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.

This should be scribed into the archives.

One girl in my port has a gorgeous, mature looking 17 year old friend.  Knowing her track record, I took it upon myself to all but refuse to shoot with her.  I know the pictures she wants and I'm not dealing with the headache.

Oso Photo wrote:
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?

If the trouble was as probable as it's made out to be there would be dozens and dozens of easily citable cases of prosecutions.  What people bring up are the few extreme exceptions to the rule where someone tried to charge someone with it, again an extreme exception to the rule.

The truth is, generally speaking, you can shoot a 17 yr old nude, or in lingerie, or even somewhat "sexually suggestive" and "socially unnaceptable" and if you do it in a professional manner your no more likely to catch trouble than you are shooting a 25yr old.

-jmp- wrote:
Hmm.. I agree, it's the intent of the picture, so again, why does the word lingerie mean it's sexually provocative moreso than a bathing suit? I mean is lingerie limited to lacey bras and thongs?? I could ask a model to bring a swimsuit and have her sucking her thumb on a bed and it's okay, but a model in [other word for lingerie here] standing in a window is in bad taste?

Sportsbra and boyshorts are ok.. swimsuits are ok.. bra and panties and all the alarms go off. I just find it inconsistent?

Dude, are you kidding me...you just said that you agree it's the intent of the image...and you still don't understand the difference...here is a breakdown for the idiots in the room:

Sportsbra: public - marathons, gyms, etc
Boyshorts: Public - style of womens bottoms - can be worn with sportsbras during the above activities
Swimsuits: public - Beaches, pools, etc
Bras and panties (other lingerie) - private - used to sexually arouse a woman's(or man's) partner

I have shot several girls - all over 18 and have had fun with them during the shoots.  they all came with the intent of capturing amazing, sensual images in lingerie and no ones mommy had to accompany them.  stick with the adults for adult subject matter.  there are plenty of amazingly beautiful models here on Model Mayhem that are more than happy to be photographed in their skivvies. if you meet or see a model that is 17 and the next Giselle - find out how long before she is 18 and give her a call in a few months.

-jmp- wrote:
Hmm.. I agree, it's the intent of the picture, so again, why does the word lingerie mean it's sexually provocative moreso than a bathing suit? I mean is lingerie limited to lacey bras and thongs?? I could ask a model to bring a swimsuit and have her sucking her thumb on a bed and it's okay, but a model in [other word for lingerie here] standing in a window is in bad taste?

Sportsbra and boyshorts are ok.. swimsuits are ok.. bra and panties and all the alarms go off. I just find it inconsistent?

You're not Joshing us are you? There is a huge difference between the "intent" and the "content" of an image. She's 17. Think about that for a second.

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
if you shoot for Vogue or another fashion magazine, you could get away with it. Otherwise, you just come off as some perv with a camera. What does this 17 year old have that 50,000,000 18 year olds DON'T have? Wait a year to shoot her in lingerie or get another model. Your attitude here suggests some serious problems if you don't know the reasons why you'd not shoot a minor in something traditionally considered sexually suggestive.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oso Photo wrote:
I don't work with minors, just because I don't like them.

But I've never heard of a photographer in jail for that reason, Not Paying taxes WILL get you in jail, but shooting minors (16, or 17's in underwear, with parental agreement) it's something I've never seen.

And you may not where you are. But, Mexico is a very Catholic faith based country and I would be surprised if it has NOT happened in Mexico. In the US it is easy to access public records. You just have to have names to go with the case

I've heard about and then seen the criminal records of a, and I'm using the term loosely, photographer going to jail in Missouri for shooting underage girls without their parent(s) for reasons contrary to the laws. In, fact his parole giudelines stated he was to NOT photograph any females under the age or 18 without a parent or gaurdian present.

Keith aka Wolfie wrote:

Keith aka Wolfie wrote:
By virtue of a marketing label.

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??

ok i take this as "not recently"

Michael Borders Photo wrote:
...here is a breakdown for the idiots in the room:

Awesome.

CGI Images wrote:

You start by standing up and pointing out the lack of logic and lack of any facts behind what the fearmongering masses are spouting.

OMG Thank you, CGI. +10000000  This is exactly right. The puritanical sky-god worshipers in this thread really, REALLY need to take a deep breath and separate their personal beliefs from the law. Trying to foist your personal brand of morality onto other people by lying to them about what is legal and what is not is ludicrous and abysmally stupid.

Try looking up some actual legal precedent, actual case law. Use logic, not parables.

People here are obviously scared as fuck about being thrown in jail for kiddie porn but this scenario isn't even close. For people as frightened about legal consequences as some of you are, you'd think you'd have done even a nanosecond's worth of research.

