Cspine wrote:
So, most young models i work with assume they can pose any way the want,

I'm going to be blunt...you have GWC issues.  Based on what you wrote you aren't shooting models, you're simply taking pictures.  And, you aren't learning anything about how the industry works.

Do the legwork by sitting down with some agencies and ask them about expectations, both yours and the model, for advancing your knowledge and skill when working with models. 

Or, simply go about your business working with underage models while you both pretend to be the next best thing in the middle of nowhere.

I'm going to be even more blunt.  Photographers outside the appropriate arena that require (and even think of) the images you speak of are what gives this industry, particularly at the Internet level, a bad name.  There's much more to be learned in the craft of shooting models than whether the teen wannabees want to cup their topless B-cups.

DragonFlyImage wrote:
Guess what some top models in fashion and runway are 17/16

And 14 year olds come off the runway, head in the back room and change clothes in front of 20 or 30 people.  We all know that. 

The question is whether it is prudent for a GWC to be shooting suggestive or implied shots of a 16 year old model?  I suggest that it is a risky thing since he is clearly not a known NYC designer.

It is simply an issue of risk.  Why take it?

PDXImaging wrote:
The mere fact you are asking this question is mind boggling.  There is no place for suggestive under 18 images.  If they are not 18 and over, that discussion should never come up...

well comming from a porn photographers point of view such as your own, that may be true.

William Kious wrote:
First off - marketing is entirely irrelevant.  If you take a picture that a court may judge as being obscene, whether or not it was for private or commercial use won't make one bit of difference.

The laws may be different in your state, but here taking pictures of minors in a "sexually suggestive manner" is illegal.  Therein lies the problem - who judges what is suggestive?  Is a 16 year old model doing an implied nude being sexually suggestive?  Depends on the judge and what mood he/she is in.  Having parental sign-off on the contract may (or may not) matter. 

Unless you are 100% certain that taking such a photo is legal in your locality, why chance it?  In a lot of areas, if a picture like that is judged obscene (and you are charged/convicted) you will have to register as a sex offender.  It's not worth the risk.

thanx for a sraightforward answer.

Cspine wrote:
Damn, you guys are rude. I guess i could just assume to know everything and go from there but i figured it's best to ask. i'm still learning and i ask about these things. Seems to me a GWC wouldn't really care. Why do i work with young newbies? because they are plentiful and free. Wanna know my opinion? I think only a GWC or model equivelent would be so quick to assume my motives. If there is anyone even remotely worthwile that cares I'm sure they would ask me for refs.

I hope you don't think i am being nasty to you.  Actually, I enjoy working with teens.  I also like shooting fashion and lifestyle.

Personally, when I work with teens I just think it is better to keep it teen appropriate. 

However, if you don't want an opinion, don't ask.  But at least from my standpoint, I certainly am not flaming you.

Alan

Cspine wrote:
Alan, how is calling me a GWC not flaming? Other than that slam, I value your response.

Slip of the fingers, sorry.  It wasn't intended that way.  Actually, it was a general response and now that you put it in context, the psudonym was inappropriate.

I am not perfect, excuse the faux paux!

Excuse me and I apologize.

ShariLynn wrote:
I'm a teen who has worked with cspine_ae  and the photos i have seen  straight from the camra and  edited are great i love them he has  some  great ideas. The only thing i can really say is  his work is  great i love it  and i think the photos i have done with him so far look more artistic than  others i worked with if he was a GWC  than he would  most likely  be asking  models to come alone ( more chances ofr nudes) and would ask to pose is sexual ways  but i have not  had any real self touching sexual  poses and he was just fine with me  having kegan( my boyfriend) there the whole time
he is tring to build his skills, which  is what i am doing with modeling
i want to build my skills and  portfolio  so i am ready when  i have my chance  if i have a chance to make it where i want to be  he is a great guy with  great work i love the photos i have gotten from him  and plan to work with him as much as i can 
his artistic eye really  makes people think and take a second look and if a photo can do that than i think its doing what it should

You went to a shoot without a parent present? How did they sign the release saying the shoot was conducted in a professional manner? Just curious.

