studio36uk wrote:
Here's a little observation for those who have said that the girl is not mature enough to decide. This is the position in the UK on that:

16 is the age of sexual consent - a girl of 16+1 day can have sexual relations, on their own decision, with anyone they choose, even a 40, 50 0r 60 year old. Legally their parents have nothing at all to say about it. And legally the reverse is just as true - the 40, 50, 60 year old has nothing to fear from the law if they have a relationship with a 16+1 day year old.

SO - - -

You can f**k their little brains silly you just can't take their picture while they are doing it. They can't take their own picture while they are doing it.

ALTERNATIVELY  - - - for instance

You could go to nude beach and watch, in the flesh so to speak, all the naked U-16's there to your heart's content. Taking pictures of them is a whole other thing, altogether.

The law may be, as the expression goes, an ass, but it is the law.

Studio36

LEGALLY, that is correct...however we ALL know that 16 year olds are NOT mature enough to make these type of decisions.

Cherrystone wrote:

The law says you can in many instances.
Photographs are open to interpretation.
Prosecutors love to interpret things differently.

The most notorious case in this country is probably Jock Sturges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_Sturges) who, although finally vindicated very nearly went to jail for a situation pretty much as you describe.

The law does not always protect the innocent.  I would explain my concerns to the young lady and her parents and suggest that they wait till she's at least 18.

phil_M wrote:
I have been asked by a family that I know to shoot some  tasteful topless/ art nude shots of their daughter who is 16 years old. They are a naturist family and are looking at art images nothing else. I just worry about what other people might think. The family are fine with nudity and see no wrong in it. Any thoughts out there?

CRAZY and Jail CRAZY. I'm sure you have juries over there who might not be naturalist. So when the 16 year old is in school and someone, perhaps the 16 year olds classmates and they find out YOU shot her topless, YOU get arrested for the towns interpretation of the law, and found guilty for the juries interpretation of the law, then  it's not going to matter what the family thought was ok, and not going to matter what the law said. Your sentence will just be in the juries hand, who might want to lock you up if you shot an adult topless. Don't play with matches.

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
LEGALLY, that is correct...however we ALL know that 16 year olds are NOT mature enough to make these type of decisions.

Really?

I know some very mature 16 year olds, and some very not mature older people - does age decide this, or is it just up to you and your stereotypes?



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Andrew Thomas Evans wrote:
I know some very mature 16 year olds, and some very not mature older people - does age decide this, or is it just up to you and your stereotypes?

And I know plenty of mature 16 year olds who would throw your ass in front of the bus - then kick your remains under the train - to save their own bacon.  What appears mature at first blush, turns into a blubbering mess of "doing whatever mom/dad says" when the heat is on.

Truth will fail when stacked up against mom and dad paying for school, etc.

phil_M wrote:
I have been asked by a family that I know to shoot some  tasteful topless/ art nude shots of their daughter who is 16 years old. They are a naturist family and are looking at art images nothing else. I just worry about what other people might think. The family are fine with nudity and see no wrong in it. Any thoughts out there?

blacquejack wrote:
I call that child poronography

And this, Swinsky, is why I'd never shoot it.

Not because I think it's wrong to do so, I don't.  Hell, if half the people here knew how old many of the nude images in fashion mags are girls under 18, they'd probably have a seizure.  Now, if it were for such a use, in a mainstream European rag?  Sure I would.

I even agree with you that, as our laws are written it isn't illegal. But laws get interpreted and, as long as there are talibanesque people like this out there, there's no reason to take that chance for a small time gig.

William Kious wrote:
And I know plenty of mature 16 year olds who would throw your ass in front of the bus - then kick your remains under the train - to save their own bacon.  What appears mature at first blush, turns into a blubbering mess of "doing whatever mom/dad says" when the heat is on.

Truth will fail when stacked up against mom and dad paying for school, etc.

And...


How is that,



any





Different




than some random ass



model





Saying you tried to rape her?


