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

Perhaps you've forgotten that fairness and equity aren't always taken into consideration.  It's far easier to prosecute someone as a deviant than it is to defend the same potential deviant. 

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

Prove that it does.  That's not easy, either.

Adain At wrote:
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".

You're a guy.  You're going to tell me - in all honesty - that you've never looked at a stacked 16 year old and not once viewed her in a sexual light?  You must not go out very much.  How about the girl in the bar who approaches you and you don't find out until much later that she's a minor?  For that matter, what about the 20 year old girl who looks like a minor?  Is everyone who has ever done any of these things a perv in your book?

You want to judge everything based on your mores and perspective.  If you find yourself behind that long table at some point, you'll learn...

William Kious wrote:

Perhaps you've forgotten that fairness and equity aren't always taken into consideration.  It's far easier to prosecute someone as a deviant than it is to defend the same potential deviant. 


Prove that it does.  That's not easy, either.


You're a guy.  You're going to tell me - in all honesty - that you've never looked at a stacked 16 year old and not once viewed her in a sexual light?  You must not go out very much.  How about the girl in the bar who approaches you and you don't find out until much later that she's a minor?  For that matter, what about the 20 year old girl who looks like a minor?  Is everyone who has ever done any of these things a perv in your book?

You want to judge everything based on your mores and perspective.  If you find yourself behind that long table at some point, you'll learn...

Don't be silly.

I am able to disassociate nudity and sexuality. 

As others have pointed out, it's kind of interesting that you would come out and say that when you see a naked teen, you think it's hot if she's "stacked".  Or that you've hung out with a minor in a bar, or that when you see a young-looking 20 year old, you think about how she looks under 18.

All I'm saying is the OP was approached to shoot a portrait of a topless 16 year old.  A reasonable person would not assume that anyone is thinking about sex in that situation.

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?

They are a naturist family. They are not likely going to be publicly sharing their pics. Most naturists are fairly conservative about sharing their lifestyle with anyone other than other naturists. They treat nude family pics with respect and dignity. I would shoot the pics. I know many nudists/naturists. This is not scandalous or dangerous as many here will make it out to be.

Adain At wrote:
I know the OP is from the UK but here's information on US Laws:

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/ … ageId=1476

Read and read and read, but it's pretty simple:  Actual sexual activity is, of course, illegal.  Non sexual activity is not.  A topless girl?  Certainly non sexual.

You don't get it, the laws vary from state to state.  The definitions vary from state to state.  Ohio has a law that allows nudity with a parent's written consent so long as it is for a legitimate, artistic purpose.

California, where you are from, has a much different statute.  Topless may be permitted (although we have an endangerment statute), but we are actually more restrictive when it comes to full nudity.  OUr standard is actually a little tougher than the federal standard.

Missouri has a law that clearly allows topless.  The criteria is that the genitals be covered with a fully opaque covering.

Arizona, our neighboring state, has a statute that would prohibit showing, even a nipple, if it was for commercial purposes or financial gain.

Florida recently passed a law which was targeted at the non-nude, teen websites.  The ones that are sexy but don't actually show anything.  The statute has yet to be tested in court.  It isn't clear if it wouild survive.  The Arizona statute is new and not yet tested.

The point is that you are making some absolute generalizations and telling people that it is OK.  It might be OK in some places but not OK in others.  It might be OK in some circumstances but not OK in others.

One has to use a lot of caution if they choose to shoot a minor topless.  It could easily blow up in their face.

Adain At wrote:
I am able to disassociate nudity and sexuality.

You're missing the point entirely - or you're just going out of your way to troll.  You are able to.  I am able to.  There are many, many others who do not. 

Adain At wrote:
As others have pointed out, it's kind of interesting that you would come out and say that when you see a naked teen, you think it's hot if she's "stacked".  Or that you've hung out with a minor in a bar, or that when you see a young-looking 20 year old, you think about how she looks under 18.

If you're going to quote me, at least quote me.  Don't ad-lib for your own benefit.  Any honest male is still going to look at an attractive woman, even if she's a minor.  Those who protest about that kind of thing too much are the ones I worry about.  Am I ashamed to admit that I've looked at a 16 year old and uttered a well-placed, "DAMN!" in my day?  No.  Why are you so ashamed to admit it? 

Adain At wrote:
All I'm saying is the OP was approached to shoot a portrait of a topless 16 year old.  A reasonable person would not assume that anyone is thinking about sex in that situation.

