Photography by Martin wrote:
My concern is as the father of a daughter, though now in her mid 20's and completely self reliant...  What image are some of these 18-19 year old girls projecting?  I'm sure they enjoy the idea of "being sexy", but many of them, if not most, have no idea what future ramifications "being sexy" can have.  Am I against glamour/nudes? Hell no.  But I would just ask some of these "barely legal" girls to RELLY think about what thay are doing today, and how it WILL DEFINATELY effect them tomorrow.

Photography by Martin wrote:
My concern is as the father of a daughter, though now in her mid 20's and completely self reliant...  What image are some of these 18-19 year old girls projecting?  I'm sure they enjoy the idea of "being sexy", but many of them, if not most, have no idea what future ramifications "being sexy" can have.  Am I against glamour/nudes? Hell no.  But I would just ask some of these "barely legal" girls to RELLY think about what thay are doing today, and how it WILL DEFINATELY effect them tomorrow.

Those "barely legal" girls are old enough to live on their own, vote for their own governance, and die for their country.  The decisions that go along with how they conduct any of those are FAR more likely to affect the rest of their lives than posing for nude photos.

SLE Photography wrote:
I know the nude teen topic has been discussed to death here, but I caught a story out of upstate NY that I thought put a couple of interesting twists on it.  This's from the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, and the story (and girls refered to) are in the town of Victor, NY, which's in Ontario County.  While the site refered to is in Canada, the laws refered to are US laws (NY state specifically):
Ontario to photographer: No nude shots of students

James Goodman
Staff writer

(March 17, 2007) — VICTOR — An Ontario County woman who photographed at least 13 women — including two Victor high school students — for an adult Web site has agreed not to take any more photos of high school students.

"She understands that photographing high school students is not in their best interests," said Ontario County Sheriff Philip Povero.

The photographer made the commitment after being interviewed by sheriff's deputies on Friday. No criminal charges were filed.

All of the women photographed were 18 or older, including the two women who at the time were seniors at Victor Senior High School, Povero said.

Most of those photographed posed topless and voluntarily entered into a contract with the photographer, who required proof that they were 18, Povero said. The women were paid for their modeling and gave exclusive rights to the photographer for future use of the photos, which were submitted to an adult Web site in Canada.

The name of the photographer was not released because she had not been charged with a crime. Showing sexual images of someone younger than 17 would be a felony under state law.

The investigation was reviewed with the Ontario County District Attorney's Office, Povero said.

Photographs of the 13 women were taken over the past two to three years. Sheriff's deputies, according to Povero, have been monitoring the Web site for several months. "We will continue to monitor," said Povero, noting the evidence does not show that a law has been violated.

Victor Superintendent Timothy McElheran sent out an e-mail to parents and members of the community Friday that referred to possible exploitation of several young adults from Victor.

"It is my hope that you will use this unfortunate situation to discuss the safety issues associated with the Internet and the possible threat it poses to the welfare of our young people," he wrote.

[email protected]

Now, without getting in to the morality of shooting people under 18 nude, this story goes to the point of what several of us have said in the various threads about this...it's a BAD IDEA and can bring you a world of legal hassles EVEN IF YOU'RE LEGALLY IN THE RIGHT.
In THIS case, the photographer in question photographed legal ADULTS and STILL got threatened & intimidated by the local cops (oh, excuse me, "interviewed") and is being placed under scrutiny for shooting high school students even tho they were of age.
Notice also it makes reference to "Showing sexual images of someone younger than 17 would be a felony under state law."  It's a frequent comment in these threads that sexual activity or lewdness is a requirement...in this case it says the site's basicallly topless photos yet it characterizes it several times as an "adult" site.  Does anyone doubt if the girls had been 17 the prosecutor would've argued the images were "sexual"?
This sort of thing is why I feel working with anyone under 18 is just not worth is for the most part, regardless of whether or not I'm shooting nudes.
See the thing there about letters being sent out warning parents their kids may've been exploited, even thou there was no evidence of wrongdoing?  Do any of you seriously think the photographer's name isn't widely known up there?
And it's AMAZING how the idea of a few boobie shots shows "safety issues associated with the Internet and the possible threat it poses to the welfare of our young people"

So just something to consider next time someone wants to argue that because it's not necessarily against the law to shoot minors nude, it's automatically OK.

And I will personally track you down & break your knees if you start whining about Jock Sturgess and Sally Mann.  The point of this is not to say they're wrong or that people haven't made great art out of this or that sometimes people do it & get away with it.
The point is its unbearably risky and people will persecute your ass for it even if you're not breaking a law.

