture.
lingerie is meant for sexual arrousal, minors are not.
you do the math. +10000
Photographer
Indigo Dream Images
Posts: 641
Tucson, Arizona, US
Alright, last post from me on this thread as I can see some people just dont get it. God Almighty....
Model
Valya
Posts: 1265
New York, New York, US
Paolo Diavolo wrote:
youre missing something...
i think you need to study more, and rethink your goals as a photographer. +1
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
Banning adult networking here has nothing to do with being prudes and everything to do with the VAST majority of members not wanting to do adult work and not wanting to be bothered by constant solicitations for it. Take that shit to OMP and 2Kmodels, thanks. Cherrystone wrote:
IMHO you're delusionary on what goes on in the hallowed halls of MM. There is a fuckton of adult work that happens with members on MM. I realize that, but I stand by my assertion. remember that only around 8% of images on MM are marked M...most models here DON'T do nudes even, let alone porn. The mods have repeatedly noted that a big reason they dont allow adult networking is all the complaints they get about it as is, with it being against the rules. Imagine the screaming if it WAS ok.
The adult work being done is by a small fraction of the membership.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Indigo Dream Images wrote:
Um...yeah...You asked for links (or am I wrong?), I posted. yes, you are wrong, i asked you to cite a case, not post links to news article about issues other then photographing minors in their underwear...
the concept of you being wrong is not something that you seem to understand, so ill just leave it be...
Model
Valya
Posts: 1265
New York, New York, US
Leroy Dickson wrote:
Swimsuits are meant to be worn in public. Lingerie is designed for the bedroom. Exactly
Model
Fur Elise
Posts: 1814
Seattle, Washington, US
Paolo Diavolo wrote:
seriously?? you really have to ask?
thats sick.
its not the amount of skin, its the intention of the picture.
lingerie is meant for sexual arrousal, minors are not.
you do the math. Yeah... um... This ^^
You can easily find an adult 18+ to do a shoot like that.
Ever hear that saying? "18+ fair game"
I know plenty of togs who won't even do swimsuit shoots with minors,
because they can get the same shot w/ an adult without having to worry about being out of bounds.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Valya wrote:
Exactly And like I said before too, I saw dozens of "minors" walking around naked in public last weekend. So your logic is underwear not ok, naked is. Since your obvious point in where the lime is drawn is what can be seen in public?
Oh and I have seen teens wearing lingerie in public, at the mall no less. A few years ago those lingerie type bras being worn as tops was kind of tendu, under jackets, see through shirts etc.
Photographer
Tony Lawrence
Posts: 21526
Chicago, Illinois, US
Fur Elise wrote:
Yeah... um... This ^^
You can easily find an adult 18+ to do a shoot like that.
Ever hear that saying? "18+ fair game"
I know plenty of togs who won't even do swimsuit shoots with minors,
because they can get the same shot w/ an adult without having to worry about being out of bounds. I don't know the 'togs' you are talking about but those who actually work
as pros for fashion and advertising very often shoot under aged models
in lingerie or swimsuits. In fact there is a under 18 model in W this month
in lingerie. In a field where fashion models are considered over the hill at 21
there is little time to worry about silly stuff.
Its mostly on sites like MM that we worry. Agencies aren't all that considered.
Many professional shooters who have actual clients aren't either.
Photographer
Jessica-Dee
Posts: 1351
Chester, England, United Kingdom
There isn't really a difference between swimwear and lingerie in a sence. But swimwear is socially acceptable, a 5yr old can wear a bikini where as if you dress up a 5yr old in a lacey bra and knickers i'm pretty sure there would be some serious questions asked. I can understand if you meant like non-sexy lingerie like a t-shirt bra and cotton shorts type thing, but we live in a society where young attractive girls in any form of underwear are automatically seen as an object of lust, no matter what they're doing. I'd play it safe if I were you, it's really not worth it 
Model
ErinSiu
Posts: 16
Los Angeles, California, US
Model
Rasheedat J
Posts: 12
Nashville, Tennessee, US
CGI Images wrote:
And like I said before too, I saw dozens of "minors" walking around naked in public last weekend. So your logic is underwear not ok, naked is. Since your obvious point in where the lime is drawn is what can be seen in public?
