# NSFW: What exactly are the laws regarding shooting teens nude?



## slackercruster

NSFW: What *exactly* are the laws regarding shooting teens nude?

OK, I opened up this topic at the Pentaxians. I could never post the original thread here. In any case, no concrete or even 'wet' concrete answers have been offered. I submit it for your input to this 'blind' topic.

NSFW:

(NSFW) What exactly are the laws regarding shooting teens nude? (NSFW) - PentaxForums.com


----------



## DorkSterr

As long as you're 18+ your good? Anything below that is just wrong.


----------



## Designer

Sorry, no definitive answer here, but I'm sure you're aware that some photographers have earned their living at photographing teens and younger children.  Why not ask them how they get away with it?


----------



## slackercruster

Watched Art:21 DVD. They had a segment on Sally Mann. She did lots of nudes of her own kids. They didn't go into it much. Just boiled down to 'they were there, nude, so I shot them.'


----------



## Sw1tchFX

Shouldn't even be a thought if they're under 18.


----------



## cgipson1

under 18.. parental / guardian consent... with a strong contract? For art... almost anything appears to be permissible.

I would consult an attorney, personally...


----------



## pixmedic

I wouldn't even THINK of doing any kind of photography involving minors and anything even CLOSE to nudity. don't want that kind of hassle. don't want that kind of reputation. don't want the kind of trouble it could bring.


----------



## cgipson1

DorkSterr said:


> As long as you're 18+ your good? *Anything below that is just wrong*.



I disagree. The time when small children are young and innocent is beautiful, and they have no body taboos (haven't been ingrained by society yet)... and capturing this beauty is not wrong (If it is truly art.. anything else is wrong). The time a young person starts going through those changes that cause us to become men and women... is a powerful time. Documenting that for the emotional impact, and the beauty and pain that exists during that time... and sharing that with the world? What is wrong with that.. it speaks to all of us.

Please leave out religious values...


----------



## pixmedic

cgipson1 said:


> DorkSterr said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you're 18+ your good? *Anything below that is just wrong*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. The time when small children are young and innocent is beautiful, and they have no body taboos (haven't been ingrained by society yet)... and capturing this beauty is not wrong (If it is truly art.. anything else is wrong). The time a young person starts going through those changes that cause us to become men and women... is a powerful time. Documenting that for the emotional impact, and the beauty and pain that exists during that time... and sharing that with the world? What is wrong with that.. it speaks to all of us.
> 
> Please leave out religious values...
Click to expand...


absolutely...its when you throw in the word "nude" that it gets a little more complicated. and all of the stigma that goes along with it. 
I would be too afraid of the social and possible legal ramifications of those kinds of pictures to ever try it. not saying its "wrong" per say, in the proper context of course, 
but its definitely not something i would be brave enough to attempt. and have no desire to anyway.


----------



## Jaemie

I think anyone considering such photography should do some deep self-reflection and examine his/her motives, because, even those photographers with the purest intentions are not immune from the potential wrath of a zealous prosecutor, an unhappy parent, or a regretful subject. Jock Sturges published beautiful fine art photos of naturist families he knew well, and still he was hounded legally. Unless you are prepared to put yourself and your family through the kind of hell that could precipitate from shooting teens nude, you shouldn't bother with this genre.


----------



## slackercruster

I was able to find some info for this topic from Ohio. Other states were not so forthcoming with the information from a qucik search. 

Lawriter - ORC - 2907.323 Illegal use of minor in nudity-oriented material or performance.


----------



## Jaemie

Forget the law. It won't protect you from someone with an agenda.


----------



## cgipson1

Jaemie said:


> Forget the law. It won't protect you from someone with an agenda.



I agree.. but that doesn't make it right! Between the religionists on one side, and the sicko pervs on the other... it can be a very nasty situation. No matter how pure the intentions of the photographer!  (but that doesn't make it wrong.. just a political and social nightmare!)


----------



## sm4him

cgipson1 said:


> DorkSterr said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you're 18+ your good? *Anything below that is just wrong*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. The time when small children are young and innocent is beautiful, and they have no body taboos (haven't been ingrained by society yet)... and capturing this beauty is not wrong (If it is truly art.. anything else is wrong). The time a young person starts going through those changes that cause us to become men and women... is a powerful time. Documenting that for the emotional impact, and the beauty and pain that exists during that time... and sharing that with the world? What is wrong with that.. it speaks to all of us.
> 
> Please leave out religious values...
Click to expand...




cgipson1 said:


> Jaemie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forget the law. It won't protect you from someone with an agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.. but that doesn't make it right! Between the religionists on  one side, and the sicko pervs on the other... it can be a very nasty  situation. No matter how pure the intentions of the photographer!  (but  that doesn't make it wrong.. just a political and social  nightmare!)
Click to expand...


