Photographer
Expression Unlimited
Posts: 1408
Oceanside, California, US
JWB2 wrote:
Could you define "worth" I can define the phrase I used ... ''more trouble than it is worth'' meaning I would not imagine it to be problem free - especially afterwards!
Photographer
Isaiah Brink
Posts: 2328
Charlotte, North Carolina, US
Fergy wrote:
If at anytime a model that is under the age of 18 has the box clicked for "nudes" or states she will do nudes or topless in her profile please use https://www.modelmayhem.com/contactamod
Any questions regarding this, it IS a rule on MM--
You Must Be 16
Members must be 16 years of age or older. Members under 18 are not allowed to display photos that we deem too provocative or revealing. Unless you’re 18 or over you may not display any level of nudity/sheer (that includes “implied” nudity), depictions of bondage or any image that is sexual in nature.
As seen in the Membership Requirements here-- https://www.modelmayhem.com/info/rules/ … quirements
As far as where its allowed, it doesn't matter. Its not allowed here. See, I like this, think it's a good thing. Don't worry Mr or Ms Moderator, I'm agreeing with you and the rules of the site on this issue.
Photographer
Tim Little Photography
Posts: 11771
Wilmington, Delaware, US
Children under 18 have been photographed nude for ages. Brooke Shields was 11 or 12 when she did her full nude scenes for the movie "Pretty Baby." No one went to jail. She was 14 or 15 when she did still photo's nude in a bubble bath. The young actress who was so good in the movie "America Beauty" was 16 when she did her topless scene.
Then there is the work of Sally Mann, Robert Farber and a host of other artists who's body of work includes many nudes of pre-teen and teen children, as well as adults.
Nudity doesn't equal obscene. But we live in a country where we freak out if a photographer glances at a teenager. All this while the teens themselves are shooting their own hardcore porn with their smart phones.
Except as a requirement for some college classes, at a public university I might add. I've never really shot many nudes. It's not my thing. But it seems there are bigger threats to children than professional photographers. Horny boyfriends, peer pressure and pervy uncles are all more dangerous.
Photographer
Jeffrey M Fletcher
Posts: 4861
Asheville, North Carolina, US
Martin K Photography wrote:
I recall reading about it in recent news and strictly in the context of school assignment. There was a highlight that the Hamilton books were loaned from university library...The context was that Hamilton books were perfectly legal and that somone's overzealousness lead to serious problem for some. Martin, The case that Ken wrote about sounds familiar while the one you describe I don't believe I've heard of. Nonetheless both could be true and while Hamilton's books are still legal I would not want to be the one to copy images from the book and disseminate them. Packaging and presentation matter. A xerox of the Hamilton images could very well trigger an investigation and possibly even a prosecution.
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Ken Pegg wrote:
"you would wish your wife or servants to read" FWIW here is the actual quote:
"Would you approve of your young sons, young daughters -- because girls can read as well as boys -- reading this book? Is it a book that you would have lying around in your own house? Is it a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?"
- - - Mervyn Griffith-Jones
[John Mervyn Guthrie Griffith-Jones, CBE MC QC (1 July 1909 - 13 July 1979)]
Studio36
Photographer
Ken Pegg
Posts: 1858
Weymouth, England, United Kingdom
studio36uk wrote:
THIS IS TRUE -IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED!
Studio36 Link? Source?
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Ken Pegg wrote:
Link? Source? Memory, but at the time I was writing / rewriting news clips for H&E and so came across many of these cases which had varying outcomes. There was no prosecution so there is no case to report in the sense of any court record.
Studio36
Photographer
Simmagination
Posts: 3129
Westminster, Maryland, US
John Edward wrote:
Well that's you're your opinion, in my opinion, you're wrong and you can't spell. But you are entitled to have an opinion, even if it's wrong. Fixed that for ya 
But yeah- wrong is an opinion, and legal depends on the law where you are. Intent and content should be considered in this case- artistic concepts have been done by many successful photographers (although they usually catch shit for doing it) so yeah, legal or not, you'll probably bring yourself a lot of grief for using minors for unadorned photography. So unless you are going for extreme controversy and/or possible jail time, it's a good idea to just shoot adults for such things. 