Creamy fucking christ I swear since 9/11 we've been handing our balls back to the government on a silver platter. We are a nation of scared little bitches.

Joshua Mercurio  wrote:
Society may be hypocritical at times, .............

Ya Think? Abercrobie & Fitch (as well of hundreds of other clothing designers) Hire models who are 18 or 19 and photograph them to make them look like they're 16, society is totally cool with that!

Brian Baybo wrote:

And you may not where you are. But, Mexico is a very Catholic faith based country and I would be surprised if it has NOT happened in Mexico. In the US it is easy to access public records. You just have to have names to go with the case

I've heard about and then seen the criminal records of a, and I'm using the term loosely, photographer going to jail in Missouri for shooting underage girls without their parent(s) for reasons contrary to the laws. In, fact his parole giudelines stated he was to NOT photograph any females under the age or 18 without a parent or gaurdian present.

Please provide a name and date of the conviction and state.  I can look it
up via: http://law.lexisnexis.com/webcenters/lexisone/
or Westlaw.  No state I'm aware of has a law prohibiting someone from photographing
a minor without a parents permission.  As to the conditions of this 'persons'
parole I don't believe a judge would impose conditions like that.
Maybe he would be ordered to not photograph minors period and that only
if he was convicted of a sex crime.

So as for your little tale.  I'm calling bullshi$

Brian Baybo wrote:
I can't believe what I read form the OP...WTF? Are you serious? 17=35...or more

He's right,...... if you murder them, actually wait, tar probably wouldn't get you 35.

Valya  wrote:

Exactly

LMAO...have you seen what some gals wear out these days? I beg to differ

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
Merely asking such a question should attract the attention of law enforcement.

I hope.

Just because he's clueless?

Wow.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
Merely asking such a question should attract the attention of law enforcement.

I hope.

"excuse me officer,.....ummm there is something perfectly legal going on but I'm personally offended and bothered by it......"

C s p i n e wrote:
Laws? Plenty of grey area there. Morals? I don't have those. Remember this one rule though:

= Shooting someone 18 and over, you risk being judged by society. Under 18, you risk being judged by a jury of your peers. =

How important is this issue to you?

Yeah, just like hose boys from duke that were falsely accused of messing with that under 18 girl........oh, hey wait. Shit.... She was way over 18.       Ughhhhhh you mean risks of false accusations can happen with over 18 women to????

-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.

There's a quote from film Jurassic Park that goes "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." Maybe, you need to do a better job at phrasing the request you made. In addition, you talked about the model was agency represented. Last time I checked, there was a thread where a model wouldn't sign a release form because her agency warned her not to sign them because they want to control the image. If you still have doubts about this, it might be best not to do the shoot at all!

Russell Imagery wrote:
I just have one question: Do you currently own Canon digital equipment? I will give you a good competitive price for the equipment before you head to prison.

Yeah because jail is filled with sooo many people that were participating in perfectly legal actions.

tigerfist photography wrote:

ok i take this as "not recently"

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have recently. But as seems to be typical of the S Florida contingency, you haven't explained the difference.  It baffles me that you and many in this thread can't see that ANYTHING can be deemed sexual depending on a persons personality. I've seen swimwear that was more sensual/sexy than lingerie. Yet that seems to be perfectly ok.

CGI Images wrote:

Yeah, just like hose boys from duke that were falsely accused of messing with that under 18 girl........oh, hey wait. Shit.... She was way over 18.       Ughhhhhh you mean risks of false accusations can happen with over 18 women to????

So you're saying...... you're just here to be the biggest asshole possible?

- Mikazuki - wrote:
Lol at you equating swimwear to lingerie.

Yeah.  Lingerie usually covers more.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

i think your attitude needs to be checked.  right from the start the model said "I dont do THIS' and you wanna question it?
I dont think it matters if she doesn't do lingerie or shoots with epileptic gerbils.  No should mean no, not running on here to justify your upset at being told no.
Really....
fuckit... everyone here is being too polite. Nobody should have to justify their reasons for saying no. You give photographers a bad name

+1

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
Merely asking such a question should attract the attention of law enforcement.

I hope.

Completely hyperbolic. Sorry, but most of my lingerie (underwear, granny panties?) is a lot less sexy then a swimsuit. Considering he showed his intent of his last lingerie shoot on the first page the question doesn't seem that unreasonable; but no one seemed to pay any attention to that.

OP, I would say you made the right decision by not pursuing the shoot, but not so much in posting in this forum.

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.

Sexual arousal? I thought lingerie included bras and panties, camisoles, etc. used as functional underwear. I can't believe a training bra is meant to induce sexual arousal whether it be the girl wearing it or her male classmates. Plenty of minors are featured in catalogs and sales fliers modeling underwear/lingerie. Those are certainly not meant to stimulate people sexually.