^THIS.
When we hear "Nude" we tend to think "sexual", and when we hear "nude" and "minor" we think "pervert."
But it's not necessarily true...

I have some great photos of my kids, buck-nekkid.   It's adorable, because they are innocent and pure and beautiful.  I even have one of them (both boys) nekkid in the tub WITH their nekkid GIRL cousins! OMG!! 

I love these photos, but would never, ever post them...not because the photos are "wrong" but because there are too many pervs out there.  By the same token, I don't think I'd ever photograph a nude minor not related to me--again, not because it is NECESSARILY "wrong" or "perverted" but because it is such a touchy area and can be taken and used in ways it was not intended.


----------



## cgipson1

amdnicen0 said:


> <~~~ That's me!! But here's another a little bigger... With my boyfriend at a wedding



???????


----------



## kundalini

cgipson1 said:


> amdnicen0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> <~~~ That's me!! But here's another a little bigger... With my boyfriend at a wedding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???????
Click to expand...


Every post by this person is the exact same and in inappropriate threads.

amdnice0, please stop trolling. 

reported


----------



## unpopular

In general, as far as I know (and I am not an attorney or have otherwise any special training in this legal matter) so long as the model isn't engaged in a sexually explicit manner then it is protected. However, what "sexually explicit" entails is so highly variable from person to person, religion to religion, culture to culture, it's almost impossible to know if you've crossed that line. I believe in one case, Mann perhaps, the judge concluded that pornography was something "he knew when he saw it".

Some people who are very conservative would say any form of nudity is sexual by it's nature, and society as a whole has a "better to lock up a person for child porn than risk a pedophile on the street" kind of attitude. It's just not worth even approaching, IMO, unless you are a making specific statement which cannot be done any other way - then you need to ask yourself how dedicated you are to this project, because it is very possible that it will blow up into a huge deal. If you've just found a pretty, 16 year old model whom you want to photograph nude, OTOH, forget it.


----------



## slackercruster

cgipson1 said:


> Jaemie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forget the law. It won't protect you from someone with an agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.. but that doesn't make it right! Between the religionists on one side, and the sicko pervs on the other... it can be a very nasty situation. No matter how pure the intentions of the photographer! (but that doesn't make it wrong.. just a political and social nightmare!)
Click to expand...



Sure, if someone has it in for you then you get hauled in for whatever. But I like to know generally where things stand.


----------



## xjoewhitex

Personally I won't shoot anyone under the age of 18, or 19 in my neighboring state just to cover my ass. I shoot nudes and rarely anything else, I have had minors approach me wanting to do a implied type shoot but even with the thought of it I get a little nervous. I see no problem with nudity with minors as long as it is art, because there is a true form of beauty and innocents from it.. but its not for me.


----------



## cgipson1

unpopular said:


> In general, as far as I know (and I am not an attorney or have otherwise any special training in this legal matter) so long as the model isn't engaged in a sexually explicit manner then it is protected. However, what "sexually explicit" entails is so highly variable from person to person, religion to religion, culture to culture, it's almost impossible to know if you've crossed that line. I believe in one case, Mann perhaps, the judge concluded that pornography was something "he knew when he saw it".
> 
> Some people who are very conservative would say any form of nudity is sexual by it's nature, and society as a whole has a "better to lock up a person for child porn than risk a pedophile on the street" kind of attitude. It's just not worth even approaching, IMO, unless you are a making specific statement which cannot be done any other way - then you need to ask yourself how dedicated you are to this project, because it is very possible that it will blow up into a huge deal. If you've just found a pretty, 16 year old model whom you want to photograph nude, OTOH, forget it.



But the publicity could be a major advantage too.... all the avant garde would be up for it... the ACLU could jump in.... it would be a hatefest / lovefest from hell (depending on what side you were on!) It would probably make you famous (and possibly rich) as long as you didn't end up dead or in prison!


----------



## MTVision

slackercruster said:
			
		

> Sure, if someone has it in for you then you get hauled in for whatever. But I like to know generally where things stand.



