StrawberryImages wrote:
What is the LEGAL AGE requirement for a model to pose NUDES for a photographer or act NUDE In a video.

Swank Photography wrote:
Ask a cop. I'm sure you'll get the right answer.

in my experience, cops don't know jack about the law...

i was shooting a young woman on private property, someone driving by called the police and said i was shooting underage girls nude by the side of a barn..

so a cop showed up and said there was a report that some photographer was photographing underage girls nude ...i'm guessing her, pointing to the model.

at that point i said, "so of course, as a law enforcement officer, you informed the person complaining that there is nothing illegal about photographing minors nude???

he looked at me and said nothing....made a call to his HQ out of earshot, then  asked to see my ID, then left...

we shouldn't fear our government unless we are doing something illegal...

Doug Swinskey wrote:

StrawberryImages wrote:
What is the LEGAL AGE requirement for a model to pose NUDES for a photographer or act NUDE In a video.

in my experience, cops don't know jack about the law...

i was shooting a young woman on private property, someone driving by called the police and said i was shooting underage girls nude by the side of a barn..

so a cop showed up and said there was a report that some photographer was photographing underage girls nude ...i'm guessing her, pointing to the model.

at that point i said, "so of course, as a law enforcement officer, you informed the person complaining that there is nothing illegal about photographing minors nude???

he looked at me and said nothing....made a call to his HQ out of earshot, then  asked to see my ID, then left...

we shouldn't fear our government unless we are doing something illegal...

Excellent!

Please pose this in every other thread about age and nudity, and anything else remotely suitable!

Dobias Fine Art Photo wrote:
After seeing this subject come up yet once more again, I say, "Let those who want to want to shoot underage nudes do it.  G'head!"

It is what they want to hear, and it will reduce the number of photographers, and therefore competition, for all other photographic work.  In a bad economy, all aids to business are helpful.  In instances like this, in the end, it isn't the opinion of anyone on MM that matters, but the opinions of both the guy with the shiny badge and the other one with the black robe that counts.  And they are so impressed with rationalizations, justifications, and other forms of verbal badminton.  No, really.... 

And WHEN (not IF) the cops come and bust up their studios, seize equipment for evidence (and drop all of it a number of times), all performed in the course of performing their legally authorized duties and functions, the verbal badminton is really going to repair all of the broken lighting equipment and lenses.  No, really....

An experienced photographer like any profession should be knowledgeable about the profession or hobby he involves himself in. Knowing accurate information is especially important. Assuming based on emotion on television shows is irresponsible even if you dont care for your fellow man. The arts (cherubs etc) need your involvement. Dont let fear mongering and hollywood ratings control our understanding.

LT Smash wrote:
18 like the rest of the United States

says you, not the law.

Doug Swinskey wrote:

StrawberryImages wrote:
What is the LEGAL AGE requirement for a model to pose NUDES for a photographer or act NUDE In a video.

in my experience, cops don't know jack about the law...

i was shooting a young woman on private property, someone driving by called the police and said i was shooting underage girls nude by the side of a barn..

so a cop showed up and said there was a report that some photographer was photographing underage girls nude ...i'm guessing her, pointing to the model.

at that point i said, "so of course, as a law enforcement officer, you informed the person complaining that there is nothing illegal about photographing minors nude???

he looked at me and said nothing....made a call to his HQ out of earshot, then  asked to see my ID, then left...

we shouldn't fear our government unless we are doing something illegal...

Tell it to the judge Doug. You might feel you are fine doing it and in all actuality you might be but tell it to the judge.

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
In the US, It's completely legal to photograph nude models of any age, in all 50 states.

However, if someone should happen to consider what you are doing to be "pornography" (whatever that is), you could be in a whole lotta trouble.

Since "pornography" has never well defined, it's safe to say that pornography usually involves nudity and many consider nudity involving models under 18 to be synonymous with child porn...which (from a legal perspective) isn't exactly so.

However, it's cool that Americans have certain rights. We have the "right" to take our very expensive lawyers to court to defend us and to try to convince a jury that what some call "porn" is really "art", just so we can stay out of prison. So if the cost of a defense attorney seems to be something people are willing to pay, and if prison is something people are willing to risk, then go for it....because there's no law against shooting naked 12 year olds.