Just because a large portion of a community consists of ignorant people, the rest of the people who live there are not beholden to live ignorantly.  None of the girls who modeled nude were under 18 years old - so this is obviously an attempt by conservative right-wing religious zealots and Internet fearmongers to intimidate a photographer who complied with the law.  People who give up their freedoms in order to be "OK" with those who would take away such freedoms don't deserve those freedoms in the first place.  They are cowards who deserve to live as slaves.

Jock Sturges and Sally Mann are photographic heroes!  "And I will personally track you down & break your knees if you start whining about Jock Sturgess and Sally Mann"???  You are welcome to come and try.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

SLE Photography wrote:

Those "barely legal" girls are old enough to live on their own, vote for their own governance, and die for their country.  The decisions that go along with how they conduct any of those are FAR more likely to affect the rest of their lives than posing for nude photos.

That doesn't mean that in today's society they're really mature enough to be doing these things...As a 22 year old, I would have to say that it's very rare to find a person that age who is.

JAY carreon wrote:
Just because a large portion of a community consists of ignorant people, the rest of the people who live there are not beholden to live ignorantly.  None of the girls who modeled nude were under 18 years old - so this is obviously an attempt by conservative right-wing religious zealots and Internet fearmongers to intimidate a photographer who complied with the law.  People who give up their freedoms in order to be "OK" with those who would take away such freedoms don't deserve those freedoms in the first place.  They are cowards who deserve to live as slaves.

Jock Sturges and Sally Mann are photographic heroes!  "And I will personally track you down & break your knees if you start whining about Jock Sturgess and Sally Mann"???  You are welcome to come and try.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

You're missing my point Jay.  I agree with you about the people intimidating (I'd say since she agreed not to shoot any more high school girls there's no "trying," they suceeded) the photographer, and about other people going along with it.
My point was simply that she DID work within the law and STILL got haraased, gods help her if those girls had been under 18.  This was directed at the people who post in these threads going "there's no law so we can do it without consequence" and trash those of us who point out they're likely to face unpleasant consequences even if they're LEGALLY in the right.
As for the Mann & Strugess comment, I lauded their good works.  I have all of Sally's books.  The point behind that comment was that they're ibvariably trotted out to support people going "well THEY did it so why can't I?" hence the "whining" comment.  They're expceptions that prove the rule.
And I'd say the first couple of replies I got here from folks saying these girls were probably too childish & immature to maake decisions for themselves is also going to sadly go a long way with most people.
How despicable that people are raising their kids so poorly & doing so little to prepare them for the world.
Apparently protecting them from n00dz is more important than teaching them critical thinking & self reliance

Photography by Martin wrote:
My concern is as the father of a daughter, though now in her mid 20's and completely self reliant...  What image are some of these 18-19 year old girls projecting?  I'm sure they enjoy the idea of "being sexy", but many of them, if not most, have no idea what future ramifications "being sexy" can have.  Am I against glamour/nudes? Hell no.  But I would just ask some of these "barely legal" girls to RELLY think about what thay are doing today, and how it WILL DEFINATELY effect them tomorrow.

So you're suggesting that 18-19 year olds shouldn't be allowed to pose provocatively or (shudder) topless?

OK, so raise the age to 21.

Oh no, hang on, then you'll say "someone who has only just reached 21 shouldn't be exploited in this way so we should raise it to 25".

Where does it end?

The fact is that girls like to be sexy, both by other girls and by the boys, on whom they see (and like) the effect which they have. They dress to kill when they go out at the weekend (and I'm talking about the 16 year olds here!) and all we can do as parents is try to educate them about the dangers without killing their childhood, and point out how to be safe in the real world.

Compared to that, what's this nonsense about an 18 year old doing topless pictures of which she will probably feel proud when she's older and saggier?

SLE Photography wrote:
Those "barely legal" girls are old enough to live on their own, vote for their own governance, and die for their country.  The decisions that go along with how they conduct any of those are FAR more likely to affect the rest of their lives than posing for nude photos.

Alexandra Ashe wrote:
That doesn't mean that in today's society they're really mature enough to be doing these things...As a 22 year old, I would have to say that it's very rare to find a person that age who is.