Oh and I have seen teens wearing lingerie in public, at the mall no less. A few years ago those lingerie type bras being worn as tops was kind of tendu, under jackets, see through shirts etc. The point is as many have mentioned before that lingerie suggest sexuality. A minor conveying sexuality is not socially accepted. Doesnt mean it doesnt occur everywhere.
Im not sure what you mean by minors in nude but have fun capturing it on camera.
Photographer
Tropical Photography
Posts: 35564
Sarasota, Florida, US
FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
regardless...YOU'RE not going to change a mindset in America because of your view on MM. For those of you who can't see the difference from a societal standpoint between shooting an image like this commerically and from shooting it for private use...PLEASE wake up. Societal is one thing and legal is another. Many on here are claiming it's illegal to which it's not. Did you miss that point? And perhaps if more people stood up to this prudish BS attitudes would get change. That's kinda how change is effected. You know, like Texas education wanting to change history..
Photographer
Tropical Photography
Posts: 35564
Sarasota, Florida, US
Keith aka Wolfie wrote:
By virtue of a marketing label. tigerfist photography wrote:
when's the last time you held a bra, dood? And what point are you trying to make? Put whatever label you want to it, lingerie or bra and panties.. It's all the same...
Seriously, what the hell is in the water in S. Florida??
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Rasheedat J wrote:
The point is as many have mentioned before that lingerie suggest sexuality. A minor conveying sexuality is not socially accepted. Doesnt mean it doesnt occur everywhere.
Im not sure what you mean by minors in nude but have fun capturing it on camera. I see people taking pictures of those miners nude all he time, guess what no issues with it.
So what your saying "sexually suggestive" or "socially acceptable" is what makes something illegal or not? Yeah,...and no it's not.
If there was any value in your point there would be riots calling for the head of the videogeapher that shot the new Miley cirus video, and DA's accross thecountry would be filing charges, guess what, there not.
What part of child "PORN" do you people not understand. I've never seen simple lingerie images defined or interpreted as "porn", please.
Photographer
Rich Burroughs
Posts: 3259
Portland, Oregon, US
I have to say that I see the OP's point about the swimwear/lingerie thing. I've run into at least one adult model who had an extremely provocative swimwear shot in her port (bending over, butt out), who told me she wouldn't shoot lingerie. It had me scratching my head, the shot was way more cheesecake than my work.
At the same time, I wouldn't think to ask a minor to bring lingerie to a shoot. I don't even shoot with minors. But I'm not shooting for a living and I have a lot more freedom to turn people down.
I think there are arguments to be made about the morality involved, it's not as black and white to me as some people make it sound. But for me it's more about not wanting the potential headaches, which very much outweigh the potential benefits.
Photographer
Harold Rose
Posts: 2925
Calhoun, Georgia, US
-jmp- wrote:
= bad form??
Just curious. I'm wanting to work with a 17 yr old and asked her to bring lingerie to shoot in and didn't think twice about it. She said she doesn't do lingerie shoots, but she has a couple of shots in her portfolio with her in a swimsuit and got me all confused-like.
Do you think it's taboo to shoot minors in lingerie because of the word "lingerie"?? Maybe lingerie implies some uber seductive glamour images.. which isn't the idea at all... Are two piece swimsuits just more acceptable although they show the same if not more skin? Hmmm...
The model is bringing her mom, of course, and I backed off and said we'd just shoot the fashion images... but I'm still confused... I've never really encountered this before and would love to hear your thoughts. Are you trying to talk me (or us) into agreeing with you... If it confuses you , that does not mean that it confuses me.. Is this the only teen in the world?
Photographer
Ivan Galaviz - Photo
Posts: 891
Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico
Every week or so this kind of thread comes from the death, shooting minors either wearing lingerie or nothing at all, and every single time I read thousands of responses like "You're going to jail"...
Could anybody post links to stories on major news pages that proves this 'theory' is real? And I don't mind 'big' cases, like Annie Leibobitz shooting Miley Cirus, or the new 'scandal' of Perez Hilton shooting up-skirt of 'what's-her-name', I mean, I've never seen any photographer, going to jail for this kind of work. I mean, regular people, shooting regular 17 yr. olds, not Hollywood types...
Any links like that?
Or we all think we're celebrities and everybody is watching us?
|