A contract or model release signed by people under 18 is meaningless. If a model release is signed by a parent or guardian then the release is valid, but, the parents or guardians could find themselves in court too if someone thinks the images are pornographic.

The whole matter is such a slippery slope, it's probably better to simply avoid it, even if it is technically legal.

Overall - wrong.

A contract signed by a minor is voidable and not void. Its enforceable by the minor only. After they  turn 18 it can be enforeceable. Each state varies.

LT Smash wrote:
18 like the rest of the United States

you're funny...

and in case it wasn't a joke...you're wrong..

LT Smash wrote:
18 like the rest of the United States

did you read any of this thread??

Doug Swinskey wrote:

you're funny...

and in case it wasn't a joke...you're wrong..

You know Doug, my first thought when I see all thise "ITS 18!" point blank posts, I think they've stared at so much porn in their lives the "All models are 18 and over" is seared into their brains as law.

JStone wrote:

did you read any of this thread??

why should she?  she's 19 (according to mm profile) she obviously know this! (not!)

291 wrote:

291 wrote:
despite some of the rather boorish answers, 18 is correct.

i'll put the full passage into the context you omitted to keep you from looking foolish trying to do the same toward me.

Lynn Helms Photography wrote:
Full passage or not, it's still incorrect.

and now you look foolish as well.

Swank Photography wrote:
Tell it to the judge Doug. You might feel you are fine doing it and in all actuality you might be but tell it to the judge.

if i were to shoot an underage model nude, first of all, nothing i would do would even be remotely sexual in nature...(hell i won't even shoot an adult in images that fall under "lascivious displays of genitalia"..).

nothing i would would ever even get to court...no DA would put their neck on the line making a statement with my work..the aclu lawyers would make him look like a pervert and a fool..

so the judge will have to wait for someone, to do something illegal...

Swank Photography wrote:

Tell it to the judge Doug. You might feel you are fine doing it and in all actuality you might be but tell it to the judge.

I guess you could explain the same thing to the judge when your charged with taking images of a 17yr old in a bikini and someone might (about as likely as getting hit by lighting, same as simple nude) consider "porn".  Perspective.

I personally see 100's and 100's of images being taken of minors nude every summer I spend much time at nudist places or beaches.  So I know for a fact much of this "nude minor" photography goes on all the time. If it was such a minefield there would be a list of links a mile long where these people were sitting in jail for those endevours.

In my 30 some years of being around nudists and nudist places I've only heard of one instance where someone was even questioned.  It was a family that took some images of their nude "teen" (I believe 12 or 13 at the time) girls to walmart to be developed.  Walmart called the police and reported it, the police went to families home and asked about the pictures. 

The parents explained they were nudists, they handed the envelope to the police (which I wouldnt have done), the police looked at the nude images of the girls and clearly saw they were just a nude family on a nudist vacation.  They said "Your daughters are beautiful, sorry to have wasted your time, have a nice day", and left.

Swank Photography wrote:
In my opinion what it comes down to is this:

1. What is the purpose of the photographer taking the images of a MINOR WHO IS NUDE? To keep? To sell? To place in your portfolio? To show your other friends?

2. What is the nature of the image? Is the child posed in such a way that is sexual? If not, are they (say for example) standing in a field of flowers, while NUDE, or laying on a couch NUDE? If so, then what is the purpose of taking an image such as that in the first place? Is this how you define YOUR TALENTS AS A PHOTOGRAPHER?

Translation:  you don't like it, so never mind what the law actually is.

Swank Photography wrote:
3. Are you aware that placing children in this ADULT SITUATION can actually have lasting impression on their psyche? Or did that even cross your minds as you adjust your lens and light meters?

You would have us believe that a day before her 18th birthday, being placed in an "adult situation" would leave her psychologically scarred?  How about a week later?  Is what thousands of photographers here routinely do psychologically scarring to models?  Or, perhaps, is your prose a little overblown?

That's quite an indictment of this site and its members.

