G Anderson Photo wrote:
So, I know of a photographer here on MM that pays llamas a very high rate for what appears to be artistic nude photos.  A few of those photos are posted on his port for each llama to "make it look good".  However I know from llamas that have worked with him, that there is full hardcore photos/videos produced that he agrees to "never publish".  This makes it hard to recruit llamas that he works with for legitimate nude and adult llamaing gigs as he tells them that they "don't want to have that stuff published just keep it private".   These llamas are generally new llamas looking for paid work who have no other history of doing porn or doing escorting.   In my opinion this photog is turning paid nude llamas into his own personal prostitutes.  I appreciate opinions on this.

If they are selling out for his own personal spank bank or other illicit activities, they really only have themselves to blame.

WMcK wrote:

If you want an ethical opinion ask a priest/pastor/rabbi/guru/imam.
If you want a legal one ask a lawyer.
If you want to know what shutter speed and f number he should have been using, ask here.

lol:)

WMcK wrote:

If you want an ethical opinion ask a priest/pastor/rabbi/guru/imam.
If you want a legal one ask a lawyer.
If you want to know what shutter speed and f number he should have been using, ask here.

Probably the most honest response I have gotten on here.  Thanks
Already had the lawyer part covered as I stated in one of my posts.  An adult industry lawyer says a photographer paying a model specifically for sex without demonstrated intention to publish the content is just recording the act of prostitution.  Since there is no intent to publish it is not covered under first amendment rights and could therefore be prosecuted.

But next time I start on a thread on here which i have no burning desire to do, it will be about camera, tripods, lights, etc. as you suggest.  Thanks

G Anderson Photo wrote:

Probably the most honest response I have gotten on here.  Thanks
Already had the lawyer part covered as I stated in one of my posts.  An adult industry lawyer says a photographer paying a model specifically for sex without demonstrated intention to publish the content is just recording the act of prostitution.  Since there is no intent to publish it is not covered under first amendment rights and could therefore be prosecuted.

But next time I start on a thread on here which i have no burning desire to do, it will be about camera, tripods, lights, etc. as you suggest.  Thanks

Again, you mind your own fucking business, and everything will be just fine. Is it really that hard to do?

Carsten Schertzer Photo wrote:
I've learned my lesson from another thread. if you know of a photographer potentially sexually harassing or raping a model you best keep it to your self or run the risk of getting accused of not being able to get laid and being judgmental on peoples work methods.

You didn't get the replies you wanted... Well isn't that annoying!

Oh and comparing what CONSENTING adults do to rape and sexual abuse... Wow.

Carsten Schertzer Photo wrote:
I've learned my lesson from another thread. if you know of a photographer potentially sexually harassing or raping a model you best keep it to your self or run the risk of getting accused of not being able to get laid and being judgmental on peoples work methods.

In this case, the other photographer is **Accused of** paying models more to shoot adult work than the OP is willing to.  Oh, and not publishing the relevant work, so that some models are more comfortable with that arrangement.

No one has suggested rape, sexual harassment, or anything of the sort.

G Anderson Photo wrote:

Probably the most honest response I have gotten on here.  Thanks
Already had the lawyer part covered as I stated in one of my posts.  An adult industry lawyer says a photographer paying a model specifically for sex without demonstrated intention to publish the content is just recording the act of prostitution.  Since there is no intent to publish it is not covered under first amendment rights and could therefore be prosecuted.

But next time I start on a thread on here which i have no burning desire to do, it will be about camera, tripods, lights, etc. as you suggest.  Thanks

Without reading every page of the thread, here is something I was trying to understand from what you are saying.

Even if you have established that he's hiring the models and paying them and having sex with them which is recorded by camera or video.

I was unclear on something you seemed vague about....

ARE you saying that then afterwards, he is blackmailing them that they cannot work with anyone else or he will release the content to try to damage their reputations?

Is that what you're saying, is that he is threatening them with the more explicit images and is using that to pressure them not to work with you or anyone else?


Or, were you trying to say that because they have done that work with him, you now view them as dirty or somehow no longer suitable for your use?

Carsten Schertzer Photo wrote:
I've learned my lesson from another thread. if you know of a photographer potentially sexually harassing or raping a model you best keep it to your self or run the risk of getting accused of not being able to get laid and being judgmental on peoples work methods.

