Photographer
Atomic Box Studios
Posts: 218
Grand Rapids, Michigan, US
What do you do. Or how do you handle a client who is not 18, but will be in a few months and wants to do a suicidegirl style shot. My first thought is NO. What are some suggestions, advice...Just straight answers
Model
Jessalyn
Posts: 21433
Denver, Colorado, US
Atomic Box Studios wrote:
My first thought is NO. if that was your first thought, then go with it.
Photographer
straydogimages
Posts: 267
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Absolutely wait till she's 18. It's too easy to forget who your working with in the heat of the moment, it's not worth the legal trouble. Moral issues also come into play, I wouldn't want to be part of it.
Photographer
DMI
Posts: 28
Westland, Michigan, US
Atomic Box Studios wrote:
What do you do. Or how do you handle a client who is not 18, but will be in a few months and wants to do a suicidegirl style shot. My first thought is NO. What are some suggestions, advice...Just straight answers Keep in touch with the model and wait the few months.
Photographer
George ephrem
Posts: 981
Jacksonville, Florida, US
DON'T DO IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
save yourself a lot of problems.
Photographer
Leo Howard
Posts: 6850
Phoenix, Arizona, US
For SG, I'd say wait till she is 18
Photographer
Longwatcher
Posts: 3664
Newport News, Virginia, US
For all models under 18, I personally tell them they must have parents present to play and NO nudity or sexual suggestion. Just some nice portfolio shots that they can use now and when they do turn 18. The parents present stops about 80 percent.
If she is the one saying Suicide Girl style shots, also refer her to all the threads on that particular site. As in have her do the research and then when she turns 18 offer to do that style if she still wants. (although make sure not for SG)
Just my opinion,
Photographer
Mr and Mrs Huber
Posts: 5056
Santa Rosalía, Baja California Sur, Mexico
so... like... you don't know what the law says? . . . um.. ya?
*smirk*. ..
OK.
Photographer
PAD Productions
Posts: 72
Houston, Texas, US
Wait! Just keep in touch with her and then do it. Could land you in serious trouble.
Photographer
215 Studios
Posts: 3453
Center Point, Texas, US
Personally, if it's just SG style shoot, I'd wait until she was 18. If she is interested in shoot for SG, I'd show her the negative issues with SG, and then inform her that I won't shoot anything that might be submitted to them.
-Major
Photographer
Wet Ltd
Posts: 1936
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
First thought, second thought, all thoughts should be screaming out NO. But come see me when your 18.
Photographer
UCPhotog
Posts: 998
Hartford, Connecticut, US
While we're going to get every answer on here, from the "didn't you see the 10,000 posts about this" to the "it's perfectly legal" to the "illegal" stuff, here's what I suggest:
Most likely, what you would be shooting is perfectly legal.
Also likely there's a Chief of Police or District Attorney with a young daughter who's looking to get re-elected.
Likely your lawyer would be able to clear it all up.
Also likely you'd be meeting Bubba in the cell before your attorney is able to clear it up.
If she's 18 soon, maybe do a simple shoot or two (with a parent present) to get her used to the camera. It also keeps her interest and builds trust in you.
Good luck,
UCPhotog
Photographer
Visual Eden Studios
Posts: 491
Chicago, Illinois, US
Unless mom comes along and co-signs the release, its a no no.
But, even cindy crawford was shot nude when she was 16 (with mom present).
Nope thats not a myth, its a fact.
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12117
Tampa, Florida, US
UCPhotog wrote:
While we're going to get every answer on here, from the "didn't you see the 10,000 posts about this" to the "it's perfectly legal" to the "illegal" stuff, here's what I suggest: Translation = listen to me and not those "others." Great advice though.
Photographer
Sandy Ramirez
Posts: 6089
Brooklyn, New York, US
Well for SG I would definitely say no, as SG is porn. They wouldn't accept a model so young, even if you have her guardian's permission.
As far as other sectors, it's quite common to shoot girls under 18 in the fashion industry, hell most of them are under 18!
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12117
Tampa, Florida, US
Visual Eden Studios wrote:
Unless mom comes along and co-signs the release, its a no no.
But, even cindy crawford was shot nude when she was 16 (with mom present).
Nope thats not a myth, its a fact. I have a feeling it's the girl herself wanting to do a SG style shoot. I can't imagine any parent making such an ignorant suggestion...on so many levels.
Photographer
UCPhotog
Posts: 998
Hartford, Connecticut, US
Michael Pandolfo wrote:
Translation = listen to me and not those "others." Great advice though. Hey - stop translating - it's making me look arrogant.