It is, obviously, illegal to post any nude pornographic pictures of people under age 18. But what law enforcement considers pornographic depends solely on their interpretation. To be pornographic they have to be lewd in nature but someone has to determine intent and if the photo is "lewd in nature". Like its been said before - to some nudity would be, in itself, considered lewd in nature. It's a very fine and dangerous line IMO. There are no set standards, ASFAIK, that law enforcements uses to determine if an image with nudity is pornographic or not. 

The picture of the teen in the tub - I may not find that lewd/pornographic but someone else may. If that someone else is a cop/prosecutor then you could be in for a huge legal hassle and a possible sex offender label. And that sex offender label is huge - people don't care why or what you were charged with.  

There was an incident a few years back where an 18yo got mad at his girlfriend (17yo). He hacked her e-mail and sent a nude picture (that she had texted him) to everyone in her contact list. He is now a sex offender for life and has to register. He had to go to classes with rapists and pedophiles all because he made a rash decision when he was angry and his girlfriend was under 18. Granted, this is a completely different scenario then what the OP is talking about. But....its something I wouldn't risk. I wouldn't want to leave my fate in the hands of people's opinions.....

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer and have no legal background. It's just my opinion based on information I've read and seen.


----------



## PlanetStarbucks

If the supreme court can't even define what is indecent when it comes to capturing nudity, I don't think a thread on a photo website will help too much.  Frankly...too much is up in the air for you to get a good answer, so I would just stick to the 18+ crowd.

From Justice Potter Steward in 1964:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I  understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core  pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing  so. But *I know it when I see it*, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that"


----------



## MTVision

unpopular said:
			
		

> In general, as far as I know (and I am not an attorney or have otherwise any special training in this legal matter) so long as the model isn't engaged in a sexually explicit manner then it is protected. However, what "sexually explicit" entails is so highly variable from person to person, religion to religion, culture to culture, it's almost impossible to know if you've crossed that line. I believe in one case, Mann perhaps, the judge concluded that pornography was something "he knew when he saw it".
> 
> Some people who are very conservative would say any form of nudity is sexual by it's nature, and society as a whole has a "better to lock up a person for child porn than risk a pedophile on the street" kind of attitude. It's just not worth even approaching, IMO, unless you are a making specific statement which cannot be done any other way - then you need to ask yourself how dedicated you are to this project, because it is very possible that it will blow up into a huge deal. If you've just found a pretty, 16 year old model whom you want to photograph nude, OTOH, forget it.



"he knew when he saw it"

^ that right there would make me think twice about every doing any type of nude photography with someone underage. What that one person considers pornography may differ completely from someone else. 

I posted a picture of my daughter on my private FB account - she was naked but you couldn't see anything below the waist. She was flipping me off in the picture and it was funny IMO - especially since she doesn't know what she was doing. I didn't find it inappropriate in any way, shape or form but I got PM's from people and comments about the picture. She's 2! It's not like I took a nude shot of a 17yo girl or something. But that just goes to show that what people consider appropriate/inappropriate varies so much.


----------



## vtf

:shock:. Anything under the legal age of consent will bring serious attention to your intent not work. Serious attention! Be prepared to be compared to Sandusky or others, regardless of right or wrong, legal or illegal.


----------



## unpopular

MTVision said:


> that right there would make me think twice about every doing any type of nude photography with someone underage. What that one person considers pornography may differ completely from someone else.



Well, fortunately in this case that statement was in favor of the defendant. I don't think such an unprecedented, outrageous and subjective justification would hold up in an appeals court should the photographer been convicted. I also don't know the veracity of this, nor what case it comes from.


----------



## ann

Just an fyi about the photo of the young lady in the bath tub, I believe that comes from a book called Ward 81 published in 1979. That book was very responsible for shutting down a mental hospital.

In fact I am showing a video about Mary Ellen Mark this week to one of my photo classes, and will be bringing along the book so that can view first hand.


----------



## MTVision

unpopular said:
			
		

> Well, fortunately in this case that statement was in favor of the defendant. I don't think such an unprecedented, outrageous and subjective justification would hold up in an appeals court should the photographer been convicted. I also don't know the veracity of this, nor what case it comes from.



No I know. But the whole idea that that is basically how law enforcement determines whether an image is pornographic or not is scary.  I mean you could get charged an have to deal with all the legal hassle based on someone's opinions/views. Granted, you might not get convicted but still......my point I guess is that I, personally, wouldn't want to risk it.


----------



## pixmedic

I think the real answer is this...if you have ANY questions or doubts as to the legality of photographing someone or something for any reason, DON'T DO IT!
better safe than...in jail and becoming the new girlfriend for a hardcore felon nicknamed "Anaconda", with no snake tattoos... just sayin.


