Pat Thielen wrote:
Well, this is about to turn into a flame fest. What do your parents say about this? Are they going to be at the shoot and are they going to sign the model release? Also, while shooting underage people is not illegal (despite what others may say) it can be a very dangerous pursuit for the photographer. If you'd like to do nudes, which is fine, you may want to consider waiting until you're 18.

I see that you've been living on your own since last year. Does this mean you are seen as an adult legally (I forget the legal term for this)? If not, you will have to have a legal guardian sign the model release. If you are no longer considered a minor then I don't know how it would work. If I were the photographer I'd wait until you were 18.

I am not legally emancipated because my income is unpredictable (webdesign, online trading, modeling and tutoring). LAPD told me that while I am legally a minor, I will be viewed as an adult in most situations as long as my mother consents to my independent lifestyle (I managed to get this in writing). I guess this means that I am sort of in-between...

MelissaLynnette LaDiva wrote:
Is it legal in CA?
Is your mom ok with it?
If so, then go ahead!

It's legal. My mother signs my model release forms, but she does not attend shoots and generally asks little about my modeling.

Levi Levi wrote:

Pat Thielen wrote:
Well, this is about to turn into a flame fest. What do your parents say about this? Are they going to be at the shoot and are they going to sign the model release? Also, while shooting underage people is not illegal (despite what others may say) it can be a very dangerous pursuit for the photographer. If you'd like to do nudes, which is fine, you may want to consider waiting until you're 18.

I see that you've been living on your own since last year. Does this mean you are seen as an adult legally (I forget the legal term for this)? If not, you will have to have a legal guardian sign the model release. If you are no longer considered a minor then I don't know how it would work. If I were the photographer I'd wait until you were 18.

I am not legally emancipated because my income is unpredictable (webdesign, online trading, modeling and tutoring). However, I asked LAPD about my status as a minor or adult. I was told that although I am a minor, that I should "use common sense" and that I am "living an adult life" (I managed to get it in writing). I guess this means that I am sort of in-between...


It's legal. My mother signs my model release forms, but she does not attend shoots and generally asks little about my modeling.

There is no "in-between." You're a minor and you need to make sure the photographer is aware of this. Your Mom should also know that you're considering nude modeling -- she could claim she signed the release without knowing this after the fact. Of course, she really should be at your photo shoots as well.

This has a very bad feel to it from a legal point of view.

Levi Levi wrote:
It's legal. My mother signs my model release forms, but she does not attend shoots and generally asks little about my modeling.

Then go ahead!

MelissaLynnette LaDiva wrote:
Then go ahead!

I love your attitude on things (not just in this thread). I think I will keep my options open and possibly do some shots of my backside. My stance on frontal nudity will probably remain very reserved, though, since I am worried about it damaging me legally and professionally. I am still a pretty clean slate.

If worst comes to worst then I guess there is no such thing as bad publicity. I wonder if the moderators would allow the photos to be posted. *bump bump*

Fotorican Inc wrote:
There are legit photographers who shoot underage subjects in ways that do not break the law. Sallie Mann for example, did this remarkably well and her work is memorable. Unfortunately the current climate is not very welcoming to this type of work . . .

Sad, isn't it?

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

MMDesign wrote:
Heard of Jock Sturges?

Is your point that Jock photographed underaged children, and is still a free man, or is it that he got to meet the FBI and various other branches of law enforcement, and had his equipment and files seized?

http://www.cd.sc.ehu.es/FileRoom/docume … urges.html

Check out a recent arrest of a woman who posed nude with her CLOTHED children:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/1 … r_Children


Paul

Fotorican Inc wrote:
There are legit photographers who shoot underage subjects in ways that do not break the law. Sallie Mann for example, did this remarkably well and her work is memorable. Unfortunately the current climate is not very welcoming to this type of work . . .

Unless, you are getting some insane amount of money I think you should not consider it.