(translation - keep on going - it makes people read the crap I post and think I know what I'm talking about.)
Photographer
MurphyMurphy Studios
Posts: 2315
Denver, Colorado, US
While I don't know precisely what content is on suicide girls (never been to the site), I would just give you 4 numbers:
2257, as amended (including the regulations promulgated under it).
Read it and fully understand your responsibilities under it.
The statute can be interpreted very broadly and it is not called the "child protection act" for nothing.
Model
Kaitlin Lara
Posts: 6467
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Suicide Girls style implies sexually charged, and often nude. Probably not a good idea to shoot an underage girl in the style of a porn website. I'd wait til she was 18.
Photographer
vinny photography
Posts: 422
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
i was contact by girl who were around 14/15 to do lingerie or implied
what you think i said .. NO
i don't wanna see mr "nice guy' .. the girl on my avatar was 14 but she's not the one who was me that
just my 3 cents
and NO again for underage Nudity
Photographer
myfotographer
Posts: 3700
Fresno, California, US
DUDE - Don't listen to the rest of them - got ahead and shoot it.
That way there will likely be one fewer phtographers around. It just looks like a train barrelling down at you.
- Ed
Photographer
Mr and Mrs Huber
Posts: 5056
Santa Rosalía, Baja California Sur, Mexico
Kaitlin Lara wrote:
Suicide Girls style implies sexually charged, and often nude. Probably not a good idea to shoot an underage girl in the style of a porn website. I'd wait til she was 18. geezuz....
like.... it takes a whole community for him to figure that out?
I just don't understand this mesmerizing allure young women have over men...
It seems obvious that what the "model" has suggested is too riske, so his conscience kicks in and he goes "no! I can't do that legally!"
so THEN he turns to the MM community as though to ask "what should I do?"... (and I'm like WTF?)
I am inclined to believe that the OP was looking for someone to give him the "loop hole" answer that would make it all OK...
-- >HEY OP!! Why are you asking us this question, and WHY do you want to shoot a sexually charged ("SG style") set with a girl who's so dam young? What is in it for you?
Photographer
vinny photography
Posts: 422
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
you can shoot underage model .. BUT not for Suicide Girl or Gods girls
Photographer
jimmy blanton
Posts: 54
Hawthorne, California, US
Do not, do not, do not do it under any cirumstances take any photos of any underage minor with or without a parent in lingere, bikini, etc.!!!!! Most recently I had the opportunity to enroll in a class on sexual predators. When you see the magazines, books on pornographic to nude pictures of minors by so called photographers it will give you clarity how the lines can be blurred, crossed, creativity and integrety compromised. Not to mentioned lust and the excuses that i'm not really doing anything wrong but taking some sexy photos (bull-shit). Though Im not implying that is who you are I'm pretty sure you don't want to be caught up in a "hellstorm" of allegations.
From the underage models view she want some hot pictures more or less. But from the photograhers view your being creative and letting your artistic vision use this muse to get the best image possible. From a legal standpoint thats your ass your putting in the frying pan. The D.A. do not and will not give a damn about creativity and your good charactor when it concerns about taking sensuous photos of a minor. All it take is someone who might view a picture of that model and they can contact the police or the D.A. and make allegations of child pornography and your looking at more than losing face but possible jail time. If you have to ask about taking photos of this model then in your heart you know its not right.
Photographer
Madcrow Photographics
Posts: 7805
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Frankly, one thing that nobody here has even stopped to ask is: what does the model actually MEAN by an SG-style shoot? Does she mean something where she can show a little skin, especially where her tattoos happen to be, but not show off her bare boobs? That's probably OK (although it shows a lack of understanding about the nature of SG on the part of the model). On the other hand, if the model actually knows about the nature of SG's paid/"inside" content and wants the nudity, then just say no.
Also, to Mr. Blanton: Bikini shots of under-18 models are common as heck. Catalogs and magazines aimed at the teen set often use teen models. Take a look at the summer issues of any major teen fashion/lifestyle magazine. As long as your swimsuit photos look more like "Seventeen" than "Maxim", not even the craziest knuckle-dragger of a DA is even going to TRY to bring a case against you, beacause they know they'd lose.
Model
Kaitlin Lara
Posts: 6467
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Noah wrote:
geezuz....
like.... it takes a whole community for him to figure that out?
I just don't understand this mesmerizing allure young women have over men...
It seems obvious that what the "model" has suggested is too riske, so his conscience kicks in and he goes "no! I can't do that legally!"
so THEN he turns to the MM community as though to ask "what should I do?"... (and I'm like WTF?)
I am inclined to believe that the OP was looking for someone to give him the "loop hole" answer that would make it all OK...