----------



## slackercruster

MTVision said:


> slackercruster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, if someone has it in for you then you get hauled in for whatever. But I like to know generally where things stand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is, obviously, illegal to post any nude pornographic pictures of people under age 18. But what law enforcement considers pornographic depends solely on their interpretation. To be pornographic they have to be lewd in nature but someone has to determine intent and if the photo is "lewd in nature". Like its been said before - to some nudity would be, in itself, considered lewd in nature. It's a very fine and dangerous line IMO. There are no set standards, ASFAIK, that law enforcements uses to determine if an image with nudity is pornographic or not.
> 
> The picture of the teen in the tub - I may not find that lewd/pornographic but someone else may. If that someone else is a cop/prosecutor then you could be in for a huge legal hassle and a possible sex offender label. And that sex offender label is huge - people don't care why or what you were charged with.
> 
> There was an incident a few years back where an 18yo got mad at his girlfriend (17yo). He hacked her e-mail and sent a nude picture (that she had texted him) to everyone in her contact list. He is now a sex offender for life and has to register. He had to go to classes with rapists and pedophiles all because he made a rash decision when he was angry and his girlfriend was under 18. Granted, this is a completely different scenario then what the OP is talking about. But....its something I wouldn't risk. I wouldn't want to leave my fate in the hands of people's opinions.....
> 
> DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer and have no legal background. It's just my opinion based on information I've read and seen.
Click to expand...


Someone said that the punishment for murdering a boy was only half that of the punishment for photographing him nude with an erection. If true, crazy isn't it?

I'm all for laws protecting children from sex predators. But some of these laws and paranoia they spread are pretty nuts. It would be interesting going to court, albeit not a pleasant one, and tell the judge 'I got the book from the public library...don't blame me...go arrest them!'  But ignorance of the law is a excuse they usually won't accept.

In my own case, I bought some Aperture books blind, not knowing what the photographers work was even about. If it was cheap, I bought it for my collection. And only after looking at the books did these questions pop up.


----------



## slackercruster

ann said:


> Just an fyi about the photo of the young lady in the bath tub, I believe that comes from a book called Ward 81 published in 1979. That book was very responsible for shutting down a mental hospital.
> 
> In fact I am showing a video about Mary Ellen Mark this week to one of my photo classes, and will be bringing along the book so that can view first hand.




Yes, originally that was were it was from. Later repub in other books.


----------



## unpopular

slackercruster said:


> Someone said that the punishment for killing a boy was only half that for the punishment for photographing him nude with an erection. Crazy isn't it?



Off topic, but there is an Abbie Hoffman quote that goes along the lines of "You get life for selling dope to a minor but only 10 years for manslaughter, so if you're selling to a kid and the cops come, shoot the kid real quick"


----------



## slackercruster

MTVision said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In general, as far as I know (and I am not an attorney or have otherwise any special training in this legal matter) so long as the model isn't engaged in a sexually explicit manner then it is protected. However, what "sexually explicit" entails is so highly variable from person to person, religion to religion, culture to culture, it's almost impossible to know if you've crossed that line. I believe in one case, Mann perhaps, the judge concluded that pornography was something "he knew when he saw it".
> 
> Some people who are very conservative would say any form of nudity is sexual by it's nature, and society as a whole has a "better to lock up a person for child porn than risk a pedophile on the street" kind of attitude. It's just not worth even approaching, IMO, unless you are a making specific statement which cannot be done any other way - then you need to ask yourself how dedicated you are to this project, because it is very possible that it will blow up into a huge deal. If you've just found a pretty, 16 year old model whom you want to photograph nude, OTOH, forget it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "he knew when he saw it"
> 
> ^ that right there would make me think twice about every doing any type of nude photography with someone underage. What that one person considers pornography may differ completely from someone else.
> 
> I posted a picture of my daughter on my private FB account - she was naked but you couldn't see anything below the waist. She was flipping me off in the picture and it was funny IMO - especially since she doesn't know what she was doing. I didn't find it inappropriate in any way, shape or form but I got PM's from people and comments about the picture. She's 2! It's not like I took a nude shot of a 17yo girl or something. But that just goes to show that what people consider appropriate/inappropriate varies so much.
Click to expand...


Someplace, somewhere it would be called kiddy porn.

 My wife does it all the time with just suggestive or nude non sexual pictures of kids in these Aperture books. And by suggestive I mean almost nothing. Like a young girl in a bathing suit with her breasts 'just' starting to protrude and a  smallish nipple marking her suit. Breasts and nipple are not seen, just the bare outline. Can't post it here due to their rules, but it is a work by a well known tog. 