Also, where are the artistic images he shot for you? None of your images are credited in your portfolio. Always a nice thing to do if someone you've worked with is also on this site.

And hey, it's OK to use punctuation here.  Juz playin'...

John Jebbia wrote:
But if you are serious about these questions, you might want to brush up on the new 2257 laws. They are about to get even tougher.

We, myself and some colleagues in the business, have been doing an analysis of Pence's bill for two days... it was only intorduced on the 14th of September. This bill H.R. 3726 has already been passed by the house 371 - 52 and sent to the Senate. It is far far more onerous than you think.

1) The record keeping requirements of 2257 DO NOT take into account any age requirement. Thus, the records, where they are required, involve very specific record keeping on EVERY model.

2) 2257 exempted (before Pence's amendment) images of "simulated" sexually explicit content. UNLESS there was ACTUAL sexually explicit content the images were exempt from record keeping. Pence's bill does away with that distinction and includes simulated sexually explicit content as well as actual content.

3) 2257 also exempted (before Pence's amendment) images of nudity alone. Pence's bill will include within the record keeping requirements of 2257 at 2257(h), nudity ALONE as defined in 2256 (2)(A)(v)"lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;" but which is further defined in 2256(B)"For purposes of subsection (B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conductâ€? means— (iii)graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;" and which is even further defined in 2256(10) "“graphicâ€?, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted;"

4) Pence's bill requires that a broad range of previously exempt images be brought under the 2257 record keeping rules. The actual detailed mechanics of the rules are 28 CFR Part75. This is retrospective for 10 to 15 years and apply to images made from a certain date either 1995 or 1990. If you don't have and can't produce the REQUIRED records the images are effectively useless. Part of the required records involve keeping and being able to produce ACTUAL copies of ACTUAL MODEL ID showing their full (REAL) name; date of birth; any other name or stage name by which they have EVER been known; ect... and the kinds of ID are specified (college or work ID cards, for example, are NOT acceptable for this purpose - the ID used MUST be types that are government issued and traceable such as passports or driver's licenses). Most photographers will have model releases; some will have examined the model's ID but not kept copies of the actual ID; some will have accepted ID that is not of an approved type. Images made on this basis will probably NOT be supportable by suitable records for 2257 purposes. When images are transferred - for example between a photographer and a website - then the photographer (primary producer) is required to produce his records and furnish them to the web (or any other) publisher, distributor, exhibitor, ect. who then must establish their own records database.

5) Under 2257, and where records have previously been required, the scope of who was required to keep those records was limited. Distributors and retailers didn't have to keep or maintain copies of the records. Until the recent changes to 28 CFR Part75, in June 2005, even websites didn't have to maintain actual records - only a reference to the holder of the records. Under Pence's bill EVERYONE in the chain of production down to retail sellers / exhibitors will be required to keep a set of records INCLUDING the ID copies. Ditto for publishers... including web publishers like ModelMayhem. The same would be true, after Pence, for an art gallery; or any other distributor / exhibitor / seller with commercial interest in the images. These ID records MUST be cross referenced to such as URL's where the model's image appears; or publications, if printed; and there is a lot more to he detailed record keeping ins-and-outs in 28 CFR Part75.

6) As a result of, among other cases, US v Knox, even some clothed images (think here Calvin Kline ads) may fall foul of the 2256 definition of "graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person"... Knox established that even non-nude images where the the genitals or pubic area was "defined" even though not "exposed" could be held to be sufficiently graphic and lascivious to run foul of the law. Think bikini, under ware or lingerie shots.

Make no mistake here, this Pence amendment will impact everyone in photography, publishing, distribution, web publishing, and many, many others in the chain of production, distribution and even retailing. It will affect big Hollywood studios, broadcasters, and  individual fine arts photographers. It will affect legitimate nudist publishers who were previously exempt; it will affect sex education and health publishers and websites; it will definitely affect the legitimate modelling / advertising industries where we all KNOW that 14 (or even younger) - 17 YO models are used in ways that would run foul of the 2256 definitions where previously they did not (topless or partial or implied nudity) or posing in clothed work in ways that would run foul of the definition of "graphic" and in light of the US v Knox ruling.

