Falater Photography wrote:

DEP E510 wrote:

Photography by Riddell wrote:
In fact most places have sexual consent laws well under 18, but any remotely revealing photography has to be 18 or over...

Has to be? Not true. There are examples of nude pictures people under 18 all over the place.

As a side note, go watch Pretty Baby and you'll see Brooke Shield fully nude at age 12 numerous times throughout the movie.  It's on DVD at Blockbuster.

It's a great movie about a girl growing up in a whorehouse in the late 1800's. Has Susan Sarrandon as her mom.  The sets and costumes are fantastic. The madam of the house is very old but funny, at one point, she hits a john over the head with a hammer when he gets out of line. Also has a photographer who takes pictures of the whores and ends up marrying the young girl.  Watching the movie really gives you a feel of what life was like back then. Great movie.

That movie was back in the 70's, right?

Things have changed a little since then.

Would you suggest photographers going out and doing photoshoots reminiscent of that movie today?

...

Loki Studio wrote:
I have simple policies with minors that keep me and my reputation happy.  A parent must be present and I won't shoot you in your underwear if you are under 18-female or male.

Very wise.

In fact, fully clothed can still get you in trouble with anyone under 18, not just underwear...

Photography by Riddell wrote:
However regardless of the model release photographing a 16yo in underwear is a major grey area and just something to distance yourself from

Reiner Schutz Fashion wrote:
Why ?   16 year olds wear underwear ( when they're not having sex ).

It is ONLY a major grey area if you let it be.

IN THE UK as you are both in the UK - - - but the OP is in the US, different country different rules - - -

IN THE UK - It is a question of "indecency" in the images, even in a single image out of thousands; and under 18 models; and, any actual sexual conduct, or, even any level of nudity, is NOT a required element necessary to make an "indecent" image. Further, your motivation as a photographer does not matter; or the context of the image, either, or it's intended use... it will be indecent, or not, judged solely on the image itself.

You have been warned.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

Photography by Riddell wrote:
However regardless of the model release photographing a 16yo in underwear is a major grey area and just something to distance yourself from

IN THE UK as you are both in the UK - - - but the OP is in the US, different country different rules - - -

IN THE UK - It is a question of "indecency" in the images, even in a single image out of thousands; and under 18 models; and, any actual sexual conduct, or, even any level of nudity, is NOT a required element necessary to make an "indecent" image. Further, your motivation as a photographer does not matter; or the context of the image, either, or it's intended use... it will be indecent, or not, judged solely on the image itself.

You have been warned.

Studio36

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...

DEP E510 wrote:

I wish.

Don't remember where I read it...

Sure wish you could cuz it sounds like a load of Bull to me.

London Sinclair wrote:

Sure wish you could cuz it sounds like a load of Bull to me.

Sounds like bull to me too.

I didn't write the laws...

rp_photo wrote:
I've been enjoying some great shooting with minors through a Meetup group I joined in August which I would not have felt comfortable doing one-on-one. We strictly shoot G-rated stuff at public locations, and a good percentage of the model members are 12 to 16.

I do avoid putting images of them on MM.

Why?

DEP E510 wrote:
That movie was back in the 70's, right?

Things have changed a little since then.

Would you suggest photographers going out and doing photoshoots reminiscent of that movie today?

...

Hi Dep,

For a more recent example, go get Lawn Dogs and you'll see a naked Mischa Barton at age 10 !  How about Dakota Fanning in Hound Dog?

Would I suggest photographers doing photoshoots reminiscent of the movie Pretty Baby today? Oh yes, very much so. The colors, costumes and look of the late 1800's is beautiful and makes a good theme.

Falater Photography wrote:

Hi Dep,

For a more recent example, go get Lawn Dogs and you'll see a naked Mischa Barton at age 10 !  How about Dakota Fanning in Hound Dog?

Would I suggest photographers doing photoshoots reminiscent of the movie Pretty Baby today? Oh yes, very much so. The colors, costumes and look of the late 1800's is beautiful and makes a good theme.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/movies/20dako.html

Hollywood directors have millions of dollars to hire lawyers to fight their battles for them-- and the overwhelming majority shy away from under 18 sensuality.

Encouraging someone on MM to walk into the buzzsaw of "underage" underwear photography is something I wouldn't do...

Breann Rambo wrote:
I am 16, I do a lot of photo shoots. I see these threads and I just shake my head. Never understood all the paranoia. There are a ton of well known underage models ... In fact, I read that the average age of a fashion model is 17. These girls/guys have taken thousands of photos... yet, I don't see those photographers rotting in prison from them.

It is really simple. Have a parent sign a release, pick up your camera and click. The release protects you - or it should (least that is my understanding).

Thank you!

Breann Rambo wrote:
I am 16, I do a lot of photo shoots. I see these threads and I just shake my head. Never understood all the paranoia. There are a ton of well known underage models ... In fact, I read that the average age of a fashion model is 17. These girls/guys have taken thousands of photos... yet, I don't see those photographers rotting in prison from them.

It is really simple. Have a parent sign a release, pick up your camera and click. The release protects you - or it should (least that is my understanding).

