Cherrystone wrote:

There is in Ohio. Google, you will find it.

I cannot find it so the question remains and I will further it for you to say "Can you link me to the law in Ohio that says it is illegal to take images of anyone nude." Otherwise the question is out there and no one can link me to the law that says "taking images of anyone nude is illegal."

The Art of Churchwell wrote:

I cannot find it so the question remains and I will further it for you to say "Can you link me to the law in Ohio that says it is illegal to take images of anyone nude." Otherwise the question is out there and no one can link me to the law that says "taking images of anyone nude is illegal."

http://www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/media/P … 07.323.pdf

Cherrystone wrote:

http://www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/media/P … 07.323.pdf

did you not read?

(1) Photograph any minor who is not the person’s child or ward in a state of nudity,
or create, direct, produce, or transfer any material or performance that shows the
minor in a state of nudity, unless both of the following apply:
(a) The material or performance is, or is to be, sold, disseminated, displayed,
possessed, controlled, brought or caused to be brought into this state, or
presented for a bona fide artistic, medical, scientific, educational, religious,
governmental, judicial, or other proper purpose, by or to a physician,
psychologist, sociologist, scientist, teacher, person pursuing bona fide studies
or research, librarian, clergyman, prosecutor, judge, or other person having a
proper interest in the material or performance;
(b) The minor’s parents, guardian, or custodian consents in writing to the
photographing of the minor, to the use of the minor in the material or
performance, or to the transfer of the material and to the specific manner in
which the material or performance is to be used.
(2) Consent to the photographing of the person’s minor child or ward, or photograph
the person’s minor child or ward, in a state of nudity or consent to the use of the
person’s minor child or ward in a state of nudity in any material or performance,
or use or transfer a material or performance of that nature, unless the material or
performance is sold, disseminated, displayed, possessed, controlled, brought or
caused to be brought into this state, or presented for a bona fide artistic, medical,
scientific, educational, religious, governmental, judicial, or other proper purpose,
by or to a physician, psychologist, sociologist, scientist, teacher, person pursuing
bona fide studies or research, librarian, clergyman, prosecutor, judge, or other
person having a proper interest in the material or performance.



my question still remains

The Art of Churchwell wrote:

Again the misinformation.in a few states you are a Adult at 16. In fact your a adult at 17 here in NYC

So at 17, in NYC you can be photographed nude/enter into a legally binding contract/claim welfare?
Which states are 16?

Photography by Sharyn wrote:

So at 17, in NYC you can be photographed nude/enter into a legally binding contract/claim welfare?
Which states are 16?

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st16196175

Photography by Sharyn wrote:

So at 17, in NYC you can be photographed nude/enter into a legally binding contract/claim welfare?
Which states are 16?

You can be photographed nude anywhere in the USA at any age.

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
You can be photographed nude anywhere in the USA at any age.

It may be legal but wouldn't  your society think it's morally wrong/borderline!?

It's a boundary I wouldn't want to cross and certainly wouldn't shout about.

Vanquish-photographic wrote:

It may be legal but wouldn't  your society think it's morally wrong/borderline!?

It's a boundary I wouldn't want to cross and certainly wouldn't shout about.

Absolutely. If a nudest family wants images of their family the way they are and they pay me I guess I may shoot them but I won't make a teeshirt out of the image.
If someone like National Geographics or someone pays me to take images of the nude Dinka tribes in Africa I surely will do it without hesitation and not because of the nudity but actually for the animals roaming the sunsets.
I can never see myself taking images of youth nude and selling the book in libraries or on Amazon.com like Jock Sturges, Sally Mann or a handful of others do.
I don't need to make movies called "Pretty baby" or "Blue Lagoon" or to have posters of 14 year olds telling people no one comes in her jeans.
My point in all my post was people were saying it is illegal. It's not but just because I haven't shot it doesn't mean it is illegal. Just haven't come across a reason for it.
There are lots of 14 year olds walking down the runway in see-through outfits on Youtube and enough nude images and movies of teenagers on youtube to prove it isn't illegal.
Hope this settles the question.