And you're assuming that you will be judged by reasonable people.

Adain At wrote:
** 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**

Yet, despite your videotape, you were still open to the allegation.  Curious.

Very telling about your position on this subject, too.

Adain At wrote:
** 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**

Videotaping a photoshoot with a minor can actually be more dangerous than not doing it.  We can discuss the issues another time.

I have never seen a video camera documenting a shoot in a major studio, ever.

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?

If you have nothing to lose that public opinion or a legal charge does not worry you, then proceed.

If you work for an organization that has the clout to fight off the authorities, then proceed.

If you have sufficient legal and financial clout of your own that you feel you have the resources to win against any charges filed, then proceed.

If not, then you might want to think about this a little bit.

ei Total Productions wrote:
Videotaping a photoshoot with a minor can actually be more dangerous than not doing it.  We can discuss the issues another time.

I have never seen a video camera documenting a shoot in a major studio, ever.

This.  Seems like something that could bite you on the butt as much as save it.

If I were signing up to work with someone, insistence on video would be a HUGE, waving, billowing scarlet flag for me.  It just screams trouble.  LOL!

William Kious wrote:

This.  Seems like something that could bite you on the butt as much as save it.

If I were signing up to work with someone, insistence on video would be a HUGE, waving, billowing scarlet flag for me.  It just screams trouble.  LOL!

No one can cry "Rape" if there's video proving no rape occurred.  No parent can cry "I didn't agree" if there is video of them clearly agreeing.

As the girl from alabama pointed out, none of us are free from being accused.  But the fact is that there's a huge difference beteween being accused and guilty.  Just because a person is accused does not mean they're guilty, especially if the person doing the accusing is a jealous boyfriend who just wants to lash out at the guy who shot his girlfriend naked (twice) since he doesn't want to be mad at her.

Either way, nudity is not illegal.  Plain and simple.

Darkroom Art wrote:
Jock Sturges comes to mind. ( He got in some trouble over it)

People tried to get him in trouble, he was never charged.  It was a hassle for him, of course, but he didn't get in trouble.

Adain At wrote:
Either way, nudity is not illegal.  Plain and simple.

Not always true.  You STILL don't get it.  Probably never will.  There are prerequisites that must be passed before it's "legal" to photograph a minor in a state of nudity (at least here in my state - and in others.)

You're standing on a platform without a foundation.

ei Total Productions wrote:

You don't get it, the laws vary from state to state.  The definitions vary from state to state.  Ohio has a law that allows nudity with a parent's written consent so long as it is for a legitimate, artistic purpose.

California, where you are from, has a much different statute.  Topless may be permitted (although we have an endangerment statute), but we are actually more restrictive when it comes to full nudity.  OUr standard is actually a little tougher than the federal standard.

Missouri has a law that clearly allows topless.  The criteria is that the genitals be covered with a fully opaque covering.

Arizona, our neighboring state, has a statute that would prohibit showing, even a nipple, if it was for commercial purposes or financial gain.

Florida recently passed a law which was targeted at the non-nude, teen websites.  The ones that are sexy but don't actually show anything.  The statute has yet to be tested in court.  It isn't clear if it wouild survive.  The Arizona statute is new and not yet tested.

The point is that you are making some absolute generalizations and telling people that it is OK.  It might be OK in some places but not OK in others.  It might be OK in some circumstances but not OK in others.

One has to use a lot of caution if they choose to shoot a minor topless.  It could easily blow up in their face.

I was right with you till the very end.  A great post.  Good info.  You are dead on.  The AZ law is likely unconstitutional but I don't want to be the one to fight it. I've worked with models in AZ under 18 and was "prepared" and made sure to follow the law exactly.

My problem is this statement "One has to use a lot of caution if they choose to shoot a minor topless."  I'm being picky, but I don't like the word "caution".   One has to be "prepared" is better.  "Preparation" and professionalism is the key.  Not caution.  I realize I'm being ultra picky.  But "caution's" connotations are negative.

The last thing we need is to feed the pedo-hysteria by misstating that photographing human beings of any age requires "caution".

William Kious wrote:
Not always true.  You STILL don't get it.  Probably never will.  There are prerequisites that must be passed before it's "legal" to photograph a minor in a state of nudity (at least here in my state - and in others.)

You're standing on a platform without a foundation.