I tell her, that is not kiddy porn, it is just a young girl in swimsuit with some nippy showing through. But wife has her own ideas. 

Another pix by the same artisit shows a couple young girls on the couch. One is spralled out like hell over the other one. I have a copy of it in my room. What I like about it is the posture of the girl. Very freaky. Not sexual, just freaky posture. Wife says it is suggestive. 

Wife would make a tough judge...suggestive...kiddy porn...20 years!


----------



## unpopular

slackercruster said:


> Wife would make a tough judge...suggestive...kiddy porn...20 years!



Once I was looking at grown up porn, and found a video of a girl of "questionable" age wearing a bikini touching her breasts. I kind of wondered if she were underage, would this be kiddie porn?

Another example is when I was about 16, my buddy had a joke he used to play with some our close female friends. He'd ask "how do you scare a bee", and then grab her chest and exclaim "BOO BEE!". If one of us videotaped this, would it be kiddie porn, or just normal risqué shenanigans?

Often times we associate pornography with nudity rather than with sexuality, but I think that the sexual nature of pornographic media is what makes something pornographic, not so much the nudity. However, nudity can be measured while "sexually suggestive" cannot.


----------



## Tee

OP: are you just curious or are you about to photograph something questionable?


----------



## jake337

How old is 15, really?


----------



## table1349

Write this guy and see what his opinion is.  Home :: Roman Polanski :: Polish film director and actor


----------



## Kazooie

Well I know a LOT of underage sex offenders then. 

Also, for the record, a pedophile is someone who loves children who haven't hit puberty yet, it is an ephibophile who loves teenagers.


----------



## jake337

Where are all the Gypsies at?


----------



## JAC526

Are you wondering if it is legal or if it is morally right?

I do not think it is morally right.  However, to each his own.

On the other hand whether or not its legal....who knows.  Probably depends on each individual state.


----------



## MTVision

Kazooie said:
			
		

> Well I know a LOT of underage sex offenders then.
> 
> Also, for the record, a pedophile is someone who loves children who haven't hit puberty yet, it is an ephibophile who loves teenagers.



You forgot hebephilia which is a sexual preference for those in the early years of puberty....


----------



## Kazooie

MTVision said:


> Kazooie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I know a LOT of underage sex offenders then.
> 
> Also, for the record, a pedophile is someone who loves children who haven't hit puberty yet, it is an ephibophile who loves teenagers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot hebephilia which is a sexual preference for those in the early years of puberty....
Click to expand...

Oh, I hadn't heard of that one before! 

Either way, my opinion (morally) is that I have no problems with it, as long as everyone involved is fine and dandy.


----------



## unpopular

uhm. you're ok with pedo/hebe/ephipheliac activities, child pornography or nonsexual nude photos of kids? Because there is a huge difference between all three.


----------



## pixmedic

unpopular said:


> uhm. you're ok with pedo/hebe/ephipheliac activities, child pornography or nonsexual nude photos of kids? Because there is a huge difference between all three.



I dont think thats quite what kazooie meant. hopefully. I think he just meant the "art" part of it. not the sexual pervert parts.


----------



## unpopular

The way I feel about parental consent, at least of very young children, is that parents have an obligation to protect their children's privacy and that parents should take a more conservative route with this. I am not saying that under no circumstance a parent should not consent to their children being photographed in the nude, but very careful consideration should be considered about validity and importance of the artist's intent and the cultural environment which the child lives. A child "wanting to" to do something may mean that he or she genuinely wants to participate, or it may mean that the child is "wanting to" impress or conform to the wishes of adults around him or her.

Naturally teens are a little bit different since they loose their interest in impressing adults. But for our very young children, I think it's better to be conservative when preserving their rights. My wife and I actually have a strict "no commercial advertising" policy with the use of our child's image.


----------



## mishele

Kazooie said:


> Either way, my opinion (morally) is that I have no problems with it, as long as everyone involved is fine and dandy.



Everyone doesn't have a say......the child depending on their age is just being told to do something.


----------



## unpopular

^^ perfectly said.


----------



## Trever1t

I have a question. I am not am not advocating nude photography of minors but I do have a question for anyone who says don't do it:

Have you never seen a photo of a naked baby at the beach, tub, whatever?
At what age does that become taboo? Too say that noone should be photographed under the age of 18 would put most every parent in jail, no? 