You may be 16 but obviously have more common sense than many who post on this topic..  BRAVO!!!

Breann Rambo wrote:
I am 16, I do a lot of photo shoots. I see these threads and I just shake my head. Never understood all the paranoia. There are a ton of well known underage models ... In fact, I read that the average age of a fashion model is 17. These girls/guys have taken thousands of photos... yet, I don't see those photographers rotting in prison from them.

It is really simple. Have a parent sign a release, pick up your camera and click. The release protects you - or it should (least that is my understanding).

Looking through your shots we see you are not laying or walking around in your underwear or half naked either.  Fashion and demure is kinda different in that aspect.....

DEP E510 wrote:
That movie was back in the 70's, right?

Things have changed a little since then.

Would you suggest photographers going out and doing photoshoots reminiscent of that movie today?

...

Falater Photography wrote:
Hi Dep,

For a more recent example, go get Lawn Dogs and you'll see a naked Mischa Barton at age 10 !  How about Dakota Fanning in Hound Dog?

Would I suggest photographers doing photoshoots reminiscent of the movie Pretty Baby today? Oh yes, very much so. The colors, costumes and look of the late 1800's is beautiful and makes a good theme.

You do know that "Pretty Baby" is one of the reasons we have 18 USC 2256 and 18 USC 2257 today, right?

GCobb Photography wrote:
Just for the sake of asking, how many photographers who do senior pictures ask someone to sign a model release?

I do and I also require the parent to be present to get the shots faster, they can choose the shots as I take them via tethered shooting to my laptop.

ei Total Productions wrote:

DEP E510 wrote:
That movie was back in the 70's, right?

Things have changed a little since then.

Would you suggest photographers going out and doing photoshoots reminiscent of that movie today?

...

You do know that "Pretty Baby" is one of the reasons we have 18 USC 2256 and 18 USC 2257 today, right?

It is very important for people to realize how apeshit the govt. goes over anything involving under 18 models.

Some people seem to think everything is cool and dandy about posing 16 year olds in underwear.

Like this is Europe in the 70's or something...

John  Rougeou wrote:
Double check with local law enforcement

as if they knew anything about the law......
an FYI, knowing the law is not a requisite for enforcing the law...

John  Rougeou wrote:
.............. ......Double check with local law enforcement

..and consider yourself added to the dumb pervert watch list!

S W I N S K E Y wrote:
keep it age appropriate and they'll be no issues...

+1

Loki Studio wrote:
I have simple policies with minors that keep me and my reputation happy.  A parent must be present and I won't shoot you in your underwear if you are under 18-female or male.

+1

Same here

To the OP:
Nothing may ever come of it... then again something might.

Proceed at your own risk

SitronStudio wrote:
Wow! Strong opinions on both sides! I'm going to contact a photographer he's worked with, and def. make sure the parent signs the release. I may back out, though, sounds like it could be a big head-ache. I haven't been sixteen for so long, I'm not sure I know what's age appropriate any more. Maybe have him smoke a joint while drinking beer, with Led Zeppelin blasting on the stereo?

It's not a headache, you just have too many internet people trying to state law that doesn't exist.

As for age appropriate, don't have the kid grabbing his crotch or shoving his hand down there. Be fine..

SitronStudio wrote:
Wow! Strong opinions on both sides! I'm going to contact a photographer he's worked with, and def. make sure the parent signs the release. I may back out, though, sounds like it could be a big head-ache. I haven't been sixteen for so long, I'm not sure I know what's age appropriate any more. Maybe have him smoke a joint while drinking beer, with Led Zeppelin blasting on the stereo?

Just bear in mind that Florida is an "anomaly state" when it comes to under age model and the release.  There are times when you need the paren't signature and there are times when you need the teen's signature.  There are even times when you may need approval of your release from the probate court to make it non-rescindible when the model turns eighteen.  It depends on how your release is worded.  It never hurts to have both, but if you don't have the right one, it can be a problem.  Florida law is "atypical" of the rest of the country.

If you are going to do this, get a "Florida Appropriate" release from an attorney qualified in entertinment law.

DEP E510 wrote:

It is very important for people to realize how apeshit the govt. goes over anything involving under 18 models.

Some people seem to think everything is cool and dandy about posing 16 year olds in underwear.

Like this is Europe in the 70's or something...

And some people make a big deal like it's 1692 out of what should be nothing.

OP, like has been stated, nothing that carries sexual innuendo or that can be perceived as inappropriate and you should have no problems.

DEP E510 wrote:
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...

"You have the right to remain silent; but it may harm your defence of you fail to mention now anything that you later rely on in court; anything you do say will be taken down and used in evidence."
- - - official "under caution" language used by British police.

Studio36

SitronStudio wrote:
Wow! Strong opinions on both sides! I'm going to contact a photographer he's worked with, and def. make sure the parent signs the release. I may back out, though, sounds like it could be a big head-ache. I haven't been sixteen for so long, I'm not sure I know what's age appropriate any more. Maybe have him smoke a joint while drinking beer, with Led Zeppelin blasting on the stereo?