You're referring to what thread about models being harassed and raped? If you are referring to the recent thread that you started that was locked, it's subject was your judgmentalism regarding and misinterpretation of nude imagery, which you were rightly taken to task for. Neither is this thread about rape or harassment so I don't know why you'd bring it up here.

Tossing out terms such as rape doesn't  give an impression of a well reasoned or a reasonable view on an issue. It actually gives an impression of trolling at best, or less charitably a sort of truly cruel ignorance.

Carsten Schertzer Photo wrote:
I've learned my lesson from another thread. if you know of a photographer potentially sexually harassing or raping a model you best keep it to your self or run the risk of getting accused of not being able to get laid and being judgmental on peoples work methods.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........................

Carsten Schertzer Photo wrote:
I've learned my lesson from another thread. if you know of a photographer potentially sexually harassing or raping a model you best keep it to your self or run the risk of getting accused of not being able to get laid and being judgmental on peoples work methods.

You have only been here a month and only have 22 posts.

I would suggest - and I mean this in a sincere way - you hang out a little and learn the nature of the Forums before jumping to conclusions like this and getting defensive.

Rachel D Pierce wrote:
Follow me on twitter!!

Stop spamming random threads with your twitter link. This thread is enough of a mess as is.

Rachel D Pierce wrote:
Follow me on twitter!! @raypierce021

SPAM

Carsten Schertzer Photo wrote:
I've learned my lesson from another thread. if you know of a photographer potentially sexually harassing or raping a model you best keep it to your self or run the risk of getting accused of not being able to get laid and being judgmental on peoples work methods.

And this is connected to sexual harrassment or rape...how? If you know of a photographer who is harrassing or raping, you encourage the VICTIM to report it to the legal authorities. If you are not the victim or an EYE witness then it is heresay. Either way, it doesn't belong here.

G Anderson Photo wrote:
An adult industry lawyer says a photographer paying a model specifically for sex without demonstrated intention to publish the content is just recording the act of prostitution.  Since there is no intent to publish it is not covered under first amendment rights and could therefore be prosecuted.

Why do I so doubt you've talked to a lawyer on this? If he is paying an adult content model to produce work, publishing has no bearing on his 1st Amendment rights.

Shot By Adam wrote:
I just looked. There are over 375 female models in Madison, Wisconsin just here on Model Mayhem and you're worried about white-knighting for a "few" (your words) models who may be doing adult work? Are you fucking kidding me?

Seriously dude, you need to go mind your own damn business.

But those 375 are not naive, young models who might be open to porn.

KonstantKarma wrote:
So many GWCs, so little time.

Oh for pete's sake, flip the slide around so it isn't backwards!!!


I'm still rather curious for the OP to return to answer my questions..

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
I guess it's Fine Art Nude when it's a new model spread eagle for ME. It's prostitution if they're doing it with another photographer.

/end thread

Well played.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
I guess it's Fine Art Nude when it's a new model spread eagle for ME. It's prostitution if they're doing it with another photographer.

Paige Morgan wrote:
/end thread

Well played.

He didn't even go that far.  He flat out said that he wants to do adult work with them.  It's just wrong that the other guy pays them better for services they find more appealing.  Such an appalling strategy.

P I X I E wrote:

Again, you mind your own fucking business, and everything will be just fine. Is it really that hard to do?

You posted to this thread twice in one day just to make RUDE COMMENTS and contribute nothing to the thread and you are telling ME to mind my own business?

I am losing NO sleep over this and have plenty of shoots to do.

G Anderson Photo wrote:
I am losing NO sleep over this and have plenty of shoots to do.

If you're not loosing sleep AND have plenty of shoots to do, why would you claim to contact someone who misinforms you that shooting porn without intent to publish is prostitution?

Do you believe that Michangelo or DaVinci ever had thoughts of publishing their work? If I write poetry without intent to publish it is still art, it is my copyright, and no mattter what my thoughts it's still covered by the first amendment.

Kent Art Photography wrote:
How do you define 'Adult?'

Are nudes always 'Adult?'

Children always wear clothes. 24 hours a day. 365 days a year. As we all know they leave the womb already fitted with diapers and romper suits.