Photographer
The Art of Churchwell
Posts: 3171
QUEENS VILLAGE, New York, US
Jhono Bashian wrote:
it could be a scam or a sting set up by a law enforcement agency. from the fbi branch of Model Mayhem? It not illegal to shoot nudes of any age or posses images of nudes of any age. If it was then the stupid FBI would be arresting everyone who subscribes to National Geographic and the company and employee would all be doing time for child porn.
not illegal, I do not work for National Geographics. I have no reason to shoot under 18 nudes but like JoeyL.com I would instantly if I had the chance. He is making big money from it
Photographer
MKPhoto
Posts: 5665
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
Martin, The case that Ken wrote about sounds familiar while the one you describe I don't believe I've heard of. Nonetheless both could be true and while Hamilton's books are still legal I would not want to be the one to copy images from the book and disseminate them. Packaging and presentation matter. A xerox of the Hamilton images could very well trigger an investigation and possibly even a prosecution. The irony is that it was a university assignment and the book was from the uni library.
As far as copying...I am coming from behind the iron curtain, so am a bit paranoid about authorities as such, and will not even point my camera on a minor who is not my child or a child of my friends.
Photographer
PR Zone
Posts: 897
London, England, United Kingdom
Hi All,
Original poster here
First
It's really refreshing to see just how much energy there is on the MM forums. Every question I've posted generates a great conversation - it's good to see :-)
Second
Before I first posted, I had already contacted an MM mod.
Third
I would have contaced an MM mod if she had ONLY put 'nude'. The fact that she had also ticked Fetish and Erotic is very worrying - and immediately nullifies 95% of the arguments you guys are having with each other - because ticking those boxes AS WELL, removes all doubt
Fourth
You can argue about which age should be used, but I firmly believe that we (as a society - general of MM) has a responsibility to protect the vulnerable. Anyone posting "But she was up for it" is an idiot (regardless of actual wording used).
Judging from the moderator post earlier - MM has a sensible/positive attitude to this subject. To be applauded.
That's my $0.02 worth (all stefano rights acknowledged!)
Photographer
Greg Kolack
Posts: 18392
Elmhurst, Illinois, US
Xylene wrote:
Its just wrong and illigal That's a generalization and its not illegal in many locations.
As many have already said.
Photographer
Doug Jantz
Posts: 4025
Tulsa, Oklahoma, US
The Art of Churchwell wrote:
from the fbi branch of Model Mayhem? It not illegal to shoot nudes of any age or posses images of nudes of any age. If it was then the stupid FBI would be arresting everyone who subscribes to National Geographic and the company and employee would all be doing time for child porn.
not illegal, I do not work for National Geographics. I have no reason to shoot under 18 nudes but like JoeyL.com I would instantly if I had the chance. He is making big money from it Stop sending me private messages then blocking me so you can't get replies
Photographer
MLRPhoto
Posts: 5766
Olivet, Michigan, US
PR Zone wrote:
Fourth
You can argue about which age should be used, but I firmly believe that we (as a society - general of MM) has a responsibility to protect the vulnerable. Anyone posting "But she was up for it" is an idiot (regardless of actual wording used). As a practical matter, when it comes to this topic I tend to be very cautious. Speaking in the hypothetical, "the vulnerable" is not at all well defined by age. Some 16 year olds are far more mature and less vulnerable than some 40 year olds, whether the topic is nude modeling or something totally unrelated.
Photographer
Dan K Studio
Posts: 185
STATEN ISLAND, New York, US
Doug Jantz wrote:
Stop sending me private messages then blocking me so you can't get replies lol he did the same to me. He does like to get the last word.
Photographer
Doug Jantz
Posts: 4025
Tulsa, Oklahoma, US
Dan K Studio wrote:
lol he did the same to me. He does like to get the last word. Oh? I told him I wasn't interested in arguing and to take it elsewhere then he blocked me.
Photographer
Jason Bassett
Posts: 2358
Hollywood, Florida, US
Is it wrong? No. Should it be allowed? Depends on the intentions of the photograph.
I wouldn't do it, but that's just me.
Photographer
Yves Duchamp - Femme
Posts: 24436
Virginia Beach, Virginia, US
PR Zone wrote:
Not sure what the individual laws say in each country, but - for me - it seems fundamentally wrong for a model to say '16' and 'will shoot nude'
There are some profiles on MM which have female models as young as 16, who have ticked nude, fetish and erotic
What's the community opinion on this?
Should nude, erotic and fetish simply be disabled if you registed with an age that's under 18 ? I would shoot a minor in the nude, but not in lingerie. Context is the issue, not the body parts involved...
Photographer
Ken Pegg
Posts: 1858
Weymouth, England, United Kingdom
Shon D.- Femme wrote:
I would shoot a minor in the nude, but not in lingerie. Same here. Just can't get lingerie that fits me.
