|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
isn't teen glamour illegal?
I know we've had millions of discussions on what is legal/illegal, appropriate/inappropriate for underage models. I thought I understood this topic pretty well. My understanding is that if the model is underage and the photos can reasonably be interpreted as sexually suggestive then they could be considered child porn. A position I agree with by the way. And just so we don't get caught in the nudity=porn thing I think there can be nudity without pornography, and there can be pornography without nudity. With that in mind how can a site like true teen babes not be illegal? I thought they shut it down. I ran across a mention of it in another post so I took a look. It features underage teens in lingerie and glamour poses. That's not illegal? Am I missing something? Aug 01 08 01:02 pm Link are you sure they are underage... maybe they are 18 but look younger  its the internet... do you believe anything you see Aug 01 08 01:04 pm Link No, I don't believe everything I read. Having an 18 year old pretend to be younger can also get you into legal trouble, or so I thought. Aug 01 08 01:06 pm Link Sara Lund wrote: exactly Aug 01 08 01:07 pm Link David Baxter wrote: way off.. Aug 01 08 01:07 pm Link David Baxter wrote: no it cant get one into trouble. Aug 01 08 01:08 pm Link ( ANT ) Mgaphoto wrote: It can in a certain context. Like if they say they are 14 and you attempt to have sex with them because you believe they are 14 and there is evidence of this. Aug 01 08 01:08 pm Link ( ANT ) Mgaphoto wrote: right Aug 01 08 01:09 pm Link It depends on local laws. Every state is different. In Texas, where I live, photographs that focus on the genitals (and maybe buttocks, I'm not sure) of minors are considered illegal, though nudity isn't necessarily. I don't know of any law that necessarily outlaws lingerie or glamor poses; they have to follow the same laws whether the subject is nude or clothed. That means that someone who focuses on the crotch of a fully clothed minor could also be prosecuted. There is a videographer here who was arrested last year for his videos taken at a wrestling match, for example, because he was said to have focused on the crotches of minors across the room. I personally expect his case will be dismissed, but that's just a guess on my part. I know of a photographer in Addison who was arrested at a city-sponsored event for "inappropriate photography" in public; the police department later apologized as they set him free. Aug 01 08 01:09 pm Link Ok, I checked out the site to see for myself if I could find any legal statements or ages, etc. The girls featured on the site are under 18. At the bottom of the site you will see a small link about the legal side of the site. It pretty much states that they are under 18, their parents have signed a contract, and that the lawyer for the site/magazine stands behind the legality of it. Aug 01 08 01:09 pm Link Christopher Hartman wrote: its a waaaay different situation Aug 01 08 01:10 pm Link ( ANT ) Mgaphoto wrote: Not way off in terms of sexually suggestive pictures using underage models. It can be considered child pornography to use a model of legal age pretending to be underage in pornographic images. Aug 01 08 01:11 pm Link David Baxter wrote: If a model looks 15 and is nude it would only be illegal if she said she was 15. Being nude would imply she was over 18 - looking underage might be the only way she can get any money!!! Aug 01 08 01:12 pm Link David Baxter wrote: Actually its not illegal as long as the site has a disclaimer describing their "lolitas", as actors portraying to be younger than they are, and also have 2257 record keeping regulation in check, so that if asked they can prove the girls ages. Aug 01 08 01:12 pm Link In the US, you have two laws to consider - Federal and State. Federal law considers depictions of "sexually explicit conduct" to be child pornography. Mere nudity does not meet the definition, the subject must be engaged in intercourse or masturbation, or the like. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/u … 0_110.html However, the various States have laws that can vary quite a bit. Florida, for example, mirrors Federal law in most respects but also considers sexually-oriented contact with the genital area or female breasts of a minor to be child pornography as well. So under Federal Law, a minor posing nude (and even suggestively so) is not child pornography, but it might be in your State, and you also might run afoul of charges along the line of corrupting the morals of the minor, etc. Plus, there's also the Court of Public Opinion to consider - what's legal may not always be what's in your best interests. Aug 01 08 01:13 pm Link Yea , state law can cover even something as being "indecency towards a minor". Aug 01 08 01:14 pm Link Karl Blessing wrote: Under Federal Law, yes. The "minor" must actually BE a minor for a crime to be committed. States may vary. Aug 01 08 01:15 pm Link David Baxter wrote: dude stop changing this and going back and forth.. you asked about 18+ year old models and whether it was illegal for them to pretend they were younger, I have never heard this was against the law and why would it be against the law? there are a million websites out there with exactly what you are talking about so if it against the law don't you think they would be taken down, charged, sued, etc? Aug 01 08 01:15 pm Link ( ANT ) Mgaphoto wrote: Besides if it were actually illegal, I'd see every photographer on this site who has ever shot a woman in school girl clothing with pigtails being seductive with a teddy bear or lollipop, arrested. Aug 01 08 01:17 pm Link Karl Blessing wrote: lol... yeah it wouldnt be pretty would it Aug 01 08 01:20 pm Link ( ANT ) Mgaphoto wrote: Not to mention every attempt to use a concept that teases the term "Jail Bait". Aug 01 08 01:24 pm Link ( ANT ) Mgaphoto wrote: I'm not changing anything, or going back and forth, the above was a reply to another comment. Aug 01 08 01:24 pm Link This is going to be interesting.(Gets more coffee) Aug 01 08 01:26 pm Link David Baxter wrote: Then you wrote this "Having an 18 year old pretend to be younger can also get you into legal trouble, or so I thought." which is what I said no way too and is an entirely different question than the what you started with.. thus I said stop going back and forth with questions. Aug 01 08 01:31 pm Link David Baxter wrote: Absolutely not. Sadly, that is the loophole that the porn industry uses. They take a 18+ model and give her make up and then use digital techniques to make her look less than 18. The law states that because there is no "actual" minor involved, no law is broken. Aug 01 08 01:32 pm Link Apfel Photography wrote: They don't even bother with that, instead they prey on women who grew up with a lower metabolism (ie: those who may have been gymnist and such), as their stunted growth may make them look 14 or 15 at the age of 18. (I doubt they put much money into digitization unless there was a promise of a huge cash return for it). Aug 01 08 01:35 pm Link How about this kind of stuff you guys http://www.victoriassecret.com/collecti … rfnbr=4665 for 16-17 year old's? Aug 01 08 01:39 pm Link If memory serves they did take him to court. However he won. Aug 01 08 01:39 pm Link Marc Benjamin wrote: I don't think these images fall into the same category as the site in discussion. The intent here is well known, to sell clothing. And, the presentation is more inline with that. Aug 01 08 01:43 pm Link Karl Blessing wrote: If they can find them. The only problem is that the 10 hour a day workout and zero body fat regiment is what keeps them looking that way. 90% of the time, the moment they stop dieting and training all day, their natural curves blow out. I have two friends that became DD within a year after they stopped competing. Aug 01 08 01:43 pm Link Apfel Photography wrote: true. Aug 01 08 01:46 pm Link As for the site in question, regardless of the site owners, the biggest creeps are the mothers and fathers that would agree to let their 13 year old daughter pose for these images to appear on a paysite like that one. Aug 01 08 01:49 pm Link If these girls are the age the site says they are I believe it should be illegal and classed as child porn. It's horrifying seeing girls younger then me posing in thongs like that, I wouldn't even dream of doing so! I've just turned 18 and think it's terrible, how can their parents let them do this?! Aug 01 08 01:53 pm Link Re6ecca wrote: Where are you seeing this? I just seen the term glamor... Aug 01 08 01:56 pm Link Karl Blessing wrote: You didn't even look at the site you've been commenting on? Aug 01 08 01:57 pm Link Karl Blessing wrote: The photo's show it all. Aug 01 08 01:59 pm Link isn't teen glamour illegal? Yes if teens get glamorous they get arrested! Aug 01 08 01:59 pm Link Re6ecca wrote: What photo, I don't see a photo in the OP. Aug 01 08 02:02 pm Link Karl Blessing wrote: David Baxter wrote: I don't see a link for a site in the OP. Aug 01 08 02:03 pm Link Marc Benjamin wrote: David Baxter wrote: *did you mean that link?* Aug 01 08 02:05 pm Link |
We're appalled to have minors in that situation, but we don't get huffy puffy if we got some guys having their fancies tickled by a site catering to underage looking porn actresses.