I've shot my son nude, but not since he was 12 months old.  Completely legal, but I'd never post them on the net.  I think babies on their tummies when they are wee little things are so {{{cute}}}.

bang bang photo wrote:

Is your point that Jock photographed underaged children, and is still a free man, or is it that he got to meet the FBI and various other branches of law enforcement, and had his equipment and files seized?

http://www.cd.sc.ehu.es/FileRoom/docume … urges.html

Check out a recent arrest of a woman who posed nude with her CLOTHED children:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/1 … r_Children


Paul

My point was that he went through all of that and was found not guilty. What he did wasn't illegal, as it wouldn't be illegal here either.

And the fact that Homeland Security has contacted all of the major film developers in the country and asked them to report anything even vaguely suspicious or possibly illegal is just another example of our loss of civil liberties.

bang bang photo wrote:

Is your point that Jock photographed underaged children, and is still a free man, or is it that he got to meet the FBI and various other branches of law enforcement, and had his equipment and files seized?

http://www.cd.sc.ehu.es/FileRoom/docume … urges.html

Check out a recent arrest of a woman who posed nude with her CLOTHED children:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/1 … r_Children


Paul

There are TWO Amerikas, the one where people live in the twenty-first century and are capable of thinking and making intelligent adult decisions for themselves and the  the part that lives in the thirteenth century where ideas, knowledge and thinking are a crime and punished by those who think THEY have the moral imperative to make everything right and the same.  Considering WHERE this occurred, one can only say so duh.

Bruce Talbot wrote:
Brilliant.

There's a good probability you've already made a decision. Airing it out here puts it through an acid test. You'll have judgments passed on, for, and about, you and the photographer without having done a thing.

Yet.

bt

quite so, and google returns to make sure the offers keep coming

Levi Levi wrote:
I am not legally emancipated because my income is unpredictable (webdesign, online trading, modeling and tutoring). LAPD told me that while I am legally a minor, I will be viewed as an adult in most situations as long as my mother consents to my independent lifestyle (I managed to get this in writing). I guess this means that I am sort of in-between...

I see a lot of holes here.

You're a double major Senor at UCLA at 16?

You trade on-line at 16?

Why would LAPD talk to you when you're in LA County Sherriff’s territory?

Jut curious

Primal Lens wrote:
Um let me take a guess....
Does he shoot a lot of males nude? Young looking fit guys?

tap tap, anyone home?

Zion Imaging wrote:

tap tap, anyone home?

bears re-repeating.

C R Photography wrote:
I see a lot of holes here.

You're a double major Senor at UCLA at 16?

You trade on-line at 16?

Why would LAPD talk to you when you're in LA County Sherriff’s territory?

Jut curious

That does sound weird, doesn't it. Now, is been over 20 years since I was at UCLA, but a double major, would not afford anyone an occasional trip to NY????

UCLA, is within the L.A. City limit, it doesn't mean the sherrif's department would not cover it, but its still LAPD.


edit**** Oh yeah, hey OP, just say NO.

MMDesign wrote:
My point was that he went through all of that and was found not guilty. What he did wasn't illegal, as it wouldn't be illegal here either.

Actually, he wasn't found not guilty, the grand jury never indicted him.  Paul's point is that they hassled the crap out of him before he got that far.  I can't imagine anyone wanting to go through what he went through just to prove a point.

Levi Levi wrote:
To the moderators in on MM: would a nude photo in my portfolio get me banned from the site?

I am not a mod but I can answer the question definitely.  Nude or implied nudes of models under the age of 18 are against the rules.  The mods will take some kind of action.  I am not sure they would ban you.  They might just freeze your profile until you took the image down, but they will do something.

Everybody is missing something here.  The bigger risk is to the photographer, not the model.  Really most of the advice you are giving is to tell photographers not to shoot underage models (which, while not illegal can be a hassle).  There are far less pitfalls for Levi than for the photographer.

Do I think it is a good idea for Levi to model nude for an individual photographer at the age of sixteen?  Of course not.  I think it is better all around for him to wait.  I see no reason for a 16 year old to be doing nudes unless it is for a major company, a major motion picture or for a legitimate assignment through a licensed agency.

However, if the photographer does something illegal or inappropriate, Levi will be the victim, not the perpetrator.