Would the image below, if the model were under 18, be illegal in your state?  It wouldn't in mine.  (unless, as someone pointed out, you put it on your site under "hot naked teens")  We are assuming, of course, that as a professional photographer, the image was taken with the consent and participation of the parents, and everyone knew exactly how the photo was to be used (say, perhaps, for a gallery print and eventual book-portfolio publication).

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/1 … ce97_m.jpg 18+

Adain At wrote:

Would the image below, if the model were under 18, be illegal in your state?  It wouldn't in mine.  (unless, as someone pointed out, you put it on your site under "hot naked teens")  We are assuming, of course, that as a professional photographer, the image was taken with the consent and participation of the parents, and everyone knew exactly how the photo was to be used (say, perhaps, for a gallery print and eventual book-portfolio publication).

-Snip-

You will have to link your nude photo 18+

Adain At wrote:
Would the image below, if the model were under 18, be illegal in your state?  It wouldn't in mine.  (unless, as someone pointed out, you put it on your site under "hot naked teens")  We are assuming, of course, that as a professional photographer, the image was taken with the consent and participation of the parents, and everyone knew exactly how the photo was to be used (say, perhaps, for a gallery print and eventual book-portfolio publication).

[img]18+ image not linked[/img]

You can't even adhere to the rules of this website, so why would anyone take your word on matters of law?

Here's the thing, you've already made a TON of assumptions.  Now, if everything were above boards and done as it should be done - all papers signed, etc. - would the given example be legal in Ohio?  Probably.  But, that's my opinion.  Say this model is 15 at the time the photo is taken.  If someone complains about the image down the line - even though the image was taken with all due legal considerations - it won't prevent legal issues.  It will still be up to a judge and/or jury to decide if the image is "artistic" in nature.

If the jury/judge is artist-friendly and open-minded, you would be fine.  If you pull a conservative judge/jury, you might be screwed.  If your case gets media attention around here, you're definitely screwed. 

No one is saying that TAKING the image is illegal.  You need to understand that - in MANY places - how the image is interpreted after the fact is important.

There's a difference between the letter of law and how that law is interpreted, applied and enforced.

William Kious wrote:
You can't even adhere to the rules of this website, so why would anyone take your word on matters of law?

Haha.  Ok, my conversation with you seems to be no longer a conversation, and more of a "lets bash this guy to make his positions seem less valid."

Don't take my word on matters of law.  Talk to a lawyer.  I have one, and that's where I get my information.

Bye

ei Total Productions wrote:
You don't get it, the laws vary from state to state.  The definitions vary from state to state.  Ohio has a law that allows nudity with a parent's written consent so long as it is for a legitimate, artistic purpose.

California, where you are from, has a much different statute.  Topless may be permitted (although we have an endangerment statute), but we are actually more restrictive when it comes to full nudity.  OUr standard is actually a little tougher than the federal standard.

Missouri has a law that clearly allows topless.  The criteria is that the genitals be covered with a fully opaque covering.

Arizona, our neighboring state, has a statute that would prohibit showing, even a nipple, if it was for commercial purposes or financial gain.

Florida recently passed a law which was targeted at the non-nude, teen websites.  The ones that are sexy but don't actually show anything.  The statute has yet to be tested in court.  It isn't clear if it wouild survive.  The Arizona statute is new and not yet tested.

The point is that you are making some absolute generalizations and telling people that it is OK.  It might be OK in some places but not OK in others.  It might be OK in some circumstances but not OK in others.

One has to use a lot of caution if they choose to shoot a minor topless.  It could easily blow up in their face.

bencook2 wrote:
I was right with you till the very end.  A great post.  Good info.  You are dead on.  The AZ law is likely unconstitutional but I don't want to be the one to fight it. I've worked with models in AZ under 18 and was "prepared" and made sure to follow the law exactly.

My problem is this statement "One has to use a lot of caution if they choose to shoot a minor topless."  I'm being picky, but I don't like the word "caution".   One has to be "prepared" is better.  "Preparation" and professionalism is the key.  Not caution.  I realize I'm being ultra picky.  But "caution's" connotations are negative.

The last thing we need is to feed the pedo-hysteria by misstating that photographing human beings of any age requires "caution".

I am fine with substituting the word "preparedness."  The point is that you do need to be aware of the situation in the place where you are shooting. It is essential to understand the ground rules and then abide by them.

Wysiwyg Photography wrote:
What a sad day in age we live in where we have to discriminate against naturists.

Oh.. *I* can take a picture of MY family, but because your family is always naked.. you cannot take a picture of yours unless you get dressed.


It all depends on CONTEXT as stated... many many many times in this ever revolving thread.