Cherrystone wrote:
There is in Ohio. Google, you will find it.

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
I cannot find it so the question remains and I will further it for you to say "Can you link me to the law in Ohio that says it is illegal to take images of anyone nude." Otherwise the question is out there and no one can link me to the law that says "taking images of anyone nude is illegal."

Actually I'm pretty sure if you Google it, Ohio has some pretty lenient laws on nudity, even artistic nudity in public.  Some were due to big lawsuits/challenges, others I'm not sure why.  I looked it up a few years ago -- 5-6 -- when we were going to do something in Columbus.

But I shot nudes in state parks even 10 years ago in Ohio, and once the rangers came over. The *MOST* that happened _ONCE_ was a lady ranger came over, after watching us for awhile, and said someone "complained" we had a naked lady, and if we were doing nudes to just TRY to make sure no one was around.  This was BEFORE the Internet, and cell phones fitting into a pocket, etc.


Scott

BodyartBabes wrote:

Cherrystone wrote:
There is in Ohio. Google, you will find it.

Actually I'm pretty sure if you Google it, Ohio has some pretty lenient laws on nudity, even artistic nudity in public.  Some were due to big lawsuits/challenges, others I'm not sure why.  I looked it up a few years ago -- 5-6 -- when we were going to do something in Columbus.

But I shot nudes in state parks even 10 years ago in Ohio, and once the rangers came over. The *MOST* that happened _ONCE_ was a lady ranger came over, after watching us for awhile, and said someone "complained" we had a naked lady, and if we were doing nudes to just TRY to make sure no one was around.  This was BEFORE the Internet, and cell phones fitting into a pocket, etc.


Scott

right, people who should never be nude like to say "it's illegal" when they see someone nude. shooting anyone nude is not illegal.

John Edward wrote:
First off, right or wrong is a personal opinion.

Definitely no so. Right or Wrong is enshrined in the law. Suppose you belong to religion in which cannabis is a sacrament. Your personal opinion that it is right will not keep you from being prosecuted.

Oh Gary photography wrote:

Definitely no so. Right or Wrong is enshrined in the law. Suppose you belong to religion in which cannabis is a sacrament. Your personal opinion that it is right will not keep you from being prosecuted.

Mormons like to marry many wives

The Art of Churchwell wrote:

Mormons like to marry many wives

My point exactly.

Oh Gary photography wrote:

My point exactly.

Kinda. Smoking pot is not illegal. Possessing it is

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
Absolutely. If a nudest family wants images of their family the way they are and they pay me I guess I may shoot them but I won't make a teeshirt out of the image.
If someone like National Geographics or someone pays me to take images of the nude Dinka tribes in Africa I surely will do it without hesitation and not because of the nudity but actually for the animals roaming the sunsets.
I can never see myself taking images of youth nude and selling the book in libraries or on Amazon.com like Jock Sturges, Sally Mann or a handful of others do.
I don't need to make movies called "Pretty baby" or "Blue Lagoon" or to have posters of 14 year olds telling people no one comes in her jeans.
My point in all my post was people were saying it is illegal. It's not but just because I haven't shot it doesn't mean it is illegal. Just haven't come across a reason for it.
There are lots of 14 year olds walking down the runway in see-through outfits on Youtube and enough nude images and movies of teenagers on youtube to prove it isn't illegal.
Hope this settles the question.

VERY good point.

You photograph naked kids in some Indonesia jungle for national geographic, you're a photographer.

You photograph next doors kids naked you're a paedophile.

Vito wrote:
Oh, and by the way, a minor can sign (almost any) contract. The problem is they can also rescind it (or their parents can). That is why you need a parent/guardian's signature on a model release or a contract (a model release, well at least a TRUE model release is NOT a contract by the way).

That is a debate that has been going on, on this site for years and there will never be agreement.  I will never make that statement because if lawyers can't agree, how can we agree.

