|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
Minors working implide
I wish I could unpost this thread Dec 02 07 05:27 pm Link Dec 02 07 05:29 pm Link Color Blind wrote: Where was she from? You DO realize that laws differ worldwide on this subject, right? Dec 02 07 05:30 pm Link Color Blind wrote: Well..I mean if the parents are ok with it I don't see a problem. However I am pretty open minded and I am rebellious now and was when I was 17 as well..not a lot has changed in the way of that so..I guess it would be a case by case basis of how each individual would feel about it. Just my opinion:) However I see where some would find it morally wrong by her age. Dec 02 07 05:31 pm Link Color Blind wrote: Who cares if its wrong...its illegal (federally) which overrides any state legalities. The end Dec 02 07 05:32 pm Link SunArcher Photography wrote: She is from New Zealand Dec 02 07 05:33 pm Link Color Blind wrote: arent victoria secert models like 16 and 17 when somethem started or is that a rumor i know alot on regular modeling runway are 14 and up but i wasnt sure about the victoria secret models and most them from brazil right Dec 02 07 05:33 pm Link Intisari Photography wrote: Oh God...here we go again. Ab. So. Lute. Ly. False. Dec 02 07 05:35 pm Link I predict this thread is about to implide. Dec 02 07 05:35 pm Link Her portfolio looks legit and highly professional to me. Dec 02 07 05:36 pm Link Color Blind wrote: That right there should end this whole thread. It won't. Unfortunately. Dec 02 07 05:36 pm Link SunArcher Photography wrote: patrick, let me ask this,,,,is it wrong for a mayhem to allow implides of minors? Dec 02 07 05:37 pm Link !!!! YAWN !!!! Dec 02 07 05:38 pm Link Color Blind wrote: Patrick Wahlberg already answered this. Gabrielle even went so far as to give you a link. Here it is again. Dec 02 07 05:39 pm Link Intisari Photography wrote: wrong Dec 02 07 05:39 pm Link Color Blind wrote: Booke Shields first photos & her first movie? Or are you to young to remember them? Dec 02 07 05:40 pm Link Bob Mares Photography wrote: can we see her?? Dec 02 07 05:40 pm Link Subject's been done to death in the last few days alone. It's not illegal. Whether it is wrong or not depends on the shot. Dec 02 07 05:41 pm Link mm, asks that we not "out" members so i won't. Dec 02 07 05:42 pm Link Gabrielle Marie wrote:
Dec 02 07 05:42 pm Link Intisari Photography wrote: For you and the OP, here is 18 USC 2256, a "federal legality." Read it. Know it. UNDERSTAND it. It will help when topics regarding 18 USC 2257 record-keeping requirements come up: Dec 02 07 05:42 pm Link This a clear case to exceptions to the rule. I agree rules are rules and laws are laws. But DAMN! her work is just to good to worry about that. Its tasteful and not at all implying anything perverse. I'd have to give a pass on that one if it were me. Dec 02 07 05:42 pm Link Tony Mo wrote: Yeahhhh I noticed that. Dec 02 07 05:44 pm Link Gabrielle Marie wrote: He's just too lazy to look through the stuff Dec 02 07 05:45 pm Link Intisari Photography wrote: WHAT????? Try again Dec 02 07 05:45 pm Link sdsteve wrote: just sent you the link Dec 02 07 05:46 pm Link db Photography wrote: Oh if Patrick or TXPhotog get a hold of THIS one...not going to be pretty. Dec 02 07 05:47 pm Link Dear OP, I just took a look at your profile and noticed your little sentence about only shooting models 21 and over because you're "older" and "more mature" now. And I guess that means you want to shoot "older" and "more mature" models because... okay, I don't know why. I read that to mean, "models 21 and over must always be more mature than models who are not." What about 20 year olds? Am I less mature because I'm not 21 for another month? Obviously one's own "maturity" (whatever that means) is entirely dictated by one's numerical age. There are plenty of girls who are under 21 who look and act older (and not always in a "come here, my legs are spread" way). And there are plenty of women over 21 who look and act 15. Age is just a number. It only becomes a problem when people are being exploitative. Love, Gabrielle Dec 02 07 05:47 pm Link this models work should never have even been brought up..i think the op is just bored...this models stuff is sooo frigging rad you dont even realize its implied... Dec 02 07 05:48 pm Link *sigh* Implied or even actual nudity is NOT across-the-board illegal in Western countries at any age. In the US, lascivious exhibition (clothed or not) is illegal. That could include really sexy implied poses, but might also include the same shot in, say, a bikini. Doesn't mean it's a good idea, just that it's not patently illegal. But it is against MM rules, so contact a moderator about it. Dec 02 07 05:49 pm Link Gabrielle Marie wrote: *predicts OP will ignore you once again* Dec 02 07 05:49 pm Link Bob Mares Photography wrote: Lemme get that hookup, too, if you don't mind. Dec 02 07 05:49 pm Link sdsteve wrote: i agree that the imagery is beautiful, but my question is more about the legality of a photographer shooting it Dec 02 07 05:50 pm Link sdsteve wrote: Ditto! looks like a high end fashion magazine layout Dec 02 07 05:50 pm Link Color Blind wrote: I ask you again: what are the laws in New Zealand (or the United States, for that matter) that would prevent a photographer from shooting a 17-year-old in an implied nude shoot? Dec 02 07 05:51 pm Link In case one of the Mods hasn't been along to mention it, no implied of under-18 models are allowed on Mayhem, regardless of any arguments about legality  Dec 02 07 05:51 pm Link Bob Mares Photography wrote: I am agreeing that the image is high quality in professionality, art, etc....but is it legal to shoot or post such an image? Dec 02 07 05:52 pm Link SLE Photography wrote: Thank you SLE, thats what i wanted to know Dec 02 07 05:53 pm Link Color Blind wrote: Maybe you could ask the Australian photographer? he has a link on her MM page. Dec 02 07 05:54 pm Link Intisari Photography wrote: YOU ARE WRONG! Dec 02 07 05:54 pm Link |
at OP ignoring you 