Risk is everywhere.



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

phil_M wrote:
I have been asked by a family that I know to shoot some  tasteful topless/ art nude shots of their daughter who is 16 years old. They are a naturist family and are looking at art images nothing else. I just worry about what other people might think. The family are fine with nudity and see no wrong in it. Any thoughts out there?

The fact that you are here asking our opinions tells me that you're not convinced yourself that it is a good idea. That reason alone ought to be enough to make you say no.

Adain At wrote:
That's just silly.  If an image is child porn ,it's child porn because of the way it is presented/seen, NOT because of who shot it.

If indeed it IS porn, but if it is simply an artistic nude it will be viewed by a female photographer much differently than a male doing the shoot. It is called "Gender Bias". And if it was Anna-Lou Leibovitz doing the shoot there would only be praise for it.

ZingArts wrote:

If indeed it IS porn, but if it is simply an artistic nude it will be viewed by a female photographer much differently than a male doing the shoot. It is called "Gender Bias". And if it was Anna-Lou Leibovitz doing the shoot there would only be praise for it.

Only pervs and ignorant people would think that.  The only reason for it to be different would be if you assume that the Girl is naked therefor someone who is attracted to girls will get turned on BECAUSE she is naked.

That's bull.  Yes that bias exists when prosecuting molestation and statutory rape cases.  But in those cases the gender of the person really does have a material effect on the crime.


But in a case where a non-porn image is perceived to be porn by a 3rd party, the person who shot it (who, I'm assuming, is not IN the photo) has no bearing.



All of this is moot:  The OP was not asking about shooting porn.  Nudity is NOT porn, and that is clearly defined in the law both in the UK and in the US and it is clearly defined by the majority of professional photographers and lawyers and associations that deal with photography.

Under 18 Nudity != Porn

Images For a Sexual Response == Porn

Images For a Sexual Response* of Minors == Child Porn


* The way the images are presented/advertised matters, as non-nude images of minors could be considered porn if presented in a sexualized context.  Who's most at risk here?  I'd say import models/photographers.

Andrew Thomas Evans wrote:
And...


How is that,



any





Different




than some random ass



model





Saying you tried to rape her?


Risk is everywhere.



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

With a random accusations of rape, there remains the burden of proof.  Evidence of crime must be there (physical evidence, corroborated testimony, etc.)  However, if you take nude photos of a minor, it's up to the judge to determine intent.  The evidence is the product (the image.)  Has the photographer committed a crime by definition of law?  Has the model committed a crime by definition of law?  No.  Can the photographer be charged for a crime that has yet to be defined?  Absolutely.

Now, you shoot this minor.  Her father and mother are going through a divorce.  The father sees these naked pictures of his daughter and files a complaint.  The daughter is scared.  Her parents don't want names dragged through the mud.  The father sees it as leverage in a custody case.  Anyway, the story changes from one of consent and free-will to the big bad photographer pushing for nudes.  The media will do everything in its power to crucify you because you have testicles and a penis... because YOU took pictures of a naked child!  See, she won't be called a young woman, teenager or anything of the sort... she will be called a CHILD in the media.  Hell, even you brought up rape.  You will be painted as a molester.  The paradigm changes and you're left standing there with your head spinning in circles.

Knowing your luck, the judge will be a closet pedophile.  He gets a tingle in his junk looking at the image evidence.  Guess what?  You're spending the next few years getting your ass waxed by Bubba the shower sponge.

Sure, you can appeal... but the original trial has exhausted your finances. 

So, long story short... rape is clearly defined by law.  Sexuality as it pertains to minors is not.

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
LEGALLY, that is correct...however we ALL know that 16 year olds are NOT mature enough to make these type of decisions.

You have to live in the UK to understand it.

You would soon realise that you ain't in Kansas any more.

Studio36

William Kious wrote:
However, if you take nude photos of a minor, it's up to the judge to determine intent.

That's not true.  Prosecutors still must prove a crime was committed.  The laws ARE well defined.

