Hilsdon Photography LLC wrote:
ABSOLUTELY NOT!

If you allow this you are looking for trouble.

She is underage. In some states, a minor in bare FEET is all it takes. I'm serious, if you wan't to protect your REPUTATION as well as your BUSINESS then DON'T DO IT.

What would her parents say?  Have they been with her at any of her photo shoots (IF NOT YOU ARE REALLY LOOKING FOR TROUBLE. THEY SHOULD BE PRESENT AT ALL TIMES. PERIOD)

Does this young lady have any particular REASON to be photographed in lingerie? It is very unwise for her to go down that path anyway. Young girls should not act so sexy. Youth is much more beautiful without all the added vampiness. I'd have a talk with her parents.

In what state is it illegal for a minor to show their bare feet lol? He already said her parents consented to the shoot content and would be present. Just for arguments sake...is swimwear appropriate?

Hilsdon Photography LLC wrote:
ABSOLUTELY NOT!

If you allow this you are looking for trouble.

She is underage. In some states, a minor in bare FEET is all it takes. I'm serious, if you wan't to protect your REPUTATION as well as your BUSINESS then DON'T DO IT.

What would her parents say?  Have they been with her at any of her photo shoots (IF NOT YOU ARE REALLY LOOKING FOR TROUBLE. THEY SHOULD BE PRESENT AT ALL TIMES. PERIOD)

Does this young lady have any particular REASON to be photographed in lingerie? It is very unwise for her to go down that path anyway. Young girls should not act so sexy. Youth is much more beautiful without all the added vampiness. I'd have a talk with her parents.

Did you even read his post!? And, sorry to say, most of what you've written is hyperbole.

Hilsdon Photography LLC wrote:
ABSOLUTELY NOT!

If you allow this you are looking for trouble.

She is underage. In some states, a minor in bare FEET is all it takes. I'm serious, if you wan't to protect your REPUTATION as well as your BUSINESS then DON'T DO IT.

What would her parents say?  Have they been with her at any of her photo shoots (IF NOT YOU ARE REALLY LOOKING FOR TROUBLE. THEY SHOULD BE PRESENT AT ALL TIMES. PERIOD)

Does this young lady have any particular REASON to be photographed in lingerie? It is very unwise for her to go down that path anyway. Young girls should not act so sexy. Youth is much more beautiful without all the added vampiness. I'd have a talk with her parents.

I think you have to substiture "churches" in for "states" for this to make sense

Chris Macan wrote:
Oh good lord must we have this pissing match every two days?

This is getting to the point where I'm just cutting & pasting previous comments just to bump up my post numbers And besides, it's not every 2 days...more like every day.

Trey Bruggeman Photo wrote:
Just curious what everyone's opinion and the laws are on models of minor age (under 18) shooting in lingerie.  I am asking this only because I was approached by a model who is under 18 and wants to do a lingerie shoot.  None of the shots will be more revealing than typical swimwear (not see-thru or overly skimpy.)  Her mother has also agreed to sign a model release with her.

I'm interested in hearing how other photogs handle situations like this.

Thanks

Trey Bruggeman Photo wrote:
Just curious what everyone's opinion and the laws are on models of minor age (under 18) shooting in lingerie.  I am asking this only because I was approached by a model who is under 18 and wants to do a lingerie shoot.  None of the shots will be more revealing than typical swimwear (not see-thru or overly skimpy.)  Her mother has also agreed to sign a model release with her.

I'm interested in hearing how other photogs handle situations like this.

Thanks

Why would you want to photograph a child in lingerie? Just because you have a parents permission doesn't make it right. There are parents who sell their children to others. There are people who force children into prostitution.

Not saying that you are or the parents are, but if you can't decide what is right for yourself, then there seems to be a problem.

Chris Macan wrote:
Oh good lord must we have this pissing match every two days?

Someone will tell you that there is nothing wrong with it, that 14-18 year olds are developing young women and have a right to explore their blossoming womanhood on film and will point out that someone has to model for the sears catalog. They will point out that it is not against the law and they will mostly be right.

Someone else will tell you it's immoral and illegal and the baby boobie police will lock you up as soon as your finger touches the shutter, and who knows maybe on some level they might have a point.


If you really must know use the search feature and look up the 12,057 previous threads on this and every possible variation of this thread.
Lord knows we don't need another bitchfest thread (but I guess we have it).