Swank Photography wrote:
4. Are you aware (or even care to give this an actual thought) that "innocent" images such as those of MINORS WHO ARE NUDE, THOUGH MAYBE POSED AS PURELY ARTISTIC can be obtained and viewed by those who are less than worthy to walk our streets? And if they were to be obtained by someone who is of the criminal minds and they go no to commit a lewd act as a result of those images the parents would be within their LEGAL RIGHTS to place a civil lawsuit against you and though what you did was legal in your mindset, a child has been molested.

Are you aware that I can bring a civil lawsuit against you for making your posts here?  It would be meritless, but I could do it.  The fact that someone can bring a nuisance lawsuit for a legal activity really isn't very persuasive.

Swank Photography wrote:
5. Please keep in mind that the law falls within two segments: The LETTER of the law and the INTERPRETATION of the law.

And keep in mind that people like you love to tell us all about all the horrible interpretations that Bubba the Sheriff could make . . . while failing to recognize that Bubba exists in the same legal arena, subject to the same Bill of Rights, as all the rest of us.  If we live our lives in start terror about some possible abuse by Bubba, we are doomed.  There is no hope for the "Land of the Free".

Swank Photography wrote:
6. Final point here...images of 17 year old in bikinis do no qualify here so please for the love of whoever don't throw that intro the mix.

In your mind they do not qualify, but as a  matter of law, they can.  The question asked was a legal one - what is in your mind really doesn't matter.

Swank Photography wrote:
Yes I will freely admit right here that topics like these annoy the snot right out of me because of my 10+ years as a victims advocate who specialty was for women and children of sexual assault, I've seen crap like this come out.

Wait . . . you have a bias that strongly influences your willingness to consider other possible positions, and keeps you from being concerned with what the law actually is?  Why, however could we have guessed?

Swank Photography wrote:
As a photographer there would be no solid way in hell I would EVER willingly take images of nude children then boast about how it is artistic and my legal right to do so.

And help the person who would have taken images like that of my children, I'd be writing this response from my prison cell because that person wouldn't be seeing the light of day after I got done with them.

So in a thread asking what the law is, you feel the need to tell us that you feel free to break the law.  Excellent.

StrawberryImages wrote:
NUDE MODELLING- age in CALIFORNIA
What is the LEGAL AGE requirement for a model to pose NUDES for a photographer or act NUDE In a video.

I wonder how many people posting in this thread know that under California law some people under 18 may legally be photographed in explicitly sexual situations?  (Note:  I am referring to California law only, not to federal law.  It is quite common for the laws of a state to allow more than federal law does.)

StrawberryImages wrote:
What is the LEGAL AGE requirement for a model to pose NUDES for a photographer or act NUDE In a video.

18

Emeritus wrote:

I wonder how many people posting in this thread know that under California law some people under 18 may legally be photographed in explicitly sexual situations?  (Note:  I am referring to California law only, not to federal law.  It is quite common for the laws of a state to allow more than federal law does.)

still sounds risky and its best to play it safe

- Love Sign - wrote:
18

Yet another one who is happy to tell us what the law is without actually knowing what the law is.  This is quite a remarkable thread.

- Love Sign - wrote:
still sounds risky and its best to play it safe

So, in a question about what the law is, your personal risk assessment determines the answer?  What the law actually is doesn't matter?  Charming.

Lumigraphics wrote:
Note that I am not endorsing the idea of shooting minors nude. It is still legally risky and nude images of models under 18 are not allowed on MM, regardless of legality.

Only a brazen risk taker would shoot someone under 18 with any degree or nudity or implied nudity.

Would you trust a typical jury to make an informed decision?

- Love Sign - wrote:
still sounds risky and its best to play it safe

play it safe?....if artists always played it safe..there wouldn't be any art, movies, music, ect, existing, that wasn't suitable for a 5 year old to be exposed to..

i am glad you philosophy is not prevalent among the past or contemporary artists...

rp_photo wrote:
Would you trust a typical jury to make an informed decision?