In Europe and other countries I have traveled, seeing a topless baby, girl, woman is no cause for alarm or even draw attention from other men in the area, it's 'normal'. Obviously one's cultural conditioning dictate's what is and isn't sexually explicit. Surely the American gov't has a legally concise definition of what is considered porn...


----------



## jake337

jake337 said:


> How old is 15, really?





mishele said:


> Kazooie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either way, my opinion (morally) is that I have no problems with it, as long as everyone involved is fine and dandy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone doesn't have a say......the child depending on their age is just being told to do something.
Click to expand...


Re-watch some classic Dave.....


----------



## pixmedic

Trever1t said:


> I have a question. I am not am not advocating nude photography of minors but I do have a question for anyone who says don't do it:
> 
> Have you never seen a photo of a naked baby at the beach, tub, whatever?
> At what age does that become taboo? Too say that noone should be photographed under the age of 18 would put most every parent in jail, no?
> 
> In Europe and other countries I have traveled, seeing a topless baby, girl, woman is no cause for alarm or even draw attention from other men in the area, it's 'normal'. Obviously one's cultural conditioning dictate's what is and isn't sexually explicit. Surely the American gov't has a legally concise definition of what is considered porn...



that is an excellent point. but even from a legal standpoint here in the united states, it is still a very grey area. And litigation being the way it is even a seemingly "innocent" picture can easily be taken out of context and incur the wrath of conservative legal action. It never ceases to amaze me, the duality of this country concerning sex, almost to the point of Hypocrisy. If sex and alcohol weren't so demonized here, I don't think we would have quite as many problems. Im not advocating nude teens or anything, but nudity is viewed on such a more conservative level here than it is in europe, and yet you can see it on almost every cable channel. I dont get it.


----------



## Tee

OP: this is a topic that brings out personal opinion rather than the legalities.  I've seen a 25 page thread on Model Mayhem about this and it boils down to this- seek out professional legal advice.


----------



## mishele

Sally Mann comes to mind w/ this topic. Some of her work I enjoy and some goes too far for me.


----------



## slackercruster

Trever1t said:


> I have a question. I am not am not advocating nude photography of minors but I do have a question for anyone who says don't do it:
> 
> Have you never seen a photo of a naked baby at the beach, tub, whatever?
> At what age does that become taboo? Too say that noone should be photographed under the age of 18 would put most every parent in jail, no?
> 
> In Europe and other countries I have traveled, seeing a topless baby, girl, woman is no cause for alarm or even draw attention from other men in the area, it's 'normal'. Obviously one's cultural conditioning dictate's what is and isn't sexually explicit. Surely the American gov't has a legally concise definition of what is considered porn...




Can't answer.

I guess it is just by custom of each region? 

I was amazed how a Muslim lady was all covered up from head to foot at the airport and she had her cloak pulled open and was milking a baby with a big brown nipple. I'd figure the Muslims are so conservative they would rather show their face than their nip. But she would rather show her nip than her face?

That is what this thread is all about...'trying' to learn what we can about a blind subject.


----------



## Tee

slackercruster said:


> That is what this thread is all about...'trying' to learn what we can about a blind subject.



You know, I really have NO interest in learning how to photograph underage models.  Why would anyone want to learn about this so-called "blind" subject?


----------



## Solarflare

Americans are so easy to make fun of when it comes to things like nudity. Like this "Nipplegate" when some normal tv sender accidentaly showed a nipple. I couldnt believe it when I heard americans say about that "but think about the children" !

Err, what ? To children, this means absolutely nothing at all. They are the only people who are definitely NOT in any danger whatsoever there.

Its really crazy. Americans do wars of aggression, they have ten times more prisoners per population than the average country and one fourth of prisoners worldwide, they are a rich country that doesnt have a social state that fulfills the most basic demands of human rights, they spend as much on military as the rest of the world combined, they have the death penalty and use it a lot, preferably on black people, they do torture of the worst kind (waterboarding) and even kill people with it and still wont even admit it, and of course they also have the biggest porn industry worldwide.

And yet when something as innocent as a nipple is shown, something I wouldnt think twice about when I would, for example, see a mother feeding her baby in a public area, or would be at a nude beach, to americans its a national scandal. What. The. Frak.

Really, violence in all its forms is highly suppored by the USA. Anything that might have anything to do with affection ? Not so much.

About underaged, well personally I would say anything sexual is out of the question. But I know squat about the laws about it anyway.