Of course we must, this IS Model MAYHEM after all. What fun would it be without the MAYHEM part?

Chris Macan wrote:
Oh good lord must we have this pissing match every two days?

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
This is getting to the point where I'm just cutting & pasting previous comments just to bump up my post numbers And besides, it's not every 2 days...more like every day.

Yeah.... you're right,
But I don't log in every day,
So I am saved some of the Horror of it all.

Mark Reese Photography wrote:
Of course we must, this IS Model MAYHEM after all. What fun would it be without the MAYHEM part?

I would just like to see some new topics,
Like maybe is SHEEP PORN illegal?
and what are the barnyard boundaries?
Is it ok for the GOATS to watch?
or more on topic what is the age of consent for a hot young Ewe?

and when is James going to chime in and offer to shoot the lass free of charge?

Hilsdon Photography LLC wrote:
ABSOLUTELY NOT!

If you allow this you are looking for trouble.

She is underage. In some states, a minor in bare FEET is all it takes. I'm serious, if you wan't to protect your REPUTATION as well as your BUSINESS then DON'T DO IT.

What would her parents say?  Have they been with her at any of her photo shoots (IF NOT YOU ARE REALLY LOOKING FOR TROUBLE. THEY SHOULD BE PRESENT AT ALL TIMES. PERIOD)

Does this young lady have any particular REASON to be photographed in lingerie? It is very unwise for her to go down that path anyway. Young girls should not act so sexy. Youth is much more beautiful without all the added vampiness. I'd have a talk with her parents.

woah... sounds like someone has over reacted just a bit.  whenever someone says underage people immediately think of 12 and 13 years old.. no one unless they're a pedophile would shoot that.. however 17 years old? 16? i could see that depending on the models look.  let not forget, we shoot a model because of a look that we or the client wants not the age.

Trey Bruggeman Photo wrote:
Just curious what everyone's opinion and the laws are on models of minor age (under 18) shooting in lingerie.  I am asking this only because I was approached by a model who is under 18 and wants to do a lingerie shoot.  None of the shots will be more revealing than typical swimwear (not see-thru or overly skimpy.)  Her mother has also agreed to sign a model release with her.

I'm interested in hearing how other photogs handle situations like this.

Thanks

Legally, there is no law preventing you from doing the shoot.
Morally, that is up to you.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

In what state is it illegal for a minor to show their bare feet lol? He already said her parents consented to the shoot content and would be present. Just for arguments sake...is swimwear appropriate?

If parents consent by signing a piece of paper stating that they give permission allowing someone to take pictures of their child nude, does that make it legal?

Individuals need to protect children and just being a parent doesn't naturally make that person to protect that child. Why did you think we have a system set up to protect children from parents who are not responsible to take care of them.

I certainly hope that if someone ever did take a picture of a child wearing something that is meant for adults, that if it went to court, that the baliff would smack the persons penis off with the gavel.

Real people wrote:

If parents consent by signing a piece of paper stating that they give permission allowing someone to take pictures of their child nude, does that make it legal?

Individuals need to protect children and just being a parent doesn't naturally make that person to protect that child. Why did you think we have a system set up to protect children from parents who are not responsible to take care of them.

I certainly hope that if someone ever did take a picture of a child wearing something that is meant for adults, that if it went to court, that the baliff would smack the persons penis off with the gavel.

go back to your church and preach...
There is no law in any state in the US prohibiting the photographing of nude minors, much less minors in lingerie.
does the name Sally Mann ring a bell?

Trey Bruggeman Photo wrote:
I would like to first note that I have not indicated that I have agreed to do this type of shoot, so please keep this in mind when firing back responses about my morality.  I am just curious about other's professional opinions and experiences with situations like this.

I was approached by a model who is under 18 and wants to do a modest lingerie shoot.  None of the shots will be more revealing than typical swimwear (not see-thru or overly skimpy.)  Her mother has also agreed to sign a model release with her.

I'm interested in hearing how other photogs handle situations like this. 

Thanks

Jeez you have been a member here since August and your first post here on MM is IS IT OK TO PHOTOGRAPH A MINOR IN LINGERIE...I smell an opportunity for MSNBC to pay a visit

Personally I would tell her she has the better part of her life to model lingerie and then I would consult a Lawyer to get a clarification.....

Ty Simone wrote:

Real people wrote:
There is no law in any state in the US prohibiting the photographing of nude minors, much less minors in lingerie.