And it's largely THAT attitude that's CREATING the problem.
Please keep in mind that the modern concept of adolesence is only about 100 years old, a product of the industrial revolution.  In this county within the laast 100 years, people were expected to act as mature adults by 15 or 16 and shoulder the burdens of adulthood.
As the rise of machine labor made it necessary to stockpile and limit the workforce, child labor laaws were extended to higher ages & the school system was deigned to keep people in longer.
This created the concept of adolesence as we know it.
Now, today, people are extending it further & further and VERY little is done to teach criticial thinking or decision making or any number of things & people make EXCUSES like this that only further the problem instead of addressing it.
You'll never help people find a way to maturity by dismissing them as immature & incapable.

RickMartin wrote:
So you're suggesting that 18-19 year olds shouldn't be allowed to pose provocatively or (shudder) topless?

OK, so raise the age to 21.

Oh no, hang on, then you'll say "someone who has only just reached 21 shouldn't be exploited in this way so we should raise it to 25".

Where does it end?

The fact is that girls like to be sexy, both by other girls and by the boys, on whom they see (and like) the effect which they have. They dress to kill when they go out at the weekend (and I'm talking about the 16 year olds here!) and all we can do as parents is try to educate them about the dangers without killing their childhood, and point out how to be safe in the real world.

Compared to that, what's this nonsense about an 18 year old doing topless pictures of which she will probably feel proud when she's older and saggier?

Thank you, this dovetails with my post just above.  At some point you have to stop making excuses and let the baby bird out of the nest or it won't fly.
If you keep pushing that point back, it'll never leave.

Photography by Martin wrote:
My concern is as the father of a daughter, though now in her mid 20's and completely self reliant...  What image are some of these 18-19 year old girls projecting?  I'm sure they enjoy the idea of "being sexy", but many of them, if not most, have no idea what future ramifications "being sexy" can have.  Am I against glamour/nudes? Hell no.  But I would just ask some of these "barely legal" girls to RELLY think about what thay are doing today, and how it WILL DEFINATELY effect them tomorrow.

Whether or not you thought their decisions were well thought out or not (and you are in no position to say they were or were not), they are legal adults, and as such had the capability of deciding whether or not they wanted to pose nude.  Hell, I know 24 year olds that have posed nude and regretted it later on.  One's age does not necessarily make them a better or worse decision maker.  The point is that they were of age and they made a choice.  None of my business.

~Aurie

Alexandra Ashe wrote:

That doesn't mean that in today's society they're really mature enough to be doing these things...As a 22 year old, I would have to say that it's very rare to find a person that age who is.

They may not be mature enough, but it's certainly legal and every adult is responsible for their own mistakes. Law enforcement shouldn't be dealing with that problem.

SLE Photography wrote:

Those "barely legal" girls are old enough to live on their own, vote for their own governance, and die for their country.  The decisions that go along with how they conduct any of those are FAR more likely to affect the rest of their lives than posing for nude photos.

But few leave as lasting an impression.. or scar.  Believe me, some naked 18 year old is gonna want an executive job someday, and sure as shit, those nudie pics will show up.

Alexandra Ashe wrote:
That doesn't mean that in today's society they're really mature enough to be doing these things...As a 22 year old, I would have to say that it's very rare to find a person that age who is.

Stephie Synthetik wrote:
They may not be mature enough, but it's certainly legal and every adult is responsible for their own mistakes. Law enforcement shouldn't be dealing with that problem.

And I'd like to point out if they'd comitted a CRIME, law enforcement AND most of the people who're saying they're too immature to pose nude would be SCREAMING for them to be tried with the full force of adult law.
I'd like to see a survey of the high percentage of Americans who support the death penalty who think it's OK to apply to 16 & 17 year olds to see if there's an inverse correlation to their attitudes about young people posing nude...

Auriethepixie wrote:

Whether or not you thought their decisions were well thought out or not (and you are in no position to say they were or were not), they are legal adults, and as such had the capability of deciding whether or not they wanted to pose nude.  Hell, I know 24 year olds that have posed nude and regretted it later on.  One's age does not necessarily make them a better or worse decision maker.  The point is that they were of age and they made a choice.  None of my business.

~Aurie

Age does in many cases account for one's decision making skills.  Its called WISDOM

Photography by Martin wrote:
But few leave as lasting an impression.. or scar.  Believe me, some naked 18 year old is gonna want an executive job someday, and sure as shit, those nudie pics will show up.

Oh for the love of...you're talking about terrible lasting impressions & scars???
First of all, the executive job thing is a cannard.  It's really unlikely to be an issue.  Could be much more of an issue for a TEACHER but even then it's a slim thing.
Suggesting it's riskier than military service is HIGHLY disingenuous, as that's likely to leave REAL scars, both physical and emotional.  Or are yoou not aware of (among other things) statistics showing up to 75% of the chronically homeless in this country are veterans?
You're fearmongering sir, and talking in extreme language that shows a bias.
How old are the women you're shooting nude?
Did you give them maturity tests & warn them they'd be ruining their futures?

