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

Second off, anything is legal for publication in a medical textbook.

Third off, MM has way too many folks spouting "Absolutes."

Lastly, for those of you need to Grow Up a little, try googling Naturist Magazines.

+100

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.

Camming makes no difference, I did this with a 16 year old french girl advertising for nude shoots in England. Nothing happened. Last time I looked, she was still casting!

MMB Photos - Artistique wrote:
I honestly don't see the problem.

It is illegal to cross a railroad in Quebec; even in full sun, with full visibility, with no danger at all. Police actually apply this law. It seems ridiculous, but a law exists only when there has been abuses in the past.

Well of course with the Le Jou du Prochain Train, AFR, and all, I'd enforce that law pretty strictly, as well.  ;-)

Raw and the cooked wrote:
Camming makes no difference, I did this with a 16 year old french girl advertising for nude shoots in England. Nothing happened. Last time I looked, she was still casting!

Because the "under 18 rule on nudity"  is for this website only.  It's not illegal.  Obscene and pornographic images are.  So since it is a Modelmayhem rule,  CAMMING only works if they are not asleep at the wheel.

By the way, did anyone notice that this thread was started back in October of last year?  It should be locked!

Digital Hands wrote:
It is possible that the model mistyped the numbers. It should read 26, not 16?

Age on your profile is based on DOB, so that it changes automaticly as you age.  Still possible to be a typo, but not likely.

Tansy Blue wrote:
I remember (back in the daaaaay) when 16 year olds were on page 3 (I would've been 10, stuff),

Tansy, why must you make an old girl cry?

(I was already a fetish model when that happened, and too old for it to affect me)

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 ?

it only became prohibited in the UK in 2003, page 3 used to frequently have 16 year old topless models

oh damn, old thread.

Emi Rose wrote:

IMO yes, absolutely.
Maybe newer models just tick every option without actually reading what they say?  Just a thought..

This.

I recall a young model that had ticked Swimsuit, then said she didnt do swimsuit until she was older.

-Ira wrote:
Nudity ≠ Sexuality

Exactly. I don't think there is anything wrong with photographing children nude at any age as long as it is done with their permission and the consent of their parents.

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 registered with an age that's under 18 ?

Putting personal ethics aside, we are really only talking about two things here - Child pornography and the Legal age.

"Obscenity is a legal term that applies to anything offensive to morals and is often equated with the term pornography. Pornography, however, is a more limited term, which refers to the erotic content of books, magazines, films, and recordings."

Unfortunately the absolute definition of pornography is as interpreted by local authorities. Individuals, cops, prosecutors, district courts, etc., all have their opinions. In some jurisdictions the definition may also include swimwear, lingerie or provocative poses.

What they all agree on is what constitutes a child, and that's anyone under the age of majority.

In most western countries, 16 is the age of consent.  A girl can legally consent to having sex, with anyone.  She can walk around nude.  Can party how she likes.  As long as its for free.  Is not getting paid or compensated to walk around nude (or for sex), its of her free will.  It can be argued that walking around nude in front of a photographer at a studio could be part of some  business arrangement, its not strictly partying.  However if its at the beach or a pool party, then sounds like fun to me.

However in most western countries, 18 is the age of majority, the legal adult age. Its only when 18 that a model can sign a contract themselves.  No contract - no release.  Photos of underage models cannot be published.   Some parents will co-sign releases for nude photos of their daughters. However this may only stand-up if the photos are innocent, there is no hint of sexual exploitation going on, but someone else could challenge the competency of the parents or define the images as being obscene. 

In Aussie, photos of minors with parental consent were published last year (I think) and there was a huge public stink about it.  Although artistic in nature, the public and media in some countries don't see it that way.  If there is a complaint, in most countries the photographer and publishers will be required to prove that any material produced is not underage porn, and nothing will happen to the model.  She will be the victim.