My brother, a nationally known attorney and law professor, has lectured me repeatedly about why your statement is nonesense.  He is incredibly adamant that a release is a contract and makes pursuasive arguments to that fact.  He particularly points to a recent case he won on that very issue.  He claimed that a release (although not a model release) was a contract the opposing party claimed it was not.  The case was decided on the issue and it was held that a release is, indeed a contract.  Note that a release, is nothing more than a waiver of liability.

That having been said, I am friends with a very competent, attorney on this site, who happens to do a fair amount of IP work.  He is adamant, as you are, that a release is not a contract.  His position is that it is technically not a contract, but any dispute related to a release would be resolved using the principles of contract law.  He also makes some pursuasive arguments.

I have stopped taking sides and have decided that it makes no difference at all.  Whether a model release is a contract or it is not seems irrelevant to me.  Whether you have a contract that is resolve in court using the principles of contract law, or something else which is decided the exact same way, to me seems nothing more than legal minutae. I have a hard time seeing the practical difference.

Likewise, we use the term "release" to refer to any document that gives the consent of the subject to use her likeness.  Strictly speaking, it is only a release if it is a waiver of rights.  There are, however, plenty of ways to structure a consent document which are not a contract, particulrly if there is no consideration involved.  The industry would refer to those as a release, but in legal terms, they technically are not.

The Art of Churchwell wrote:

did you not read?

my question still remains

Yeah I read, and you got exactly what you asked for, a law that makes nudes illegal, which you claimed didn't exist.

'Cause you want to pick it apart to suit your agenda, is no matter to me.

Cherrystone wrote:
Yeah I read, and you got exactly what you asked for, a law that makes nudes illegal, which you claimed didn't exist.

'Cause you want to pick it apart to suit your agenda, is no matter to me.

That law does NOT make nudes illegal. I don't know if you read the same thing or if the legalese of it was beyond comprehension, but it states that nudes (of minors) are allowed if a) for artistic (among other reasons) and b) a parent consents.

However, there is probably another law that will forbid sexually explicit depictions of minors. But just plain old artistic nudes are not illegal.

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'

Why?  Can you not look at a nude image of a minor without thinking dirty, sexual thoughts?  Why do you find it essentially wrong?  Can you articulate a reason that doesn't involve the perspective of the social "morality police"?  Why do you feel the need to impose your value system on anyone else?

In the long run, I always ask myself this question:

Are we protecting the children or are we protecting adults from themselves?

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
right, people who should never be nude like to say "it's illegal" when they see someone nude. shooting anyone nude is not illegal.

Some say it's illegal, others say it legal. You're both wrong. Some nudes of minors are legal and some aren't. Do you know which? Why don't you give us some examples? For instance, take your portfolio. If the model were under 18, which images would still be legal? Use 18 USC 2252A as your reference. Some state laws are more restrictive, but let's start with the federal law. If you need some help, try these guys at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/

Cherrystone wrote:

Yeah I read, and you got exactly what you asked for, a law that makes nudes illegal, which you claimed didn't exist.

'Cause you want to pick it apart to suit your agenda, is no matter to me.

hahaha, I didn't pick it apart. I posted exactly what they wrote. hahaha. You can't read one line. You cannot say "We the people" is the whole constitution

Vito wrote:

That law does NOT make nudes illegal. I don't know if you read the same thing or if the legalese of it was beyond comprehension, but it states that nudes (of minors) are allowed if a) for artistic (among other reasons) and b) a parent consents.