Adain At wrote:

That's not true.  Prosecutors still must prove a crime was committed.  The laws ARE well defined.

What rock have you been living under?  It's up to the judge/jury to determine the intent of the image.  If it's decided that an image was taken to titillate, you're in trouble.

Here in Ohio, very little is actually defined.  The law is left open to pretty broad interpretation.  If you don't see that, you're asking for trouble.

US courts tend to be very, very conservative.  Could you fight the system?  Sure.  But do you have the money to do it?  How much is your reputation worth?  The media will burn you at the stake.  If you're vindicated in the end, the media won't even apologize to you.  Maybe you'll get a fruit basket for your trouble.  LOL!

studio36uk wrote:
FWIW "context" or "intent" have no bearing on such a case in the UK. The law explicitly excludes them from being considered as defences. The image, and the image alone, stands naked before the court. The question for the court to answer is twofold: is the image "indecent" and is it of a person under the age of 18.That's it! It is not a determination even that the image is "pornographic" a term never even mentioned in law or if it is "child porn" also a term never mentioned in law.

Studio36

I find that people are often creating their own legal definitions for things which have to true relationship to the law.

studio36uk wrote:
The image, and the image alone, stands naked before the court. The question for the court to answer is twofold: is the image "indecent" and is it of a person under the age of 18. That's it! It is not a determination even that the image is "pornographic" a term never even mentioned in law or if it is "child porn" also a term never mentioned in law.

We get "prurient interest".  LOL!

Has your government clearly - and I mean clearly - defined "indecent"?

studio36uk wrote:
The image, and the image alone, stands naked before the court. The question for the court to answer is twofold: is the image "indecent" and is it of a person under the age of 18. That's it! It is not a determination even that the image is "pornographic" a term never even mentioned in law or if it is "child porn" also a term never mentioned in law.

William Kious wrote:
We get "prurient interest".  LOL!

Has your government clearly - and I mean clearly - defined "indecent"?

Quite to the contrary.  They have kept the definition deliberately vague.  What they have done is to leave it to community standards.  So, what is indecent in one place could be acceptable in another.

Eventually the courts will step in and provide guidance.  So far, they haven't.

Now Studio36UK can reply as well.

William Kious wrote:
We get "prurient interest".  LOL!

We don't.

William Kious wrote:
Has your government clearly - and I mean clearly - defined "indecent"?

Absolutely not. The expression is, and it was the key basis of the applicable law when it was first passed, that such a determination is "best to be left to a jury"

What we get is that you could be convicted in one court on any particular day on a particular image; and someone else could be acquitted in another court on exactly that same image and on the same day.

Also, it is possible to be convicted by a jury today; and in the very same court, on exactly the same image, be acquitted with a different jury tomorrow.

The whole system is explicitly designed to produce results like that. The uncertainly created by failing to adequately define "indecency" in law is monumental, ... and intentional.

Studio36

William Kious wrote:

What rock have you been living under?  It's up to the judge/jury to determine the intent of the image.  If it's decided that an image was taken to titillate, you're in trouble.

Here in Ohio, very little is actually defined.  The law is left open to pretty broad interpretation.  If you don't see that, you're asking for trouble.

US courts tend to be very, very conservative.  Could you fight the system?  Sure.  But do you have the money to do it?  How much is your reputation worth?  The media will burn you at the stake.  If you're vindicated in the end, the media won't even apologize to you.  Maybe you'll get a fruit basket for your trouble.  LOL!

Umm -- a judge/jury decides based on evidence presented at trial by the prosecution.  The prosecution must present overwhelming evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The system is not as corrupt as you let on.  The only way a photographer would be found guilty of producing child porn (in a photo with NO sexual stuff, just a naked model), is if the photographer was advertising it in such a way that indicated the intent was to turn people on.


I suggest people talk to lawyers about this -- I have one, and my information is based on that.