BTW, California has some tough laws regarding minors and motion pictures or commercial photography.  In general, at a minimum, a parent needs to be present, in many cases, even if they are emancipated.  In a lot of circumstances, a studio teacher has to also be on set.  These laws have nothing to do with nudity.  They are about shooting with minors in general.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
Levi, in the short time I've known you I have come to the conclusion that you are not a man of action. You are always just trying or attempting or studying, but never doing. Get a big baseball bat or a gun and go to that shoot. If he tries anything funny hit him with the bat. He may be the next Herb Ritts and you may be the next Richard Gere and you probably won't need the gun at all.

That's a good way of looking at things!

Levi Levi wrote:
I was wondering who has input on this. A photographer approached me about doing implied nudity, and he suggested that he would be interested in doing full nudity as well. Also, he assured me the photos would not be sexual and would not be presented in a sexual context, thereby making them legal.

He has excellent references and the photos would likely turn out gorgeous... plus, it would be an interesting experience for me to pose nude. I know it is risky but that is part of what might make it a wonderful and very fruitful shoot. ¿¿¿ Input ?

PS: I am sixteen years old but live on my own, making this a personal decision rather than a family decision.

PPS: The shoot is TFCD.

PPPPPPPPPPPPS: I did not notice any nudes in his portfolio, just one photo that was slightly erotic. He shoots mostly men.

Ok Now keep in mind that being 16 and being "On your own", you do one nude shoot and the word might do out your ok with it and then the "GWC" will flock to you and a really good chace they would offer to shoot you for a "Personal" collection.  Granted they will offer cash, it will be a slow slide to pron if not carefull and you would not even see it coming. Also somehow they might find another guy to work with you.

Just wait no rush.

Dave

Levi Levi wrote:
I was wondering who has input on this. A photographer approached me about doing implied nudity, and he suggested that he would be interested in doing full nudity as well. Also, he assured me the photos would not be sexual and would not be presented in a sexual context, thereby making them legal.

He has excellent references and the photos would likely turn out gorgeous... plus, it would be an interesting experience for me to pose nude. I know it is risky but that is part of what might make it a wonderful and very fruitful shoot. ¿¿¿ Input ?

PS: I am sixteen years old but live on my own, making this a personal decision rather than a family decision.

PPS: The shoot is TFCD.

PPPPPPPPPPPPS: I did not notice any nudes in his portfolio, just one photo that was slightly erotic. He shoots mostly men.

Will you  visit the photographer when he is behind bars, let's say you took these photos to school and was showing all your friends the beautiful "artistic nudes" this photographer took.  And then  one of your narrow minded teachers see one,  calls the authorities, now this photographer who did you a favor, will be investigated for child porn.   This is one example of how things can really get turned around.  The photographer should wait until you are legal.  I shoot mainly fine art implied nude, but i will not work with  minors..period!

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

I am not a mod but I can answer the question definitely.  Nude or implied nudes of models under the age of 18 are against the rules.  The mods will take some kind of action.  I am not sure they would ban you.  They might just freeze your profile until you took the image down, but they will do something.

Everybody is missing something here.  The bigger risk is to the photographer, not the model.  Really most of the advice you are giving is to tell photographers not to shoot underage models (which, while not illegal can be a hassle).  There are far less pitfalls for Levi than for the photographer.

Do I think it is a good idea for Levi to model nude for an individual photographer at the age of sixteen?  Of course not.  I think it is better all around for him to wait.  I see no reason for a 16 year old to be doing nudes unless it is for a major company, a major motion picture or for a legitimate assignment through a licensed agency.

However, if the photographer does something illegal or inappropriate, Levi will be the victim, not the perpetrator.

BTW, California has some tough laws regarding minors and motion pictures or commercial photography.  In general, at a minimum, a parent needs to be present, in many cases, even if they are emancipated.  In a lot of circumstances, a studio teacher has to also be on set.  These laws have nothing to do with nudity.  They are about shooting with minors in general.

The photographer would know what hes doing and what he has done in the past. When I shot porn I knew what I was doing and how to do it. Its a smooth game that is done.

He just should not do it. Also the photographer should not have even asked.

Dave