(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Shot By Adam wrote:
I just looked. There are over 375 female models in Madison, Wisconsin just here on Model Mayhem and you're worried about white-knighting for a "few" (your words) models who may be doing adult work? Are you fucking kidding me?

Seriously dude, you need to go mind your own damn business.

+1

UCPhotog wrote:

If you're not loosing sleep AND have plenty of shoots to do, why would you claim to contact someone who misinforms you that shooting porn without intent to publish is prostitution?

Do you believe that Michangelo or DaVinci ever had thoughts of publishing their work? If I write poetry without intent to publish it is still art, it is my copyright, and no mattter what my thoughts it's still covered by the first amendment.

G Anderson Photo wrote:
So, I know of a photographer here on MM that pays models a very high rate for what appears to be artistic nude photos.  A few of those photos are posted on his port for each model to "make it look good".  However I know from models that have worked with him, that there is full hardcore photos/videos produced that he agrees to "never publish".  This makes it hard to recruit models that he works with for legitimate nude and adult modeling gigs as he tells them that they "don't want to have that stuff published just keep it private".   These models are generally new models looking for paid work who have no other history of doing porn or doing escorting.   In my opinion this photog is turning paid nude models into his own personal prostitutes.  I appreciate opinions on this.

MM is filled with "photographers" who are apparently just using the site for their own spank collections.

I think that's a good part of MM's reputation, so you shouldn't be surprised by this.


But where is the prostitution part if he's ultimately just having sex with himself and not them?


Or is there something else you're not sharing?

G Anderson Photo wrote:
Your rambling about long dead artists and your poetry is totally IRRELeVANT to the discussion.  They do not involve recording sex for money. 

The legal opinion I received is from an attorney whose entire law practice is based on the adult industry and he does legal work for many of the major adult production companies in LA.  It is a very gray area of the law and could be difficult to prosecute.  His legal opinion is that anytime the person paying the model is having sex on camera with the model it could be considered prostitution on camera.  If there is demonstrated intent to publish the content such as a website or submission to companies, etc. then there is probably some first amendment protection. 

It is my opinion that both models and photographers who may be participating in this type of activity should be aware of what is legal and what could be considered illegal by local authorities. 

If anyone feels this is bad information and chooses to ignore it, that is fine by me, otherwise take it for what it is worth. 

Fair enough?

Prostitution is defined as "sex for money"
Surely even if it were not for publication it could be claimed that it was not the sex itself the model was paid for, but the resulting images.. and as photography is considered an artistic expression prosecution would be difficult.
Under Miller v. California as long as a work when taken as a whole has "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" then the First Amendment should protect any distribution...even if that distribution is only to that of the photographers wank bank.

Any model having sex with a photographer on camera as a paid job is doing so precisely because they are being filmed. The photographs wouldnt be "evidence" of them having sex it would be the entire point of that sex.

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
MM is filled with "photographers" who are apparently just using the site for their own spank collections.

G Anderson Photo wrote:
Your rambling about long dead artists and your poetry is totally IRRELeVANT to the discussion.  They do not involve recording sex for money. 

The legal opinion I received is from an attorney whose entire law practice is based on the adult industry and he does legal work for many of the major adult production companies in LA.  It is a very gray area of the law and could be difficult to prosecute.  His legal opinion is that anytime the person paying the llama is having sex on camera with the llama it could be considered prostitution on camera.  If there is demonstrated intent to publish the content such as a website or submission to companies, etc. then there is probably some first amendment protection. 

It is my opinion that both llamas and photographers who may be participating in this type of activity should be aware of what is legal and what could be considered illegal by local authorities. 

If anyone feels this is bad information and chooses to ignore it, that is fine by me, otherwise take it for what it is worth. 

Fair enough?

Sirensong wrote:
Prostitution is defined as "sex for money"
Surely even if it were not for publication it could be claimed that it was not the sex itself the model was paid for, but the resulting images.. and as photography is considered an artistic expression prosecution would be difficult.
Under Miller v. California as long as a work when taken as a whole has "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" then the First Amendment should protect any distribution...even if that distribution is only to that of the photographers wank bank.

Any model having sex with a photographer on camera as a paid job is doing so precisely because they are being filmed. The photographs wouldnt be "evidence" of them having sex it would be the entire point of that sex.