-- >HEY OP!! Why are you asking us this question, and WHY do you want to shoot a sexually charged ("SG style") set with a girl who's so dam young? What is in it for you? 17 year olds are just as hot as 18 year olds. Anyone who says otherwise is full of crap. The only difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old is a couple to a couple hundred days. If it weren't socially unacceptable, I'm sure I could find plenty of 17 year olds I'd want to see naked.
Photographer
Mr and Mrs Huber
Posts: 5056
Santa Rosalía, Baja California Sur, Mexico
Kaitlin Lara wrote:
17 year olds are just as hot as 18 year olds. Anyone who says otherwise is full of crap. The only difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old is a couple to a couple hundred days. Touche.
But at SOME point that "eww" effect kicks in...
AND - shouldn't what is legal help serve as some kind of moral compass check?
Like I said, I'm no virtuous virgin... but.. c'mon..
Photographer
radar
Posts: 860
New York, New York, US
Why don't you schedule the shoot to a "few months" from now?
Photographer
radar
Posts: 860
New York, New York, US
Kaitlin Lara wrote:
"The only difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old is a couple to a couple hundred days." The only difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old is the amount of time you could spend in jail... if it goes wrong... and someone complains...
Photographer
jimmy blanton
Posts: 54
Hawthorne, California, US
Madcrow Studios wrote:
Frankly, one thing that nobody here has even stopped to ask is: what does the model actually MEAN by an SG-style shoot? Does she mean something where she can show a little skin, especially where her tattoos happen to be, but not show off her bare boobs? That's probably OK (although it shows a lack of understanding about the nature of SG on the part of the model). On the other hand, if the model actually knows about the nature of SG's paid/"inside" content and wants the nudity, then just say no.
Also, to Mr. Blanton: Bikini shots of under-18 models are common as heck. Catalogs and magazines aimed at the teen set often use teen models. Take a look at the summer issues of any major teen fashion/lifestyle magazine. As long as your swimsuit photos look more like "Seventeen" than "Maxim", not even the craziest knuckle-dragger of a DA is even going to TRY to bring a case against you, beacause they know they'd lose.
Photographer
Snyder Photo
Posts: 154
San Antonio, Texas, US
Go for it  You just might win an all expense paid tour ofthe state prison system.
Photographer
jimmy blanton
Posts: 54
Hawthorne, California, US
Any image that conveys senusality and sexual by nature of any minor will get you in a load of problems. Trust when I mention this, those magazines have a legal department and editor who will make sure it don't cross the line. There is nothing wrong with the taking bikini photos of minors but when you don't have a legal dept. up your ass telling you watch your step the lines can be blurred. Second thing its not about censorship but common sense. Furthermore, if you have the opportunity to see what I've seen with those pictures of photographers who crossed the line maybe you can see another point of view.
Photographer
Miguel Book 1
Posts: 1473
Washington, District of Columbia, US
Atomic Box Studios wrote:
What do you do. Or how do you handle a client who is not 18, but will be in a few months and wants to do a suicidegirl style shot. My first thought is NO. What are some suggestions, advice...Just straight answers I will tell her no for now until she reach the legal age.
What is the rush?
Model
Kaitlin Lara
Posts: 6467
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Noah wrote:
Touche.
But at SOME point that "eww" effect kicks in...
AND - shouldn't what is legal help serve as some kind of moral compass check?
Like I said, I'm no virtuous virgin... but.. c'mon.. If that's how you want to set your moral compass. Personally...I got awfully hot and bothered when Harry Potter had his shirtless little 16/17 year old body in that tub. I could care less whether the law says I can't do him...doesn't mean I'm going to stop fantasizing about it.
To me, the "eww" effect kicks in not when some stupid laws say someone's allowed to be sexually attractive, but when they're obviously not physically adult.
I wouldn't do a 17 year old because I don't want to get arrested. If it weren't illegal, I'd certainly bone a hot 17 year old. I'm only 19 after all.
Model
Kaitlin Lara
Posts: 6467
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Ronnie Adar wrote:
The only difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old is the amount of time you could spend in jail... if it goes wrong... and someone complains... If you'd actually read everything I said, you would've seen that I suggested he not shoot her nude, or in a sexually charged manner.
I'm talking about from a physical attraction standpoint. Not a legality standpoint. As Martha Stewart would say "Context...it's a good thing."
Model
sofija
Posts: 23614
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Sandy Ramirez wrote:
Well for SG I would definitely say no, as SG is porn. They wouldn't accept a model so young, even if you have her guardian's permission.