So lets say an underage model gets some free nude photos done - in practice it makes a difference how and where they were taken, but what can she do with them?  What can the photographer do with them?  They can't be published.  The risks are so high that they will be leaked into the public domain and tracked back, that always happens eventually. So what's the point?  Private collection?  Or what?  A fantasy thing?  I get the model wanting to exercise their sense of liberty and independence.  Just find someone else do it with.

The difficulty with this issue can be illustrated with this simple anecdote (which I saw someplace some time ago). A complaint was made by the parents of a 16yr old girl involved in group sex with some men.  The only man arrested and charged was the man that videoed the activities (but otherwise didn't participate).

The moral of the story? Pictures of minors involving anything locally interpreted as being provocative can bring on a world of grief to the photographers and publishers involved.  Even though strictly speaking it may not be illegal, it may cost a lot to prove that's the case.  Its often a guilty until proven innocent situation.

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
Mormons like to marry many wives

Oh Gary photography wrote:
My point exactly.

False.. just saying.. I am one and you would get excommunicated if you did have more then one wife.

There are off shoots of the church just like any other religion that might practice it, but they aren't of the LDS faith.

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

Second off, anything is legal for publication in a medical textbook.

Third off, MM has way too many folks spouting "Absolutes."

Lastly, for those of you need to Grow Up a little, try googling Naturist Magazines.

This should have ended the thread LONG ago.

SilverStudio wrote:
Skipped to the bottom to get the real story and  it was not there.  Any way parents can not sign for minors that want to do nude images(here in the USA).

Please rethink your post:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cp=8 … rQHvuuyvCg
It's perfectly legal, even here in the good ol' U.S A.

Savannah C B wrote:
As a 16 year old model myself, that's ridiculous. Minors have to be accompanied by a parent to a shoot usually, don't they? Would they be comfortable with their underage daughter shooting nude? I don't think so. Also, although it's been said before, I agree that lots of models probably just tick off all the boxes without thinking, but erotic/fetish/nude ect. should be disabled to members under 18.

You are not familiar with Nudism/Naturism are you?... didn't think so.

Nudity doesn't equal sex.

At naturist resorts you have "underage" nudity all the time and guess what? Parent's permission on top of it.


The problem is too many people are equating nudity with sexual imagery.. and that isn't the case 100% of the time.

You would be surprised what a 'non-prude' family will sign to get a NUDE family portrait done. (ages ranging from 6, to 13, to 17 and beyond.)

Wysiwyg Photography wrote:
You are not familiar with Nudism/Naturism are you?... didn't think so.

Nudity doesn't equal sex.

At naturist resorts you have "underage" nudity all the time and guess what? Parent's permission on top of it.


The problem is too many people are equating nudity with sexual imagery.. and that isn't the case 100% of the time.

You would be surprised what a 'non-prude' family will sign to get a NUDE family portrait done. (ages ranging from 6, to 13, to 17 and beyond.)

You're right, I was only thinking about it in association with sex. In a situation that you described, it would be acceptable, but regardless, erotic and fetish shots still seem inappropriate.

Savannah C B wrote:

You're right, I was only thinking about it in association with sex. In a situation that you described, it would be acceptable, but regardless, erotic and fetish shots still seem inappropriate.

erotic, I 100% agree with you... clothed or nude, that should always be 18+.

Fetish... well, that's a little gray.. as sometimes it's hard to see the intent of the shoot.

a 16 year old model might be contacted for a 'shoe fetish' shoot and the model can be fully clothed for something like that... fetish doesn't have to include bondage or other "18+" activities...
You are right though, I would steer clear of fetish with anyone under 18.. but some shoots might be a little more difficult to spot as "fetish" and would technically be OK for a minor to shoot.

Savannah C B wrote:
As a 16 year old model myself, that's ridiculous. Minors have to be accompanied by a parent to a shoot usually, don't they? Would they be comfortable with their underage daughter shooting nude? I don't think so. Also, although it's been said before, I agree that lots of models probably just tick off all the boxes without thinking, but erotic/fetish/nude ect. should be disabled to members under 18.