Photography by Martin wrote:
Age does in many cases account for one's decision making skills.  Its called WISDOM

One GAINS decision making experience by being taught to think critically about those decisions & their possible consequences and then being allowed to MAKE them.
One gains WISDOM by learning from the consequences of poor decisions.
Christ & Buddha both said things to that effect.
Simply saying "Someone's too young & immature to make that decision" is an excuse, and a poor one.

What's that line from the original "Willy Wonka"?
"And who'se to blame?  The mother and the father!"

This's another case of parents abrogating their responsibility to PARENT and blaming society instead.

And this's gone WAY off my intended point for this thread.

Photography by Martin wrote:

Age does in many cases account for one's decision making skills.  Its called WISDOM

Are you living in the same world I am?  Because that's got to be the most naive thing I've heard all week. 

~Aurie

SLE Photography wrote:

Oh for the love of...you're talking about terrible lasting impressions & scars???
First of all, the executive job thing is a cannard.  It's really unlikely to be an issue.  Could be much more of an issue for a TEACHER but even then it's a slim thing.
Suggesting it's riskier than military service is HIGHLY disingenuous, as that's likely to leave REAL scars, both physical and emotional.  Or are yoou not aware of (among other things) statistics showing up to 75% of the chronically homeless in this country are veterans?
You're fearmongering sir, and talking in extreme language that shows a bias.
How old are the women you're shooting nude?
Did you give them maturity tests & warn them they'd be ruining their futures?

I'm not fearmongering.  And here are a couple other statistics for you:

1) I AM a vet
2) My SON is now in Iraq

The women I shoot nude.. are 21 minimum.  In reality, most of the limited nude work I do is for married women in their 30's and beyond.
And yes, when a 18-20 year old bounces in and say she wants nude images, i will ask them more than once.. "are you sure?" for a number of reasons, and have on more than a few occasions, simply refused to do the work.
Ever had a pissed off boyfriend show up at your studio looking for negatives.. or your ass?  Ever had a district attorney show up at your studio wanting the negatives of the 19 year old wife in a divorce case?  I have had both.  So don't preach to me about wonderful the decision making skills and maturity of teenagers is.

SLE Photography wrote:
What's that line from the original "Willy Wonka"?
"And who'se to blame?  The mother and the father!"

This's another case of parents abrogating their responsibility to PARENT and blaming society instead.

And this's gone WAY off my intended point for this thread.

I'm not sure it is too far from your original post. The parents, remember, are the ones who buy, read and are influenced by what they read in the papers, and the papers will print what sells. In this case, it's making a scandal out of something that's perfectly lawful and not (IMHO) even morally questionable.

If people would only think we might be a lot better off!

Photography by Martin wrote:
Age does in many cases account for one's decision making skills.  Its called WISDOM

Photography by Martin wrote:
I'm not fearmongering.  And here are a couple other statistics for you:

1) I AM a vet
2) My SON is now in Iraq

The women I shoot nude.. are 21 minimum.  In reality, most of the limited nude work I do is for married women in their 30's and beyond.
And yes, when a 18-20 year old bounces in and say she wants nude images, i will ask them more than once.. "are you sure?" for a number of reasons, and have on more than a few occasions, simply refused to do the work.
Ever had a pissed off boyfriend show up at your studio looking for negatives.. or your ass?  Ever had a district attorney show up at your studio wanting the negatives of the 19 year old wife in a divorce case?  I have had both.  So don't preach to me about wonderful the decision making skills and maturity of teenagers is.

The idea that any nudes will ruin a future career is generally a false cannard and therefore fearmongering.
That's great that you're a vet.  So're most of my family & a number of my friends.  I would be, but during Gulf Part 1 when I went in to join with several of my friends they wouldn't allow me in for any positions other than in-US support jobs (they had specific things they wanted to track me for).  My point about vets & homelessness was that military service is FAR riskier than modeling nude.
How old was your son when he signed up for the military?  If he was under 21, did you try to talk him out of it on the basis that he wasn't mature enough to make the decision?  If not, WHY not?
Once those women you shoot turn 21, it's OK with you if they risk ruining their lives & careers?  Why does the scarring become acceptable at that age?
Divorce cases are CIVIL matters, if a DA is showing up at your door, I'd imagine there was something else going on.  I have had a pissed off boyfriend put a GUN in my face, and the model was 25.
My point was not that all 18 y/os have wonderful decision making skills, or that most 25 y/os do for that matter, or 35 y/os even.  My point was that saying their choices should be limited or dismissing their right to make choices out of hand because they can't handle it won't do anything to HELP the situation.