William Kious wrote:

Here's the part that bothers me.  Your family suffered, the photographer suffered and yet you're still here doing the same damn thing that led to all of the trouble.  The law persecutes everyone else, even if the subject of the images is/was a willing participant.

Yes, you paid a price, too... but the inequity (I.e., paranoia) of law is unsettling.

And you only make mention of your mom.  Did you dad have a part in causing this whole mess?

nope just my Mom my Dad passed away Christmas Eve of 2007 in a motorcycle accident, I started modeling to cure a huge bout of depression after his death.  It gave me a chance to escape reality even if was just for a little while.

William Kious wrote:
Here in Ohio, very little is actually defined.  The law is left open to pretty broad interpretation.  If you don't see that, you're asking for trouble.

Really, very little is defined?  Actually, Ohio has a clear statute which is actually less restrictive than many other states.

Here is the statute which covers nude photography:  http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.323

Here is the statute that covers sexual activity:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.322

There is a plethora of caselaw which interpret sexual activity and what is a bonifide work of art.  Judges and juries don't decide these things blindly.

In a jury trial, the jury is given specific instructions as to what they have to decide.  They then make a factual decision.  Neither the statute nor the caselaw are ambiguous.

ei Total Productions wrote:

Really, very little is defined?  Actually, Ohio has a clear statute which is actually less restrictive than many other states.

Here is the statute which covers nude photography:  http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.323

Here is the statute that covers sexual activity:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.322

There is a plethora of caselaw which interpret sexual activity and what is a bonifide work of art.  Judges and juries don't decide these things blindly.

In a jury trial, the jury is given specific instructions as to what they have to decide.  They then make a factual decision.  Neither the statute nor the caselaw are ambiguous.

Snapsies.

What we have here, is a case of people assuming they know the law because they read about it on MM or saw it on 20/20.

The laws tend to be very very reasonable -- if the model/parents are fine with it, and consent to an artistic (or otherwise listed in that statute) work being created with the minor model, then there is no problem.

At all.

Fotographahaulic wrote:
Have one of the parents sit in on the shoot behind the scene . . .

I'd never even consider doing the shoot without having one or both of the parents there.

Keep in mind that if you dig up the BTS photos of Annie's shoot of Miley Cyrus, Billy Ray was there on the set. That wasn't enough to prevent controversy. He actually posed in some shots with her, she was wearing different wardrobe in those.

Rays Fine Art wrote:
The most notorious case in this country is probably Jock Sturges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_Sturges) who, although finally vindicated very nearly went to jail for a situation pretty much as you describe.

The law does not always protect the innocent.  I would explain my concerns to the young lady and her parents and suggest that they wait till she's at least 18.

Sally Mann and "Immediate Family"

For those interested in some information, not supposition, check out
http://purenudism.com

It's a canadian site (I think) but the sell in the US and I'm sure the UK, as well as having a website (obviously).

The idea is _CONTEXT_ and that makes a big difference.  Even the US stodgy old Supreme Court addressed that decades ago.

The biggest thing, is if you are going to do something like this, save the initial contact from the family, that they *are* a nudist family, and the images are for their family portraits and not for distribution.   At that point, you are not soliciting.  At least.  After that, if you keep it quiet, and don't splash your logo across the images, and stuff like that, who is going to know?  The family isn't going to make a big issue of it. 

If you aren't comfortable, don't. 

It's really that simple.

But some of the thoughts/opinions I've heard /read here really scare me

Does anyone know if NY's "Top Free" law applies to minors as well?  After all, minor boys can take their shirts off in public...  I've never actually found a copy of the law, itself, so if anyone has a link, I'd appreciate it.  I know this top free law is being pushed a lot lately.

Scott

Adain At wrote:
What we have here, is a case of people assuming they know the law because they read about it on MM or saw it on 20/20.

The laws tend to be very very reasonable -- if the model/parents are fine with it, and consent to an artistic (or otherwise listed in that statute) work being created with the minor model, then there is no problem.