And as a 16 year old model myself I feel I should reserve the right to shoot whatever the hell I want to. Was I born wearing clothes? No? Then why are they necessary? Most everyone knows what I'll generally look like under there and shooting nude in an artistic nature is not illegal. Just frowned upon for idiotic reasons.

Presley ONeil wrote:
And as a 16 year old model myself I feel I should reserve the right to shoot whatever the hell I want to. Was I born wearing clothes? No? Then why are they necessary? Most everyone knows what I'll generally look like under there and shooting nude in an artistic nature is not illegal. Just frowned upon for idiotic reasons.

While I support your free-spiritedness and would have no personal problems with shooting artistic work with you in principle, unfortunately there is indeed a small minority of perverts who seek to exploit young girls (and boys) and the child pornography laws are an attempt (albeit a clumsy one) to prevent that.

The law in most Western countries puts the onus of responsibility on the photographer not to shoot anything inappropriate with underage models. I don't agree with the way the laws are framed (as it leads to a lot of uncertainty and confusion) but the intention is correct. The awkward 'gap' between the age of consent and the age when somebody is considered an adult makes the whole thing seem even more ridiculous - and indeed in some cases it is - but again, the intention is correct and if the laws stop just one child from being abused and exploited then they are worth having.

The solution (for photographers) is easy - just don't shoot anything remotely risque with underage models. Personally, I will only shoot under 18 models for agency tests and would never consider shooting nudes even though I have no moral objection to it. There's just too much risk in the way the laws are worded to make it worthwhile regardless of how amazing any particular model might be.

The solution (for models) is to wait until they are 18 before shooting anything that could be considered 'risque', including of course nudes. While that may be frustrating, there are plenty of other things you can shoot and it's only for a couple of years. Once you're 18 then you can shoot whatever the heck you like without putting your photographer at risk of prosecution.



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:

While I support your free-spiritedness and would have no personal problems with shooting artistic work with you in principle, unfortunately there is indeed a small minority of perverts who seek to exploit young girls (and boys) and the child pornography laws are an attempt (albeit a clumsy one) to prevent that.

The law in most Western countries puts the onus of responsibility on the photographer not to shoot anything inappropriate with underage models. I don't agree with the way the laws are framed (as it leads to a lot of uncertainty and confusion) but the intention is correct. The awkward 'gap' between the age of consent and the age when somebody is considered an adult makes the whole thing seem even more ridiculous - and indeed in some cases it is - but again, the intention is correct and if the laws stop just one child from being abused and exploited then they are worth having.

The solution (for photographers) is easy - just don't shoot anything remotely risque with underage models. Personally, I will only shoot under 18 models for agency tests and would never consider shooting nudes even though I have no moral objection to it. There's just too much risk in the way the laws are worded to make it worthwhile regardless of how amazing any particular model might be.

The solution (for models) is to wait until they are 18 before shooting anything that could be considered 'risque', including of course nudes. While that may be frustrating, there are plenty of other things you can shoot and it's only for a couple of years. Once you're 18 then you can shoot whatever the heck you like without putting your photographer at risk of prosecution.



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com

I completely understand, it's just very frustrating when I know I'm going to end up in certain genres and I have to sit around shooting a bunch of other things for years before I get to start.

Presley ONeil wrote:
I completely understand, it's just very frustrating when I know I'm going to end up in certain genres and I have to sit around shooting a bunch of other things for years before I get to start.

Shooting anything is better than shooting nothing and it's all good experience. And you could always take up photography and shoot self portraits if you want to experiment with other styles. Just make sure none of the files ever leave your computer!

As for sitting around... have you finished your homework?!!




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:

Shooting anything is better than shooting nothing and it's all good experience. And you could always take up photography and shoot self portraits if you want to experiment with other styles. Just make sure none of the files ever leave your computer!

As for sitting around... have you finished your homework?!!