Auriethepixie wrote:

Are you living in the same world I am?  Because that's got to be the most naive thing I've heard all week. 

~Aurie

No, quite honestly, I am NOT living in the same world as you...  You are a college student.  I got my degree, likely before you were even a thought (1980).   When you have survived more years in the real world than your present age, ask that question again. Naive?  you must be joking...

RickMartin wrote:
I'm not sure it is too far from your original post. The parents, remember, are the ones who buy, read and are influenced by what they read in the papers, and the papers will print what sells. In this case, it's making a scandal out of something that's perfectly lawful and not (IMHO) even morally questionable.

If people would only think we might be a lot better off!

That is a VERY good point.  Logic & critical thinking are sadly lacking in many people.
If only common sense WERE common *sigh*

SLE Photography wrote:

The idea that any nudes will ruin a future career is generally a false cannard and therefore fearmongering.
That's great that you're a vet.  So're most of my family & a number of my friends.  I would be, but during Gulf Part 1 when I went in to join with several of my friends they wouldn't allow me in for any positions other than in-US support jobs (they had specific things they wanted to track me for).  My point about vets & homelessness was that military service is FAR riskier than modeling nude.
How old was your son when he signed up for the military?  If he was under 21, did you try to talk him out of it on the basis that he wasn't mature enough to make the decision?  If not, WHY not?
Once those women you shoot turn 21, it's OK with you if they risk ruining their lives & careers?  Why does the scarring become acceptable at that age?
Divorce cases are CIVIL matters, if a DA is showing up at your door, I'd imagine there was something else going on.  I have had a pissed off boyfriend put a GUN in my face, and the model was 25.
My point was not that all 18 y/os have wonderful decision making skills, or that most 25 y/os do for that matter, or 35 y/os even.  My point was that saying their choices should be limited or dismissing their right to make choices out of hand because they can't handle it won't do anything to HELP the situation.

I think you missed the point actually.  I am NOT saying their choices should be limited.  My original question was simply, do these teenagers even THINK beyond the moment when they want to pose nude.

CYDEXIA wrote:
1. Visibility of breasts or lack thereof alone, will not determine artistic merit, categorization as pornography or measure of obscenity, of a photograph.

2. Laws differ greatly in US and Canada, specially when it comes to pornography. Shooting/posing nude at 18 in US and in Canada, have different legal outcomes.

You are missing out on the legal logic behind the news article you have posted (which is of an incident in Canada).

You did not READ what I posted.
The website the photographs were taken for is in Canada.  The town, girls, and photographer in question are in upstate New York, not Canada.
I specifically clarified that after the article.
You also did not read my commentary post article about the relevance of pornography laws vs actual risk of prsecution, which was part of the point of my post.

Photography by Martin wrote:
I think you missed the point actually.  I am NOT saying their choices should be limited.  My original question was simply, do these teenagers even THINK beyond the moment when they want to pose nude.

Did your son think beyond the moment he signed his recruitment papers?

SLE Photography wrote:
You did not READ what I posted.
The website the photographs were taken for is in Canada.  The town, girls, and photographer in question are in upstate New York, not Canada.
I specifically clarified that after the article.
You also did not read my commentary post article about the relevance of pornography laws vs actual risk of prsecution, which was part of the point of my post.

Ok, are you pointing out the fact that she needs to be charged because the model and photographer were US citizens, even if the images were shown on a Canadian site?

CYDEXIA wrote:
Ok, are you pointing out the fact that she needs to be charged because the model and photographer were US citizens, even if the images were shown on a Canadian site?

No, I'm not saying she needs to be charged at ALL.  I don't think she did anything wrong.
And the way US child pornography laws are written, if she'd created them here it wouldn't necessarily matter WHERE they were shown, she could've ended up in legal trouble for it even if the photos haadn't met the legal definition once a trial was concluded.

Alexandra Ashe wrote:
That doesn't mean that in today's society they're really mature enough to be doing these things...As a 22 year old, I would have to say that it's very rare to find a person that age who is.

But at the same time society has no problem giving young people the power of life and death when the become soldiers.