Wow.  People who think they know...

It still boils down to proving that the work serves an artistic purpose.  And that can be a very, very difficult thing to prove.  It's entirely and completely subjective.  As others have pointed out, the same case could go two different ways on two different days.  Taking Ohio as an example, a jury in Columbus might decide a case very differently than a jury in Cincinnati. 

Do you want to put your future in the hands of 12 strangers when you're facing a second degree felony?  When you will be forced to register as a sex offender if you are found guilty?

There's the court of public opinion to consider, too.  A reputation, once tarnished, is never the same.  Pejorative quips in the media can make a life utterly and completely miserable.  Hell, look at Sandusky as an example... all we have are accusations at this point and look what his life has become.

I'm not the paranoid type, but there can be a very high price paid for the sake of "fighting the good fight" in the name of art.

Adain At wrote:
Certainly non sexual.

In YOUR opinion.  But, legality isn't going to be determined by YOUR opinion.  Why is that so difficult for you to accept? 

Even here in Ohio, if one wants to split hairs about the law, BOTH parents would have to sign-off on such a shoot to appease the letter of the law.

William Kious wrote:
It still boils down to proving that the work serves an artistic purpose.  And that can be a very, very difficult thing to prove.  It's entirely and completely subjective.

Perhaps you don't remember that in this country, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, not the defense.

If they can't prove that it DOES NOT serve an artistic purpose, then they can't find you guilty.

And for the other quote:  A topless girl is not sexual.  You've got to be a perv to look at a topless teen and think "SEX".

Amy Cavanaugh wrote:
The age of consent where you live in 16...but I would be really careful were I you.

From what I read he was planning on photographing her, not fucking her.  What does the age of consent have to do with anything?

Lil Miss Jade wrote:
The possibilities for it going wrong are still pretty endless.  Let me explain to you why I feel this way.

At our age something that sounds like an amazingly great idea on a Saturday...but when Monday rolls around (because thats how quickly our minds shift or change) I may think that you pushed me into shooting more than what I wanted.  Now thats not me but I see it alot.  Yes we can concent to sex but what Im saying is, say she does the shoot the pictures wind up in Google search, she then decides she wished she hadn't for one reason or another.  Things could turn around quickly after that.  As far as the concenting to sex part, it happens all the time also that said girl files rape charges.  Not because she was raped but because she suddenly wished she hadn't done it and feels she wasnt thinking clearly.

That's why the photographer needs to go forward with honesty and integrity.

First, parents should be involved.  I videotape shoots, and I would suggest videotaping the converstation w/ parents and the model, and cover what happens if the model or parents change their mind down the road.  Make sure there's evidence of them understanding the photographers policy on destroying photos.

** And I know what it's like to be accused of rape when you didn't rape someone.  It involves a night in jail, $$ for bail/lawyer/replacing equipment, and 7 months of waiting, before the charges being dropped by the cops.  This is why I videotape, and this is why I won't work with anyone if I think they're on drugs or alcohol**

Adain At wrote:
That's why the photographer needs to go forward with honesty and integrity.



First, parents should be involved.  I videotape shoots, and I would suggest videotaping the converstation w/ parents and the model, and cover what happens if the model or parents change their mind down the road.  Make sure there's evidence of them understanding the photographers policy on destroying photos.

** And I know what it's like to be accused of rape when you didn't rape someone.  It involves a night in jail, $$ for bail/lawyer/replacing equipment, and 7 months of waiting, before the charges being dropped by the cops.  This is why I videotape, and this is why I won't work with anyone if I think they're on drugs or alcohol**

totally agree the reason I added that for instance situation is because since I have been on MM and other sites I have been confided in by models who shot things they wished they hadnt and met photographers whose integrity was really shaken when some of the girls blast their names in a very bad way. I am over seeing handbras, chicks randomly wrapped in caution tape and etc.  But I do see the beauty in nicely done implieds and nudes that sort of tell a story