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Yes I have(-: and I suppose something is better than nothing!(:

Presley ONeil wrote:

I completely understand, it's just very frustrating when I know I'm going to end up in certain genres and I have to sit around shooting a bunch of other things for years before I get to start.

There are photographers who will shoot you in lingerie, bikini swim wear and even implied nudes that are very glamorous!  There very well maybe some who will shoot you in art nudes.  They wont talk about here out of fear.  You could be getting great images that are classy and not pornographic in any sense of the word, yet there are people in charge or known as "local authority" that will have a different mind set.  In their opinion, it is wrong. Sad, isn't it? 

There is a photographer who has pushed the envelope and won in the court of law.  www.trueteenbabes.com  If you are not near the owner of that website, or if that particular photography work doesn't appeal to you ... what can you do but wait?  You've got less than 2 years before you can do whatever style of modeling you want.  It will go by fast!  Trust me on that one!

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
Shooting anything is better than shooting nothing and it's all good experience. And you could always take up photography and shoot self portraits if you want to experiment with other styles. Just make sure none of the files ever leave your computer!

As for sitting around... have you finished your homework?!!




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

I remember when I could shoot artistic black and white images of nude models of whomever I wanted on film.  Then I'd process it myself and make prints.  There was no eager model waiting to post the images on the Internet back then! There was a limited number of people that would see only the images I wanted to show.  Now I have to be careful because some eager 16 year old will load any images she can get her hands on.  Sometimes I miss those days.  Sure, I might photograph an exceptional 16 year old in lingerie, or even implied, but man I don't like the feel of authorities looking over my shoulders.   I starting to feel old, my friend!  That scares me! 

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

No, but their parents/legal guardians can - which is why you should leave a field for that on your release forms and usage agreements - oh, wait - you don't strictly need them in the UK, do you?

Which is why I always used them anyway, required or not...

Presley ONeil wrote:

I completely understand, it's just very frustrating when I know I'm going to end up in certain genres and I have to sit around shooting a bunch of other things for years before I get to start.

I checked out your website.  You are doing fine.

-Ira wrote:
Nudity ≠ Sexuality

this needs to be drummed into the brains of our moronic society

Raw and the cooked wrote:
David Hamilton, artist or pedophile! Discuss, or is this threadjacking?

word is, he was inappropriate with some of the girls...and not a pedophile as the girls were usually pubescent or post pubescent..

probably a scumbag, but a great photographer..

S W I N S K E Y wrote:
word is, he was inappropriate with some of the girls...and not a pedophile as the girls were usually pubescent or post pubescent..

probably a scumbag, but a great photographer..

Actually, he married one of his models and was by all accounts faithful to her until they parted company.
I hear a lot of rumour and innuendo surrounding the man but have yet to come across any hard evidence that he was in any way "inappropriate" other than in his chosen subject matter...
Which is subjective in any case...

Andrew Koenig wrote:
Most states in the USA allow people between 16 and 18 to marry with parental consent, so I don't see any reason they should not be allowed to serve as nude models at that age either, provided that they don't do anything for which 2257 documentation is required.

The one has pretty much nothing to do with the other.  Legally, and "morally."

Quite often, those who would restrict nudity in art are supportive of early marriage, and those who would embrace nudity in art oppose early marriage.

S W I N S K E Y wrote:
word is, he was inappropriate with some of the girls...and not a pedophile as the girls were usually pubescent or post pubescent..

probably a scumbag, but a great photographer..

I have a copy of his rather bad movie Bilitis, should the cops come and arrest me? By the way, your  comment about "not a pedophile as the girls were  usually pubescent or post pubescent" makes no sense!

Raw and the cooked wrote:

I have a copy of his rather bad movie Bilitis, should the cops come and arrest me? By the way, your  comment about "not a pedophile as the girls were  usually pubescent or post pubescent" makes no sense!

Per the definition at Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia)

As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or paedophilia, is defined as a psychiatric disorder in persons who are 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally those under the age of 14, though onset of puberty varies). The prepubescent child must be at least five years younger than the adolescent before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.