----------



## unpopular

I think American culture is somewhat exaggerated by the media. Most people don't really care much about "nipslips"


----------



## pixmedic

Solarflare said:


> Americans are so easy to make fun of when it comes to things like nudity. Like this "Nipplegate" when some normal tv sender accidentaly showed a nipple. I couldnt believe it when I heard americans say about that "but think about the children" !
> 
> Err, what ? To children, this means absolutely nothing at all. They are the only people who are definitely NOT in any danger whatsoever there.
> 
> Its really crazy. Americans do wars of aggression, they have ten times more prisoners per population than the average country and one fourth of prisoners worldwide, they are a rich country that doesnt have a social state that fulfills the most basic demands of human rights, they spend as much on military as the rest of the world combined, they have the death penalty and use it a lot, preferably on black people, they do torture of the worst kind (waterboarding) and even kill people with it and still wont even admit it, and of course they also have the biggest porn industry worldwide.
> 
> And yet when something as innocent as a nipple is shown, something I wouldnt think twice about when I would, for example, see a mother feeding her baby in a public area, or would be at a nude beach, to americans its a national scandal. What. The. Frak.
> 
> Really, violence in all its forms is highly suppored by the USA. Anything that might have anything to do with affection ? Not so much.
> 
> About underaged, well personally I would say anything sexual is out of the question. But I know squat about the laws about it anyway.



"they spend as much on military as the rest of the world combined, they  have the death penalty and use it a lot, preferably on black people,  they do torture of the worst kind (waterboarding) and even kill people  with it and still wont even admit it, and of course they also have the  biggest porn industry worldwide."

Hot Damn...thats why I love this FU^&ING country! im not sure about the black people part though, im pretty sure more white people have been executed in this country than any other race. and anyone living here that doesn't love it, well, nothing stopping them from heading somewhere else. also, we have plenty of nude resorts and beaches here. and war? maybe more recently sure. but apparently you are discounting  everything before the last 75 years or so. I would say more people died in the tower of London in its last 10 years of use than in all executions of US history.  but hey, let them eat cake. that's what I say. that and...Uneducated drivel.


----------



## unpopular

I believe the statistic is that black defendants found guilt of capital crimes are more likely to receive the death penalty. Furthermore, if the victim is white the chances that the convicted murderer will death penalty is much higher than if the victim was black, regardless of the race of the convicted.


----------



## Solarflare

unpopular said:


> I think American culture is somewhat exaggerated by the media. Most people don't really care much about "nipslips"



Yeah, probably.


----------



## unpopular

This kind of exaggeration is something Americans have become accustom to, outrage sells well and I think that Americans kind of put this "outrage face" when we talk about celebrity shenanigans, but it's not like we sit around and think about this stuff all day - I don't think most people are all that preoccupied or even interested, it's more something to connect us; something to fill the small talk, you know. But it must seem really strange from the outside, with all this goofy stuff on the front pages of our "respectable" newspapers.


----------



## usayit

You'd be naive to think that the problems the US experience is not shared world-wide......

The issue here is that people expect better from the US given the wealth, resources, and influence.  Unfortunately... its not.  Furthermore, we like to air it on national news which isn't filtered nor controlled by the state. 

Blacks here... Gypsies in other countries
Waterboarding here... Beheading, stoning, removal of body parts in other countries
Nip Slips here results in persecution by the media and the zealots... Showing the female form or face in others results in caining in other countries.

the list goes on and on...


We also have a tendencies to take things too far to the hypocritical.  So called "quality of life" initiatives push a narrow definition of "quality of life" from a small (elitist group) to the large population.  Military age versus drinking age.  White collar crime versus other crime.  Sex between consenting adults versus prostitution.  We criminalize the symptom not the cause.


----------



## Tee

I'm a world traveler and I don't mean to hotels and resorts either. 67 countries. I spent last summer in Europe. Same issues, same problems, just presented in a different way (The Brits are amazing at belittling you while making it sound like a compliment).


----------



## usayit

Tee said:


> The Brits are amazing at belittling you while making it sound like a compliment).



I had to laugh (in a good way) at this post...  I live in the north east heavily influenced by NYC.  We don't even bother trying to make it sound like a compliment.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

cgipson1 said:


> under 18.. parental / guardian consent... with a strong contract? For art... almost anything appears to be permissible.
> 
> I would consult an attorney, personally...



this thread is proof everyone on the 'net is an attorney


----------



## Solarflare

Well I dont want to start a political discussion about this in a forum about photography, so lets just note that to me, comparing the USA with third world countries doesnt make much sense.