Photographer
PR Zone
Posts: 897
London, England, United Kingdom
Photographer
Dimitrio
Posts: 1000
Nassau, New Providence, Bahamas
the legality of age 16 and nude photos is based on each individual country.
I think MM puts the option at the discretion of the profile owner. If a 16 year model ticks nudes then she is actually consenting to the website and that type of content.
IMHO If the website doesn't allow such content at that age, then the option shouldn't even appear for the profile owner to be able to select.
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 12067
Grand Rapids, Michigan, US
Dimitrio wrote:
I think MM puts the option at the discretion of the profile owner. If a 16 year model ticks nudes then she is actually consenting to the website and that type of content. No, they don't. Under 18 is not allowed to put nudes on MM, whatever they may "tick."
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
legal in the USA Doug Jantz wrote:
Actually it is. This came to me from a detective after going through this myself lol. He said a girl under 18 topless is NOT illegal. Showing genitals under 18 IS. In the U.S. i don't ever expect cops to be knowledgeable with the laws the charged with enforcing..although they vary a bit state to state, genitals in an image are not illegal, unless it's the point of the image ie:lacivious display of genitalia.
simple full frontal nudity is not illegal.
now, anything sexual (actual or implied, clothed or unclothed) in nature is very illegal.
Photographer
todas_las_caras
Posts: 699
San Francisco, California, US
PR Zone wrote:
Apart from the straight 'icky-ness' factor, with release forms etc - you have the possibility that a model who's too young cannot enter into contracts/consent to 'conditions around image use' etc In California, the governor (jerry moonbeam brown) just signed into law that 12 year old girls can decide for themselves whether to be vaccinated for HPV and cervical cancer without their parents having knowledge of this or giving their consent.
Some kind of precedent???
Photographer
Doug Jantz
Posts: 4025
Tulsa, Oklahoma, US
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
legal in the USA i don't ever expect cops to be knowledgeable with the laws the charged with enforcing..although they vary a bit state to state, genitals in an image are not illegal, unless it's the point of the image ie:lacivious display of genitalia.
simple full frontal nudity is not illegal.
now, anything sexual (actual or implied, clothed or unclothed) in nature is very illegal. When the detective works in the sex crimes unit I would suppose he is Besides, even if it was ok, if an arrest is made and the following publicity ensues, it isn't good , so why do it? :0
Photographer
The Art of Churchwell
Posts: 3171
QUEENS VILLAGE, New York, US
Doug Jantz wrote:
Stop sending me private messages then blocking me so you can't get replies Obviously you did reply as you claimed you did in your next message. I blocked you after your rude reply. If you have a problem with people blocking you complain to the CAM and not on someones thread.
Photographer
Adain At
Posts: 361
Los Angeles, California, US
As others have said, in the U.S. nudity of any age isn't illegal, while sexuality is.
That presents an interesting question, when it comes to teens and things like Import Modeling, which is far and away more sexual than fine-art nudity.
A non-sexual nude teen is 100% legal.
A sexual CLOTHED teen is 100% ILLEGAL.
MM rules are different ,and different countries have different rules, I'm sure, but in the U.S., it's not illegal.
Photographer
Ken Pegg
Posts: 1858
Weymouth, England, United Kingdom
todas_las_caras wrote:
In California, the governor (jerry moonbeam brown) just signed into law that 12 year old girls can decide for themselves whether to be vaccinated for HPV and cervical cancer without their parents having knowledge of this or giving their consent.
Some kind of precedent??? No, statute don't set precedents, courts do. What has a health measure got to do with photographing nudes?
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 12067
Grand Rapids, Michigan, US
Adain At wrote:
That presents an interesting question, when it comes to teens and things like Import Modeling, which is far and away more sexual than fine-art nudity. I'm far from an expert on "import modeling" but since "teens" includes 18 and 19 year olds, I imagine that's where the teenage "import models" typically come from. Even aside from photography rules, it's much easier legally to employ adults.
Photographer
The Art of Churchwell
Posts: 3171
QUEENS VILLAGE, New York, US
Adain At wrote:
As others have said, in the U.S. nudity of any age isn't illegal, while sexuality is.
That presents an interesting question, when it comes to teens and things like Import Modeling, which is far and away more sexual than fine-art nudity.
A non-sexual nude teen is 100% legal.
A sexual CLOTHED teen is 100% ILLEGAL.