The only saving grace here is that at least one Congressman - Robert "Bobby" Scott of Virginia actually pointed out to the House committee that Pence's bill, as written, was inconsistent with both previous Supreme Court rulings on protected (artistic / commercial) speech and the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. The House committee dismissed his objection and passed the bill anyway. It now goes to the Senate. If passed into law there is every chance that thirty seconds after that happens someone is going to file for an injunction to prevent it from being enforced.

Studio36

Cspine wrote:
well comming from a porn photographers point of view such as your own, that may be true.

Porn photographer?  Scuse me?  You ask for opinions, then sink to this level when you don't like the responses???  Nice, a true professional... 

And before you race off the handle again, keep in mind that I'm not the one wanting to shoot suggestive images of underage girls "because they are plentiful and free..."

And rather than sink to your level, I'll just let the "quality" of images in your portfolio speak for themselves...

area291 wrote:
I'm going to be blunt...you have GWC issues.  Based on what you wrote you aren't shooting models, you're simply taking pictures.  And, you aren't learning anything about how the industry works......

*sniffle*
Area, next time your on Oahu, or I pop by Malibu it's a round on me.
-=Jeff=-

PDXImaging wrote:

Porn photographer?  Scuse me?  You ask for opinions, then sink to this level when you don't like the responses???  Nice, a true professional... 

And before you race off the handle again, keep in mind that I'm not the one wanting to shoot suggestive images of underage girls "because they are plentiful and free..."

And rather than sink to your level, I'll just let the "quality" of images in your portfolio speak for themselves...

What level am I sinking to? How should I refer to a photographer that provides content for adult web sites? If you care to read my post, it's the underage models that are asking ME to take 'sexy' photos. I won't attack the 'quality' of your portfolio images because I feel they are adequate for what they are, as are mine.

ThePoser wrote:
I was actually wondering the same thing. I am not going to point fingers or name names but there are quite a few underage models HERE that have very suggestive pics on their profiles that had me screaming at the monitor the other night. Not cool ladies.......

Kaire

Perhapse you could help me rephrase the question, it might be taken more seriously comming from a female. I know what the laws are but just being legal  doesn't mean it's acceptable.

Jim Warren wrote:
You went to a shoot without a parent present? How did they sign the release saying the shoot was conducted in a professional manner? Just curious.

Also, where are the artistic images he shot for you? None of your images are credited in your portfolio. Always a nice thing to do if someone you've worked with is also on this site.

And hey, it's OK to use punctuation here.  Juz playin'...

Excuse me, where in a model release does it proclaim that the shoot was "conducted in a professional manner"? I've never seen that clause in any standard release.

And I think the model equavalent of GWC is GWS (Girl/Guy With Snapshots).

Cspine wrote:

What level am I sinking to? How should I refer to a photographer that provides content for adult web sites? If you care to read my post, it's the underage models that are asking ME to take 'sexy' photos. I won't attack the 'quality' of your portfolio images because I feel they are adequate for what they are, as are mine.

I don't provide content to adult web sites.  And, btw, portfolio comments from you are a hoot...

PDXImaging wrote:

I don't provide content to adult web sites.  And, btw, portfolio comments from you are a hoot...

If thats true then someone is stealing your images for softcore porn sites. I'll poke around and try to find where I saw them. Feel free to slam the quality of my work, I'm trying to improve but I haven't gotten much useful feedback. Email me or something.

Cspine wrote:
If thats true then someone is stealing your images for softcore porn sites. I'll poke around and try to find where I saw them. Feel free to slam the quality of my work, I'm trying to improve but I haven't gotten much useful feedback. Email me or something.

If any of MY images are showing up on softcore porn sites, then there's a problem.  I have never sold any such content and guard my copyright interests vigorously.

Vito wrote:
Excuse me, where in a model release does it proclaim that the shoot was "conducted in a professional manner"? I've never seen that clause in any standard release.

And I think the model equavalent of GWC is GWS (Girl/Guy With Snapshots).