----------



## KmH

Trever1t said:


> In Europe and other countries I have traveled, seeing a topless baby, girl, woman is no cause for alarm or even draw attention from other men in the area, it's 'normal'. Obviously one's cultural conditioning dictate's what is and isn't sexually explicit. Surely the American gov't has a legally concise definition of what is considered porn...


No. The US gov't doesn't have anything close to being a legally concise definition of what is considered pornography.

The US has long been and remains one of the more uptight countries on the planet when it comes to issues related to sexuality.

For the OP, an online photography forum is the wrong place to be seeking legal advice, of any kind. 

If you want to get a better sense of the legal pitfalls - visit expertlaw.com.


----------



## unpopular

usayit said:


> The issue here is that people expect better from the US given the wealth, resources, and influence.  Unfortunately... its not.  Furthermore, we like to air it on national news which isn't filtered nor controlled by the state.



Don't think for a moment that the media isn't controlled by the same interests that control the government. While perhaps not directly filtered or controlled, it makes little difference when both the government and the media have the same controller and censor: corporate interests.


----------



## usayit

Um... the media is corporate... that's pretty obvious.


----------



## unpopular

That's kind of my point.


----------



## Garbz

Tee said:


> slackercruster said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this thread is all about...'trying' to learn what we can about a blind subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I really have NO interest in learning how to photograph underage models.  Why would anyone want to learn about this so-called "blind" subject?
Click to expand...


This sentence is a textbook example of not having an open mind. Going from "I have no interest" to "why would anyone" is probably the saddest thing I could think of a human saying.

Exploring a field unexplored? 
Trying to raise awareness of the obsession with if someone grows hair but no boobs it must be illegal for them to be in a photo?
Artistic impression?

You treat the subject as if there couldn't ever be any photographers who have investigated it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Henson


----------



## Forkie

Sw1tchFX said:


> Shouldn't even be a thought if they're under 18.




No more newborn shoots then?

There's a bizarre culture of people thinking that anyone between the ages of 1 and 18 years should be locked up in airtight body suits and never be revealed until their 18th birthday, which is completely ridiculous.  

Seriously, if the young person being photographed and the parents/guardians give constent and are comfortable with the type of images being shot, I don't see any issues whatsoever.


----------



## slackercruster

As to why?

I hear one thing on TV and see another thing in the photo books. Would like to find out the bottom line. It is always good to know where one stands. The philosopher finds his joy in discovering truth...as best we can obtain it.


----------



## unpopular

This kind of goes back to what I was saying about the media. The media's role isn't to inform us. What do you think is more conducive to selling the most amount of advertising: the world is an ambiguous place where even the legal system doesn't have the answers, ot the world is a consistent, comfortable place with absolute right and wrong which always correlates with the law? There is a reason why when you watch "To Catch a Predator" you don't hear about how many people they "catch" but do not convict. There is no debate on Dateline if what they are doing is actually ethical, if there is any way you can actually prove what these guys "believed" or their "motives" as if there is any evidence which can peer inside the heads of others. Comfort sells; we're comforted by some outrage, provided that we know that there is some hope for order, some moral code which we all can rely on. Outrage is comfortable because of this.

But what we can't deal with is that under some circumstances that moral code breaks down, that the very things we morally value conflict with other moral values - freedom of speech with speech we cannot get behind, the mere thought that someone's getting off on Sally Mann is pretty revolting. Suddenly outrage becomes fear, we loose that sense of empowerment of being right in our outrage - it's no longer something positive, but rather the realization of the limits of society, and that society cannot protect us from that which makes us uncomfortable, that we have no right to being cozy and coddled.

This realization doesn't sell advertising, so you're not going to see documentaries on the ambiguity of child pornography on Dateline, for the same reasons you're not going to see a serious discussion on if "To Catch  a Predator" is ethical. It's better for advertisers to feel right than wonder if we're wrong.


----------



## Tee

Garbz said:
			
		

> This sentence is a textbook example of not having an open mind. Going from "I have no interest" to "why would anyone" is probably the saddest thing I could think of a human saying.



I keep a very open mind. My mind has also been shaped by personal experiences, observations and the like. But I'm happy you shared your thoughts about me to me. I'm sure if we were having a cup of joe, our explanations would be better understood and you wouldn't be calling me a sad human being.  As for your thought that anyone prefacing a statement with "why would anyone" is saddest thing a human could say, I'd ask you to consider the multitude of statements that would complete the statement.  I mean, really, that's the saddest thing a human being can say?!


----------