As far as other sectors, it's quite common to shoot girls under 18 in the fashion industry, hell most of them are under 18! OMG...when did SG become porn??????
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
MurphyMurphy Studios wrote:
While I don't know precisely what content is on suicide girls (never been to the site), I would just give you 4 numbers:
2257, as amended (including the regulations promulgated under it).
Read it and fully understand your responsibilities under it.
The statute can be interpreted very broadly and it is not called the "child protection act" for nothing. I'll comment on that. For ANY work where one must keep 2257 records [and SG itself requires them as would most likely SG "style" work even if not produced for SG] THE MODEL MUST BE 18 AT THE TIME THE WORK IS MADE.
If one is caught e.g. post dating the records that could easily cost them 5 years in the Federal lock-up and a hell of a fine on the recordkeeping issue alone. That may ALSO, depending on the nature of the actual images, be in violation of 2256. which will add charges on top of charges... and in fact constitutes production of child porn, with all that entails. State law can add even more charges on a state level.
So the answer to the OP's question is an unqualified NO! strictly based on the nature of the work proposed.
Studio36
Photographer
Mr and Mrs Huber
Posts: 5056
Santa Rosalía, Baja California Sur, Mexico
Kaitlin Lara wrote:
If you'd actually read everything I said, you would've seen that I suggested he not shoot her nude, or in a sexually charged manner.
I'm talking about from a physical attraction standpoint. Not a legality standpoint. As Martha Stewart would say "Context...it's a good thing." oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, OH!. . . . OK.. now this is making sense to me..
I forgot you are 19.
Without the LEAST shred of condescension Kaitlin, that does matter.
At least the attraction bit gets explained.
And, yes, you've been clear all along that it the OP NOT shoot the model in question...
I'm just trying to dig up WTF is the deal when a grown man is (apparently) considering (or looking for a way to) shoot someone who is clearly a child within a sexualized context?
WHY? Why even have a moment's questioning of the situation - if the "ew" factor does not kick in and nip the deal in the bud then the fact that is is blatantly illegal should quash any further speculation. Period. The fact that it (apparently) did not really just boggles me.
Sure, there are uber hot, VERY young people out there.. lots of them. And while your eyes and libido might be lulled by someone's looks, the moment you hear their voice, or see them move, or notice their physical development, or listen to the conversation - every fiber of your body (mine does) should begin to say [i]"!CHILD!" .
And no, children are not sexy. Anyone who is turned ON by the presence of a child should take a cold look at themselves.
Model
Kaitlin Lara
Posts: 6467
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Noah wrote:
oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, OH!. . . . OK.. now this is making sense to me..
I forgot you are 19.
Without the LEAST shred of condescension Kaitlin, that does matter.
At least the attraction bit gets explained.
And, yes, you've been clear all along that it the OP NOT shoot the model in question...
I'm just trying to dig up WTF is the deal when a grown man is (apparently) considering (or looking for a way to) shoot someone who is clearly a child within a sexualized context?
WHY? Why even have a moment's questioning of the situation - if the "ew" factor does not kick in and nip the deal in the bud then the fact that is is blatantly illegal should quash any further speculation. Period. The fact that it (apparently) did not really just boggles me.
Sure, there are uber hot, VERY young people out there.. lots of them. And while your eyes and libido might be lulled by someone's looks, the moment you hear their voice, or see them move, or notice their physical development, or listen to the conversation - every fiber of your body (mine does) should begin to say [i]"!CHILD!" .
And no, children are not sexy. Anyone who is turned ON by the presence of a child should take a cold look at themselves. So am I not hot because I'm 19? Because I can find you a shitpile of men way older than me who find me attractive. In fact...just go to my page and you'll see in my credits a list of 20-some men who found me attractive enough to shoot me. There's a reason Playboy and Maxim shoots young women. Because they're attractive.
What makes you assume that the girl in question is "clearly a child"? I looked exactly the same at 17 as I do now. In fact, people have seen photos of me at 15, and thought they were more recent than some of my recent photos. Women develop WAY before age 18. I had these hips, this ass, these legs, these abs...all my sexually appealing qualities were there by the time I was 15. I moved and talked like a woman by 16 or 17. People develop at different times. A 17 year old may not be legally an adult, but they are by no means necessarily a child.
There is absolutely nothing unnatural or immoral about seeing the beauty in a WOMAN...18 or not. In fact, I could argue that it is unnatural NOT to be attracted to a fully physically developed, good looking 17 year old.
I'm not saying people should have sex with 17 year olds, or shoot them nude. I don't want anyone thinking I'm advocating doing ANYTHING illegal. I'm not.
|
You just might win an all expense paid tour ofthe state prison system.