Does the term "jury instructions" mean anything to you?  Are you of the opinion that the defense attorney would utterly ignore their responsibility to inform the jury of the issues?  Can you cite a case in which your concern in fact came to pass?  Or is this just more hand wringing about what people think "ought" to be the case, and not at all based in what actually happens in the legal system?

jo rich UK wrote:
oh my godd hahah this is a fucking full on train wreck.

grow up! its a frickin forum on mm! WHO CARES!!!!!!!!

well if you're not guna give a straight answer, i can tell you its 18 in the UK.

No it is not. For a start three is no such thing as UK law. Do you mean English Law or Scottish Law? They have always been totally different. I don't know about the English situation but here is the Scotish law on the subject

http://www.iwf.org.uk/police/page.22.37.htm

No mention of nudity , just indecency, which is certainly not the same thing. A fully clothed photo can be indecent, and a nude one decent. Nudity by itself is not mentioned by law, so cannot therefore be illegal.

Doug Swinskey wrote:

play it safe?....if artists always played it safe..there wouldn't be any art, movies, music, ect, existing, that wasn't suitable for a 5 year old to be exposed to..

i am glad you philosophy is not prevalent among the past or contemporary artists...

true enough, however the under 18 models are people that i prefer to play it safe with as i have habbit for pushing bounderies [within reason] .

Erotica Americana  wrote:
Well StrawberryImages, I hope you read how controversial your question can be. I would ask you what is the theme of your shoot and what are you going to do with the photos? Even if a model is of legal age, site like MM and others have their own regulations governing the posting of certain photos.

My advise to you is to stick with models who are over 21 years old and make sure you get the right paperwork signed by them.

I AGREE

- Love Sign - wrote:
18

Thanks for the information. Could you please cite your reference as I've been unable to find anything regarding this law online?

Doug Swinskey wrote:
ah...i give up....this is futile...

Futile?  Yes. Every single time.  But it sure is entertaining.

Lumigraphics wrote:
Alessandra's Smile

THAT is NOT a good case in these, or most, circumstances. It is particularly flawed thinking to believe it is somehow good law in speaking to nude images of children in the more common context and in general. US v. Various Articles of Merchandise, Schedule No. 287 [Alessandra's Smile]; 3rd US Circuit Ct. of Appeals; No: 00-5124 was an appeal of a customs case and the issue before the court was obscenity and the case was framed by the government on a question of obscenity because customs seized the material persuant to the obscenity statute noty the child pornography statute.

In the court's decision narrative they noted that the government did not bring the case on the issue of child pornography and thus the court could not, and did not, apply a relaxed Miller standard as arose US V. Knox; or the Dost factors, but rather the Miller standard used for examination of questions of obscenity generally. If they had applied a relaxed Miller standard lead by US v. Knox or the Dost factors the decision might readily have gone very much the other way.

"...It is evident, therefore, that the issue of whether seizure of the magazines violated the First Amendment must be analyzed under the Miller test and not under a Knox child pornography standard. It is for the prosecutors, not the courts, to select those laws under which the Government brings actions, see, e.g., In re Richards, 213 F.3d 773, 782 (3d Cir. 2000), and we should not and will not analyze nor decide this case as if it were brought under child pornography laws -- which it was not. The magazines were seized as offending the obscenity statute, not as offending child pornography statutes. Accordingly, we must review the propriety of that seizure only under Miller...."

Better, if you have to, to cite:

US v AMIRAULT
US v KNOX
US v DOST

When it comes to images of minors therein lie some of the answers. And you might, or might not, like the answers.

Studio36

Justin Foto wrote:
I don't think so. I remember seeing Sam Fox in page 3 of the Sun when I was 15. She's about a year older than me.

Attitudes have changed - so no 16 year olds in the currant bun these days, but I don't believe the law has changed. (I may be wrong, but I don't see you siting an actual law, and I never heard about a law change even though I read the Telegraph and Glasgow Herald on line every day)

NOTE: THIS IS A UK REFERENCED ANSWER TO A UK POSTER

The law has changed, but the issue is still one of images incorporating indecency. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 changed the age, referenced as 16 in the Protection of Children Act, to 18.

Studio36

bsp studios wrote:

***

Yes today David Hamilton would be castrated and hung out to dry, even though most will admit his videos and stills are in a league of their own and well deserve an exception to policy.

And all his crap was shot outside the US where laws are different.