It says it in my release. Any idea how many versions of standard releases there are?  Look around and you'll find this in many of them. Or, do you use the little postcard-sized releases that are generic and nearly useless? I have that clause in my releases as an extra safeguard (my release was adapted from one of the "standard releases" you refer to). I make sure a parent is present as witnesses and that they read and sign that. Pretty hard to charge impropriety when the model's guardian is present and signs that document.

Jim Warren wrote:
It says it in my release. Any idea how many versions of standard releases there are?  Look around and you'll find this in many of them. Or, do you use the little postcard-sized releases that are generic and nearly useless? I have that clause in my releases as an extra safeguard (my release was adapted from one of the "standard releases" you refer to). I make sure a parent is present as witnesses and that they read and sign that. Pretty hard to charge impropriety when the model's guardian is present and signs that document.

The Standard Professional Photographers Association and the other big organization (can't remember name or acronym, possibly ASMP, American Society of Media Photographers) does not mention anything about the "conduct" of the session. It is a legal document that gives the photographer (or whoever the photos are "released" to) the right to use them (in various manners). You may have adapted one of their forms for your use, but it is not STANDARD.

Vito wrote:
The Standard Professional Photographers Association and the other big organization (can't remember name or acronym, possibly ASMP, American Society of Media Photographers) does not mention anything about the "conduct" of the session. It is a legal document that gives the photographer (or whoever the photos are "released" to) the right to use them (in various manners). You may have adapted one of their forms for your use, but it is not STANDARD.

If not standard, then quite COMMON. I'm willing to bet there are more photographers here using custom versions of releases than your "standard" releases. Plus, a lot of folks here do TFP/CD work, and I wasn't aware of a standard for that type of work, which includes SPECIFIC usage rights, etc. I even added a clause acknowledging who the copyright belongs to. A standard release wouldn't suffice for much of the work done here.

Jim Warren wrote:

If not standard, then quite COMMON. I'm willing to bet there are more photographers here using custom versions of releases than your "standard" releases.

I can't be sure, but I don't think that many photographers have releases that make a (unnecessary) comment about the "conduct" of the session. It is irrelevent for the legal form in question. If the session was NOT conducted the way the model believed it should have been, then just don't sign the release.  And STANDARD means just that, an standardized form. Changes, additions, alterations are not STANDARD, once made.

ThePoser wrote:
I was actually wondering the same thing. I am not going to point fingers or name names but there are quite a few underage models HERE that have very suggestive pics on their profiles that had me screaming at the monitor the other night. Not cool ladies.......

Kaire

I have noticed several models under 18 here as well that have implied shots, but ... to me that is a different issue.  The photos are clearly not illegal and indeed are not even atypical of what you mght see in a NYC portfolio.  Many fashion models in NYC, under the age of 18 have an implied or even a topless photo in their books.

To me the question is not whether a model should be able to display the photos, or even if it is illegal to take them, it is whether it is prudent to be the photographer who took the photo.

To me it comes down to a single issue.  California is a good example.  We have a law that requres a photo lab to notify the police if they are asked to process images that appear to be of a minor involved in illegal nudity.  About three years ago, a female photographer got her home search and was rousted by police because a lab reported a topless shot of a 13 year old girl and her mother.  The photo was not illegal in California and no charges were filed.

The problem was that once the police had the photo they had the smoke.  If she was taking a topless shot of a 13 year old (albiet in a tame photo with her mom) the photographer was probably doing kiddie porn as well.  And that is the bottom line.  She opened the door to let the police in although what she did was perfectly legal.

Look at Jock Sturges and what he went through.  My view is whether it is legal or not, it is exposure that I don't want to have.

In terms of the implied images of minors on this site, I haven't seen one is legally inappropriate.  I even saw a profile for a 17 year old back east that said she would do topless for approriate images.  However, I have more problems with that than the implied shots I have seen on the site.

So to me, displaying the image is fine, being the one who takes it, seems risky.

Just my view.