Word.

Wysiwyg Photography wrote:
Would I photograph "art nudes" with anyone younger than 18... HELL NO.

Agree.

Wysiwyg Photography wrote:
It just shows that people cannot separate sexuality from nudity.. and that is sad.

Truth.

Do what you feel is right.

Adain At wrote:
Would the image below, if the model were under 18, be illegal in your state?  It wouldn't in mine.  (unless, as someone pointed out, you put it on your site under "hot naked teens")  We are assuming, of course, that as a professional photographer, the image was taken with the consent and participation of the parents, and everyone knew exactly how the photo was to be used (say, perhaps, for a gallery print and eventual book-portfolio publication).

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/1 … ce97_m.jpg 18+

At least one member of MM thinks that photo is "drop dead sexy". If the members of the jury agreed with him and if that photo were of someone under 18, then that photo would be illegal under federal law. That includes all states.

I don't know why you think the conditions under which it was shot or having the parents' permission or your intended usage make any difference.

Thornton Harris wrote:

At least one member of MM thinks that photo is "drop dead sexy". If the members of the jury agreed with him and if that photo were of someone under 18, then that photo would be illegal under federal law. That includes all states.

I don't know why you think the conditions under which it was shot or having the parents' permission or your intended usage make any difference.

Because that's not how juries work.  Just because a jury *thinks* or *feels* something doesn't meant that they can use those thoughts or feelings  -- in fact they're instructed to NOT use those.  They use the law.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who jerk off every day to Jock Sturges' work.  That does not make his work porn.

S W I N S K E Y wrote:
why is there so much paranoia about something that isn't even illegal.

Because people have had their lives and careers destroyed, and not to mention spending their life savings defending themselves, because they did "something that isn't even illegal".

It may be perfectly legal to wear a pointy black hat, but I wouldn't advise doing it when people are on a witch hunt.

Adain At wrote:
Either way, nudity is not illegal.  Plain and simple.

That won't keep an overzealous DA from charging you with producing child pornography.   Plain and simple.

If you get charged, you're going to have to spend $50,000 or more to prove your innocence.   Plain and simple.

Even if the judge dismisses the charges with prejudice, your reputation is still indelibly tarnished.  Even being INVESTIGATED is going to make you a pariah.  Plain and simple.

HoneyDripp Photography wrote:
Dear OP...90% of the responses you've got here didn't even look to see your from England.
9% (including me) do not know if its legeal or not.
and the other 1% are just a bit confused.

Dear HDP:
90% didnt look, 9% dont know and 1% are confused... adds up to 100%, but doesnt leave room for those that did read, do know and are not confused and STILL WOULDNT DO IT.

Check out the recent advert that was banned in UK with Dakota Fanning as a model for a perfume.
http://www.eonline.com/news/dakota_fann … ive/274134

Please note: Dakota is 17, is not nude or topless.  Nor is she depicted engaging in sexual or implied sexual activity.

The UK's Advertizing Standards Authority pulled the add because she "appeared to be under 16" and they found the image "sexually provocative", drawing "attention to her sexuality".

Here is the rub; the agencies and legal authorities with authority over these issues can act at their discretion, with only a loosely interpreted legal code to guide them.  That puts the photographer at the mercy of someone he doesnt know, who may or may not have personal issues in this area that 'color' his/her interpretation of the legal guidelines.

So, if the OP wants to do the shot, I will cheer him silently from the sidelines and wish him all the best.  And if he runs afoul the legal system, I will do the same.

Adain At wrote:

Would the image below, if the model were under 18, be illegal in your state?  It wouldn't in mine.  (unless, as someone pointed out, you put it on your site under "hot naked teens")  We are assuming, of course, that as a professional photographer, the image was taken with the consent and participation of the parents, and everyone knew exactly how the photo was to be used (say, perhaps, for a gallery print and eventual book-portfolio publication).

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/1 … ce97_m.jpg 18+

Have you spent any real time in the deep south or the bible belt?

I agree with everything your saying as far as the law goes.  I agree that here in NYC or out by you in LA the law would be interpreted and acted upon as you are saying.  But if you believe that the same standard would hold true in Alabama or Arkansas you're out of your mind.  The determination of indecent or sexual or prurient is left up to "community standards".  I trust some communities far more than others.

William Kious wrote:
Seems to me that the world just doesn't want to acknowledge that teens today are more hyper-sexualized than at any other point in history.