However, there is probably another law that will forbid sexually explicit depictions of minors. But just plain old artistic nudes are not illegal.

she doesn't want to read that part. Says Im nit picking

Thornton Harris wrote:
Some say it's illegal, others say it legal. You're both wrong. Some nudes of minors are legal and some aren't. Do you know which? Why don't you give us some examples? For instance, take your portfolio. If the model were under 18, which images would still be legal? Use 18 USC 2252A as your reference. Some state laws are more restrictive, but let's start with the federal law. If you need some help, try these guys at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/

There isn't anyone in my portfolio, dress or not that is not 18 or older. Not my fault. I have not shot anyone under 18. I do not search for models under 18. I also do not search for models that are only 18 or older. My portfolio and websites are just fine thank you. As a victim of child abuse myself I do know what the difference between shooting nudes in South Africa and taking pictures of children having sex or having children photographed nude in sexual positions or with the intent of sexually arousing the viewer. Hope that helps you

Your link doesn't describe what child abuse or exploitation of children or women is.

Thornton Harris wrote:
Some say it's illegal, others say it legal. You're both wrong. Some nudes of minors are legal and some aren't. Do you know which? Why don't you give us some examples? For instance, take your portfolio. If the model were under 18, which images would still be legal? Use 18 USC 2252A as your reference. Some state laws are more restrictive, but let's start with the federal law. If you need some help, try these guys at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/

I agree with your point completely except that I would suggest using 18 USC 2256 as your guideline, not 18 USC 2257a.  2257 and 2257a are statutes that mandate recordkeeping.  18 USC 2256 is the statute that defines child pornography, i.e. what is prohibitted with a model under 18.

The recordkeeping keeping statutes use guidelines similar to that which is in 2256, but 2256 is really what controls the definition.

That having been said, your post is right on target.  Well put on you part.

ei Total Productions wrote:

I agree with your point completely except that I would suggest using 18 USC 2256 as your guideline, not 18 USC 2257a.  2257 and 2257a are statutes that mandate recordkeeping.  18 USC 2256 is the statute that defines child pornography, i.e. what is prohibitted with a model under 18.

The recordkeeping keeping statutes use guidelines similar to that which is in 2256, but 2256 is really what controls the definition.

That having been said, your post is right on target.  Well put on you part.

Doesn't say anything about taking nude images of anyone anywhere. Why throw stuff out when it isn't accurately describing what people are asking.
Please provide a link where it says it is illegal to take images of anyone nude in the United States. Not sexually explicit nudes of anyone, not anyone smoking a cigar, not anyone under the desk of a President but nude images of anyone. There is no law saying it is wrong. if it was then anyone who owns a National Geographic Magazine should line up at the local FBI office and turn themselves in.
Anyone got a Album cover with nude 14 year old girl on it? Line up
Anyone got a Album with a nude baby swimming the the pool? Line up
Anyone got Sears Catalog with children in their underwear or diapers? Line up people
Anyone got "Campus" issues of Playboy? Line up
Anyone got American Beauty Rose move? Blue Lagoon? Pretty baby? Line up people.
Anyone have pictures of the Gay parade here in NYC? Go straight...er, no pun there, Go straight to your FBI building.
Anyone got images from the Mermaid Parade at Coney Island? You better get your Rikers island best clothing together cause according to some here on Model Mayhem it is illegal.
Also watch out for Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Mlle, and especially the french magazine such was Paris Match.

The list can go on. I am not a expert nor do I seek out these images but as a Photographer I see them

ei Total Productions wrote:
...
That having been said, your post is right on target.  Well put on you part.

That's a two not a seven. 2252A is the section that makes it illegal to shoot certain nude images of children. We're not talking about record keeping. But, you're right that section also refers to the definitions in 2256. But, I don't expect some people to bother reading those definitions...

ei Total Productions wrote:
...
That having been said, your post is right on target.  Well put on you part.

Thornton Harris wrote:
That's a two not a seven. 2252A is the section that makes it illegal to shoot certain nude images of children. We're not talking about record keeping. But, you're right that section also refers to the definitions in 2256. But, I don't expect some people to bother reading those definitions...

You are correct, I misread your post. Apologies

ei Total Productions wrote:
I agree with your point completely except that I would suggest using 18 USC 2256 as your guideline, not 18 USC 2257a.  2257 and 2257a are statutes that mandate recordkeeping.  18 USC 2256 is the statute that defines child pornography, i.e. what is prohibitted with a model under 18.