Jim Warren wrote:
[If not standard, then quite COMMON. I'm willing to bet there are more photographers here using custom versions of releases than your "standard" releases. Plus, a lot of folks here do TFP/CD work, and I wasn't aware of a standard for that type of work, which includes SPECIFIC usage rights, etc. I even added a clause acknowledging who the copyright belongs to. A standard release wouldn't suffice for much of the work done here.

My release(s) are also modified from the STANDARD. What I'm saying is that the "conduct of ..." line is not in  the standard release. Also, a TFP/CD release doesn't need "Specific" usage verbiage, as the photographer usually has all rights as to the dispostition of the images. Adding who the copyright belongs to is nice, because most GWSs don't know this, but again, is not in the standard release, nor necessary. If a case ever did go to court, the lawyers involved and the judge would know that the copyright is owned by the photographer, unless he signed away that right specifically (, and not in a model release).

Vito wrote:
My release(s) are also modified from the STANDARD. What I'm saying is that the "conduct of ..." line is not in  the standard release. Also, a TFP/CD release doesn't need "Specific" usage verbiage, as the photographer usually has all rights as to the dispostition of the images. Adding who the copyright belongs to is nice, because most GWSs don't know this, but again, is not in the standard release, nor necessary. If a case ever did go to court, the lawyers involved and the judge would know that the copyright is owned by the photographer, unless he signed away that right specifically (, and not in a model release).

I never stated that the clause was included in a standard release. I don't dispute that. I was just so used to seeing that in minor releases I've seen (and used as the basis for my own) that I assumed it was very common. Maybe it's not necessary, in your eyes or indeed the law, but when the model and parent go through the release and have it explained, there is NO DOUBT about that or copyrights. 

It's on my release (and others)  as both a CYA and educational clause. I also explain what's on the form to both model & parent. Just measures I take to lessen the likelihood that we have to get to a courtroom situation to have it disputed or clarified.

Incidentally, what are your thoughts on minors going to shoots without parents? It's good to know they trust the minor's boyfriend, who lives with them. I would NEVER shoot with aminor without a parent present. More CYA.

David Edwards wrote:
Okay, you know the legal issues and weren't asking about them. You say you just wanted to know if this is appropriate or not. Seems you got your answer. I'd say based on the responses here most people consider it to be "not appropriate". Also seems to me you don't like that answer. So, I conclude you weren't asking a sincere question but instead looking for someone to validate and condone your behaviour. And if that is true, then a truthful look inside your heart will tell you that you already knew this but for some reason wanted to ignore it.

I have no problem with any answer to my question, I have a problem with people assuming I'm a perv for asking. I did have a pretty good idea of what is considered apropriate but thought I'd ask. Turns out I was correct.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

I have noticed several models under 18 here as well that have implied shots, but ... to me that is a different issue.  The photos are clearly not illegal and indeed are not even atypical of what you mght see in a NYC portfolio.  Many fashion models in NYC, under the age of 18 have an implied or even a topless photo in their books.

To me the question is not whether a model should be able to display the photos, or even if it is illegal to take them, it is whether it is prudent to be the photographer who took the photo.

To me it comes down to a single issue.  California is a good example.  We have a law that requres a photo lab to notify the police if they are asked to process images that appear to be of a minor involved in illegal nudity.  About three years ago, a female photographer got her home search and was rousted by police because a lab reported a topless shot of a 13 year old girl and her mother.  The photo was not illegal in California and no charges were filed.

The problem was that once the police had the photo they had the smoke.  If she was taking a topless shot of a 13 year old (albiet in a tame photo with her mom) the photographer was probably doing kiddie porn as well.  And that is the bottom line.  She opened the door to let the police in although what she did was perfectly legal.

Look at Jock Sturges and what he went through.  My view is whether it is legal or not, it is exposure that I don't want to have.

In terms of the implied images of minors on this site, I haven't seen one is legally inappropriate.  I even saw a profile for a 17 year old back east that said she would do topless for approriate images.  However, I have more problems with that than the implied shots I have seen on the site.

So to me, displaying the image is fine, being the one who takes it, seems risky.

Just my view.

Thank you, this is what I had assumed was standard.