Only because we've artificially redefined "childhood" in a way that completely flies in the face of both biology and history.   
Biologically speaking, humans reach sexual maturity in their early teens.

Historically speaking, up until the early 20th century, virtually every culture on the planet defined adulthood as starting between 13 and 15.   You can see the legacy of this in religious coming-of-age ceremonies.  In English Common law, the age of discretion was 14

The "hyper-sexualized" teens you're upset about would have been married and starting families for the vast majority of human history.

Adain At wrote:

People tried to get him in trouble, he was never charged.  It was a hassle for him, of course, but he didn't get in trouble.

Approximately 150-175k+ worth of hassle. Got that casually lying around in your checkbook?

Not to mention the headlines.

Adain At wrote:
People tried to get him in trouble, he was never charged.  It was a hassle for him, of course, but he didn't get in trouble.

I normally do not post in the forums but this thread touch on where the US - AND - the UK society (and many others) are headed; towards mindless censorship.

Anyone contemplating this thread and doing what the OP is thinking of doing need to think what other *artists* - yes *Artists* with a capital "A" has gone thru at the heavy hand of a zealous attorney general - one of them as noted here, Jock Sturges.

To suggest that Jock Sturges did not get in trouble is mind boggling.

Has anyone thought of what Jack Sturges *really* went thru during the many months he was under investigation? How he felt? His life was torn apart, his equipment and 100K+ negs was impounded. What do you think it did to his mental state?

Not only was Jock Sturges attacked, religious conservatives organized book burnings and boycotts of Barnes and Nobles for carrying his books. An Alabama Grand Jury indicted the store for "disseminating obscene material"…

http://www.nytimes.com/keyword/jock-sturges

Other southern attorney generals did the same - Tennessee comes to mind.

And, although he was eventually "cleared" and his stuff was returned, what happened to him will never go away - and is fodder for attacks against him that is ongoing - sometimes by other "photographers" - as here, written Dec 29, 2010:

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2010/12/29/jock-sturges/

A nice piece of character assassination.

If this is done to an acclaimed artist years after - what would it do to anyone here in this thread?

How many paid attention - and *understood* what Studio36UK wrote? He is a well known authority on UK law as it pertains to photographers and artists. Despite this his posts are ignored.

What is interesting is that so many of the comments here are "Don't worry - it will never happen to you (or to me - because I am pure of heart - and protect myself with this or that)" - which means exactly *nothing* if you get accused.

As for myself now living in the UK - what I have learned here is that it is in many ways even *more* sexually repressed than the US despite the preponderance of boobs being displayed - and I would never think of shooting a 16 year old in this country - just like in the US.

No way.

Christer
http://www.ChristerArt.com

Adain At wrote:
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".

Please stop posting misleading information in this thread.

The OP IS IN THE UK where your laws and certainly your opinions carry no weight whatsoever.

As for your assertion that a picture of a topless teenage girl is not sexual as long as she's under 18 - I've never heard so much nonsense in my life. Human beings have evolved to mate with fertile members of the opposite sex as soon as they become sexually mature - ie. at puberty. However much you might feel offended by that, the fact remains that any female who is sexually mature will automatically be sexually attractive to members of the opposite sex, of almost any age. Of course, whether they decide to act upon that is up to individuals, guided by their conscience, their sense of morality and (to an extent) the local laws. But it doesn't change the facts of life.

Adain At wrote:
All I'm saying is the OP was approached to shoot a portrait of a topless 16 year old.  A reasonable person would not assume that anyone is thinking about sex in that situation.

Unfortunately, most 'reasonable' members of the public (and it only takes 12 to make a jury) will automatically jump to the assumption of sexual motives as soon as they see a topless picture of any attractive female, of any age - and in fact, especially if they are told that she's 16 and the photographer was considerably older.

In the UK it's those 12 members of the public who will decide if that topless picture is 'indecent' or not - and if they say it is, then the photographer is looking at jail time regardless of his reputation, his motives or whether he was approved or hired by her family, the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Queen!


Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Edward Guymer wrote:
...This was put to the test in 2008 when police raided a Sydney art gallery just before an exhibition of photographs by Bill Henson and seized a number of pictures that where to be featured in the exhibition. The pictures had to be returned after an investigation that concluded the required permissions had been ascertained and that the picture where artistic and not sexual in nature (having also been given a PG rating by the Australian Classification Board)

That case only got to the police as it was a public exhibition by a known controversial artist.

and I'm sure the resulting publicity did him no harm either...