Unless it is deamed pornographic and/or infringes on the wellfare of the child.

Unless child services feels that this is endangering the child there is nothing stating it can't be done.

Chris Macan wrote:
Oh good lord must we have this pissing match every two days?

I

Ty Simone wrote:

go back to your church and preach...
There is no law in any state in the US prohibiting the photographing of nude minors, much less minors in lingerie.
does the name Sally Mann ring a bell?

Did I mention that I was from a Church? If this is your response, I suppose I can be just as clever. Crawl back under the rock you crawled out from.

Swabere wrote:

Ty Simone wrote:

Real people wrote:
There is no law in any state in the US prohibiting the photographing of nude minors, much less minors in lingerie.

Unless it is deamed pornographic and/or infringes on the wellfare of the child.

Unless child services feels that this is endangering the child there is nothing stating it can't be done.

Asking someone at the child services would be a great place to get the answer. If they say it's alright then it must be. I'll put up 100 dollars that child services will ask your name and number before telling you the answer is no.

Did the minor just walk up to the photographer and say, "Would you shoot me in lingerie? My parents say it's alright and they will sign anything that you want".

This does get into a pissing match, so putting morals aside and just going by what the law states, I would recommend finding a very good lawyer and getting the answer.

Although the answer may be yes you can, when cases come to court, it is not based always on a clear cut decision.

Swabere wrote:
wouldn't a better response have been:

Crawl back from the ooze you evoled from.

Now that would be clever!

Go back to Church and do your preaching there was such a new saying, that I had to reply with the newness of it with something just as new.

Swabere wrote:
Unless it is deamed pornographic and/or infringes on the wellfare of the child.

Unless child services feels that this is endangering the child there is nothing stating it can't be done.

actually 3 cases now have been decided on the welfare of the child issue, and all three in favor of the parents.
I did not say PORNOGRAPHIC anywhere.
PORNONGRAPHIC  Nude.

there is a big difference.

Pornographic, in regards to children does not even have to be nude.

Real people wrote:

Why would you want to photograph a child in lingerie? Just because you have a parents permission doesn't make it right. There are parents who sell their children to others. There are people who force children into prostitution.

Not saying that you are or the parents are, but if you can't decide what is right for yourself, then there seems to be a problem.

Let's be "Real" here. A 17 year old is NOT a child. Some places, they already have two kids of their own by 17. They are just as developed (mentally & physically) as an 18 or 19 year old.

What do you think is being shot for major magazines and lingerie catalogs? 30 year olds? Nope, 15-22 year olds.

Real people wrote:

Did I mention that I was from a Church? If this is your response, I suppose I can be just as clever. Crawl back under the rock you crawled out from.

The rock I crawled out from under must be a pretty great place because at least I understand what I am posting about before I post it.

You however, are simply making asinine statements with no basis in fact.
you are trying to preach your moral beliefs to a photographer which goes against EVERYTHING a photographer should stand for.

However, for sake of argument, Let's say that shooting Lingerie is wrong.
Is shooting a minor in a bikini then wrong as well?
Both cover the exact same amount of skin, and usually lingerie covers more.
So, No more bikini shots of minors either.
Oh, while we are at it, all bathing suits shots should be off limits.
Because they show too much skin.
And perhaps shorts as well, and tank tops and t-shirts....

If she is not completely covered do not shoot it!

As for welfare of the child crap, never hold water.
for further reference see "The Blue Lagoon, Pappillion and Lolita"
all three of them had a nude minor in them, all three times some yahoo prosecuter tried to go after someone associated with it (including block busters once) and allt three times they were promptly bounce out of court.

Please show me ONE example of where a nude minor photograph, like Sally Mann's or a Minor in Lingerie photograph has EVER been successfully prosecuted as either Child Porn, or endangering the welfare of a child.
Successfully prosecuted.
Once.
JUST ONCE!

the closest you will come is the suggestive photographs in Ohio of the Father and Daughter 2 years ago, and that was dismissed / settled on appeal.

Vito wrote:
Let's be "Real" here. A 17 year old is NOT a child. Some places, they already have two kids of their own by 17. They are just as developed (mentally & physically) as an 18 or 19 year old.

What do you think is being shot for major magazines and lingerie catalogs? 30 year olds? Nope, 15-22 year olds.

There is a a legal difference between a CHILD and a MINOR....thew laws generally don't address the child they address the MINOR.....and whether they have given  birth has no influence over the matter...