The recordkeeping keeping statutes use guidelines similar to that which is in 2256, but 2256 is really what controls the definition.

That having been said, your post is right on target.  Well put on you part.

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
Doesn't say anything about taking nude images of anyone anywhere. Why throw stuff out when it isn't accurately describing what people are asking.
Please provide a link where it says it is illegal to take images of anyone nude in the United States. Not sexually explicit nudes of anyone, not anyone smoking a cigar, not anyone under the desk of a President but nude images of anyone. There is no law saying it is wrong. if it was then anyone who owns a National Geographic Magazine should line up at the local FBI office and turn themselves in.
Anyone got a Album cover with nude 14 year old girl on it? Line up
Anyone got a Album with a nude baby swimming the the pool? Line up
Anyone got Sears Catalog with children in their underwear or diapers? Line up people
Anyone got "Campus" issues of Playboy? Line up
Anyone got American Beauty Rose move? Blue Lagoon? Pretty baby? Line up people.
Anyone have pictures of the Gay parade here in NYC? Go straight...er, no pun there, Go straight to your FBI building.
Anyone got images from the Mermaid Parade at Coney Island? You better get your Rikers island best clothing together cause according to some here on Model Mayhem it is illegal.
Also watch out for Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Mlle, and especially the french magazine such was Paris Match.

The list can go on. I am not a expert nor do I seek out these images but as a Photographer I see them

Who said anythign about "nude?"  What it describes is what is and is not lawful when taking images of a sexual nature of a minor.  The courts have found images that were non-nude to be illegal and images that are nude which are legal.  You shouldn't fixate on the word "nude."

ei Total Productions wrote:
You are correct, I misread your post. Apologies

No problem, telling people where to find the definitions was a good addition.

I'd like to open the discussion up to everyone that says nude images of children are legal. Pick one of your nude images of an 18 or over model. Tell us if that image would still be legal if the model were under 18. Why or why not? Does who shot the photograph make a difference? Does where it is published or displayed make a difference? Does an accompanying caption or story make a difference?

Extra credit if you can identify the use of the subjunctive in the above and understand what it means.

Thornton Harris wrote:
No problem, telling people where to find the definitions was a good addition.

I'd like to open the discussion up to everyone that says nude images of children are legal. Pick one of your nude images of an 18 or over model. Tell us if that image would still be legal if the model were under 18. Why or why not? Does who shot the photograph make a difference? Does where it is published or displayed make a difference? Does an accompanying caption or story make a difference?

Extra credit if you can identify the use of the subjunctive in the above and understand what it means.

Might be best if you stay away from the "National Geographic" section in the Library cause you will be calling the FBI trying to convince them they have new laws concerning nudity of anyone. There is nothing in what you have "linked" that says taking images of anyone nude is illegal.
Also put on a blindfold when going to Amazon.com cause there are USA photographers who have been shooting nudes of every age successfully and selling their books in every bookstore and every online bookstore for years. That may get you upset enough to "open new discussion" and create new "allusions" trying to say shooting nudes of anyone is illegal.  http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss? … &x=19&y=16

Isserley wrote:

On ModelMayhem, models under 18 are not allowed to do nudes. So if you see someone who ticks that box or says so on their profile (or especially when they have any nudes or implied posted): CAM it.

For shits and giggles, I searched for that and there is not one person in the US that is under 18 with shoots nudes turned on.  Glad to see that.

Las Vegas Glamour wrote:

For shits and giggles, I searched for that and there is not one person in the US that is under 18 with shoots nudes turned on.  Glad to see that.

Yeah - they all grew up and turned 18 since the thread was started!

Las Vegas Glamour wrote:

For shits and giggles, I searched for that and there is not one person in the US that is under 18 with shoots nudes turned on.  Glad to see that.

And you felt it necessary to upchuck this old thread to tell us this?

S W I N S K E Y wrote:

legal in the USA

with adult supervision