MM rules are different ,and different countries have different rules, I'm sure, but in the U.S., it's not illegal. I was in Saint Tropez a few years ago at a nice beach side restaurant called "La Voile Rouge" and while taking beautiful pictures of my mother and family at this club and on the beach the background is filled with youth and teens frolicking and kissing and other natural things totally nude or topless. I also took photos of friends at "Bar Du Solie" while in the background are nude children wrestling on the beach. This images are up on the wall of my parents home. Will they get arrested?
Photographer
Paindancer Productions
Posts: 1587
Long Beach, California, US
another thing to remember...
Nudity is not required to land in trouble with child pornography laws. 'Sexual nature' is open to wide judicial interpretation.
16? Not even worth thinking about.. plenty of other models to work with.
Photographer
Paindancer Productions
Posts: 1587
Long Beach, California, US
The Art of Churchwell wrote:
I was in Saint Tropez a few years ago at a nice beach side restaurant called "La Voile Rouge" and while taking beautiful pictures of my mother and family at this club and on the beach the background is filled with youth and teens frolicking and kissing and other natural things totally nude or topless. I also took photos of friends at "Bar Du Solie" while in the background are nude children wrestling on the beach. This images are up on the wall of my parents home. Will they get arrested? That would be at the discretion of your local law enforcement agency should the images be brought to their attention.
Photographer
The Art of Churchwell
Posts: 3171
QUEENS VILLAGE, New York, US
Paindancer Productions wrote:
That would be at the discretion of your local law enforcement agency should the images be brought to their attention. My father is in law enforcement. It is not illegal to have images of anyone nude. Otherwise National Geographic and everyone with the magazine would be arrested. Anne Liebovitz would be arrested for having nude images of preteens swimming nude in a pool.
Photographer
Larry Quick
Posts: 117
Lake Worth, Florida, US
16 year olds that want to pose nude? that could be a serious problem. At any rate you would have to have their parents consent in writing. And it would be best to have that same parent in attendance for the shoot. We photographers have enough problems sometimes without creating more.
Photographer
QuaeVide
Posts: 5295
Pacifica, California, US
Fergy wrote:
If at anytime a model that is under the age of 18 has the box clicked for "nudes" or states she will do nudes or topless in her profile please use https://www.modelmayhem.com/contactamod
Any questions regarding this, it IS a rule on MM--
You Must Be 16
Members must be 16 years of age or older. Members under 18 are not allowed to display photos that we deem too provocative or revealing. Unless you’re 18 or over you may not display any level of nudity/sheer (that includes “implied” nudity), depictions of bondage or any image that is sexual in nature. The rule you quoted does not seem to apply to the question of whether or not a 16 year old model can indicate that she shoots nudes.
(Can a 16 year old male model do topless?)
Photographer
The Art of Churchwell
Posts: 3171
QUEENS VILLAGE, New York, US
QuaeVide wrote:
The rule you quoted does not seem to apply to the question of whether or not a 16 year old model can indicate that she shoots nudes.
(Can a 16 year old male model do topless?) Can a 16 year old photographer shoot a nude model?
Photographer
QuaeVide
Posts: 5295
Pacifica, California, US
From the discussion in this thread, I would have thought that a model including "erotic" in the genres he/she shoots would be more pertinent than including nudity. (For the curious, there are some 240 under-18 models on MM who indicate that they do erotic shoots.)
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
i don't ever expect cops to be knowledgeable with the laws the charged with enforcing..although they vary a bit state to state, genitals in an image are not illegal, unless it's the point of the image ie:lacivious display of genitalia.
simple full frontal nudity is not illegal.
now, anything sexual (actual or implied, clothed or unclothed) in nature is very illegal. Doug Jantz wrote:
When the detective works in the sex crimes unit I would suppose he is well thats just proves my point, he/she said it was illegal and it's not...
Photographer
Alluring Exposures
Posts: 11400
Casa Grande, Arizona, US
Nude is not illegal in the USA. Erotic and fetish are regardless of clothing worn due to sexual implications/insinuations. PR Zone wrote:
Not sure what the individual laws say in each country, but - for me - it seems fundamentally wrong for a model to say '16' and 'will shoot nude'
There are some profiles on MM which have female models as young as 16, who have ticked nude, fetish and erotic
What's the community opinion on this?
Should nude, erotic and fetish simply be disabled if you registed with an age that's under 18 ?
Photographer
Frankie DiModica
Posts: 29
Los Angeles, California, US
John Edward wrote:
Well that's you're opinion, in my opinion, you're wrong and you can't spell. But you are entitled to have an opinion, even if it's wrong. Did you really just tell someone that there OPINION is wrong?
maybe they should have just thought it silently would that be ok?
idiot
|