Hang On!!!  You may have the parents sign the release!! But make sure they sign the release in front of YOU!!!  Make sure Mommy or Daddy is there watching this. Have a friend of yours .....Video tape the photo shoot. Make sure Mom and Dad..know ahead of time..you are video taping the session.

But how comfortable are you asking this Kid to drop his pants to do underwear...while Mommy and Daddy are there?  IT is not worth.  I would say do it...in Europe.

Not Here.....I had a 17 year old..who I truly wanted to shoot...only to tell me his Parents were away...and that it was ok for his maid!!! LOL...to sign the release.

I am way smarter than that shit...and Told the lil 17 year old..Try again. IF he wanted me to shoot him...Bring Mommy and Daddy.  They never showed up. End of Story.

DEP E510 wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/movies/20dako.html

Hollywood directors have millions of dollars to hire lawyers to fight their battles for them-- and the overwhelming majority shy away from under 18 sensuality.

Encouraging someone on MM to walk into the buzzsaw of "underage" underwear photography is something I wouldn't do...

I never encouraged anyone to 'walk into the buzzsaw' of photographing 'underage underwear' . 

I simply stated that photographing someone in their underwear under the age of 18 is perfectly fine if not done in a sexual or provocative way.

The Target catalog delivered to me by the U.S. Postal Service is full of underage underwear models.

Why do you feel the need to twist my words and get so emotional about people under 18 or in their underwear? Did something happen to you when you were young? Do you have urges in this direction?

Personally, I could care less one way or the other. I'll photograph nudes at age 1, 12, 22, or 90. What so wrong about the naked human body? Why do you consider certain ages wrong or dirty or illegal?

If it's not done in a sexual or provocative way, what's the big deal?

I think you should look at yourself and consider why this is such an emotional hot button for you and why you feel the need to try to control others into your way of thinking.

DEP E510 wrote:
It is very important for people to realize how apeshit the govt. goes over anything involving under 18 models.

Some people seem to think everything is cool and dandy about posing 16 year olds in underwear.

I just got a flyer from Target showing girls in their underwear in my mailbox, should I call the govt?

Matter of fact, when I last went to Wall Mart, I saw a picture on the wall in their girl's clothes section of a girl of about age 12 in a bra ! OMG ! A bra ! Right there in public ! I was shocked and started to shake uncontrollably. I just ran out of the store. But on the way out, I saw more pictures of underage children in bikinis and swimsuits ! All over the place. ::: HUGE pictures on the wall of children in their underwear !

Why doesn't the FBI raid Wall Mart, Sears, Target, and all other stores selling girl's and boy's underwear ! And what about the pictures of them on the packages themselves? OMG, there must be millions out there ! What shall we do?

S W I N S K E Y wrote:

George ephrem wrote:
be smart... wouldn't do it

YAY a big WIN for the paranoia and fear mongers!!!!

they have scared someone out of doing something totally legal....YAY!!!!

god bless america!!!

~ we dont deserve our own constitution...

DEP E510 wrote:
Some people seem to think everything is cool and dandy about posing 16 year olds in underwear.

Like this is Europe in the 70's or something...

Or Canada in the 10's.  The model in my avatar is under 18, and she looks naked!

What's that banging on my front door?  Oh no, it's the feds!

Richard Dubois wrote:

Or Canada in the 10's.  The model in my avatar is under 18, and she looks naked!

What's that banging on my front door?  Oh no, it's the feds!

You sick, perverted bastard. How dare you. HOW DARE YOU ! How dare you post a picture of an underage model in make up and bare shoulders !

You should be skinned alive and tortured and put in prison and we all know what they do in prison with your kind.

(I'm facetious, of course)

This is really a stupid thread.

There's pictures of 'underage' models in underwear all over the place. No big deal.

Falater Photography wrote:

I never encouraged anyone to 'walk into the buzzsaw' of photographing 'underage underwear' . 

I simply stated that photographing someone in their underwear under the age of 18 is perfectly fine if not done in a sexual or provocative way.

The Target catalog delivered to me by the U.S. Postal Service is full of underage underwear models.

Why do you feel the need to twist my words and get so emotional about people under 18 or in their underwear? Did something happen to you when you were young? Do you have urges in this direction?

Personally, I could care less one way or the other. I'll photograph nudes at age 1, 12, 22, or 90. What so wrong about the naked human body? Why do you consider certain ages wrong or dirty or illegal?

If it's not done in a sexual or provocative way, what's the big deal?

I think you should look at yourself and consider why this is such an emotional hot button for you and why you feel the need to try to control others into your way of thinking.

First of all, you are sounding insane.

You have repeatedly encouraged people to shoot underage nudes.

If anyone is stupid enough to listen to you, fine.

Liteguy wrote:
Your right about him being too young to sign the release. A minor cannot enter into a contract without a parent or legal guardian present.

Without a parent present to countersign the release, its not a legal document.

Be very carefull with the age statements as a 16 year old can sign (for any style) without a parent in Alaska.  Shots of a sexual nature are still illegal, but 16 year olds can sign for themselves. 

This is not to say that I condone shots of minors in anything more revealing than a swimsuit.  I always require at least one parent's signature to shoot a minor.  These are a personal preference to keep me safe in the eyes of the law.