CYDEXIA wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that you may not be legally in right (you mention it's a bad idea even if legally in right). I'm saying, it's not legally a right in most cases even with that perfectly put-together release. The applicable charge is not child pornography.

Ok.  You're losing me somwhere here.
I saw your comment about legal logic in your first comment too & I'm not sure what you mean.

SLE Photography wrote:

Did your son think beyond the moment he signed his recruitment papers?

Indeed he did.  Actually, I questioned him over and over about his choice, due to the fact that he would likely be put into battle. (He's Infantry)  However, I am proud.. tho as a parent scared... of his choice.  I served in Desert Storm, my brother in Vietnam, and my Father in Korea.  My son carries on a rich tradition, though as I said, it makes it no less frightening as a parent.  Also, my daughter, 26, is also in the military, tho not in a combat situation.  But if I ran across nudies of her on the web, I'd still probably kick her ass.. LMAO

ED Edmonds wrote:
The point of the article for us as photographers or models.

Is a city has decided that it is beyond the law.

They are re-writing a law to suit their needs not the will of the people of the state or the United States. 

This is a arbitrary use of power without regard to the law.  This is very scary. They have set themselves above the law of the land.

I can think of a picture, I did of a woman in a turtle neck short sleeved blouse where she had to remove the picture from her book because her elbow looked like a boob.

Here is the same issue -- we think it is wrong and we are the law.

Their next logical step is to extend the ban to City College.

What if they had found a Jock Sturgess book and them charged her with possessing kiddy porn.

These cops are out of control -- somewhere down the line they will arrest a illegal and say they have no legal rights because they are not citizens.

I will shut up -- in my town it is legal to be nude but they arrest you for causing a disturbance.

And that is my point...most of us don't have the financial wherewithal or legal backing to fight something like this.
It's sad that society has come to a point where we're forced to accept this kind of browbeating by self righteous moralists.

Photography by Martin wrote:
Indeed he did.  Actually, I questioned him over and over about his choice, due to the fact that he would likely be put into battle. (He's Infantry)  However, I am proud.. tho as a parent scared... of his choice.  I served in Desert Storm, my brother in Vietnam, and my Father in Korea.  My son carries on a rich tradition, though as I said, it makes it no less frightening as a parent.  Also, my daughter, 26, is also in the military, tho not in a combat situation.  But if I ran across nudies of her on the web, I'd still probably kick her ass.. LMAO

Sorry, I don't find you saying you'd physically abuse your adult daughter over a decision she made particularly laughable.
Are you saying if she's come to you (as a photographer of nude women and her father, much as your son came to you as a vet & his father) and had asked you about it and gone over the consequences and shown knowledge of her decision you'd STILL have said no, and maybe even done her violence, rather than supporting her?

And BTW, I am about to publish some photos of a lady who's in her 30's who'se just recently out of the military (honorable discharge) due to injuries.  I've been holding the photos since she was 18.  She asked me to take them before she went in & said "Please hold them until I get out in 4 years so I can think about it."  Then she went career and asked me to hold them so she wouldn't run in to any UCMJ or security clearance issues.  Now that she's out & has been through a lot in life, she's happy about the decision and glad she did it & the photos will finally be out.

Photography by Martin wrote:
Ever had a pissed off boyfriend show up at your studio looking for negatives.. or your ass?  Ever had a district attorney show up at your studio wanting the negatives of the 19 year old wife in a divorce case?  I have had both.  So don't preach to me about wonderful the decision making skills and maturity of teenagers is.

Fuck the boyfriend. He needs to talk to his girlfriend if he's got issues with what she does as an adult. And do district attorneys really handle divorce cases? Not being a smart ass BTW. If one showed up at your door about a divorce then it sounds like they do. I just thought they handled criminal issues. Shows you how much I know about marriage

SLE Photography wrote:
And that is my point...most of us don't have the financial wherewithal or legal backing to fight something like this.
It's sad that society has come to a point where we're forced to accept this kind of browbeating by self righteous moralists.

I agree with the above.

And I don't think she did anything wrong in terms of shooting someone at 18. I was focusing on the release part (as the topless photos were published on a site), say a photographer shot someone at 18, and got it released by her right away and put it on a website, based on the law now, six months later, there is no guarantee what you have done cannot be disputed as being illegal. In a year however, in Canada, you are in the clear. I cannot say the same in the US, and frankly, I don't know about the law if the shot was NOT categorized as pornographic. If it was, it's clear, the photographer is in even more trouble. If it wasn't, I only know the answer if the photographer was Canadian. Complicated.

Logical conclusion: don't do it.