Photographer
Adams Photography
Posts: 177
Eufaula, Alabama, US
I guess I should say, call a lawyer FIRST if YOU are that worried about it.
Photographer
richard boswell
Posts: 1790
New York, New York, US
not sure there is a legal use for that, it's a tough one, how are you set for lawyer fees.
and how well do you know this person, i.e. do you trust her with your freedom?
or at least that large part of your bank account that it would take to defend yourself.
however sally man would be a great person to e-mail about this, jock's case was complicated
with other issues. it may be best to hang it in a gallery right away,
as i recall the "artistic context" of sally's work is what kept here from jail and most of the
drama. if you do decide to do it, do it very well, as you may only be left with that as
consolation for the world of hurt you will face if things go bad.
Photographer
Daguerre
Posts: 4082
Orange, California, US
Photographer
Daguerre
Posts: 4082
Orange, California, US
kingtproductions wrote:
...Also, I would check the child pornography laws of your state (viewing the age of the child0. As photographers, we know that there is a thin line between art & pornography sometimes....especially as the public may see it. Pay attention-- keep the sex toys away from the child!
The line between art and porn is clearly defined. Art is art, and porn is artistic art.
Wardrobe Stylist
Dawn Geary
Posts: 103
Brooklyn, Indiana, US
It's not about one's interpretation of when nudity is/isn't appropriate.
I personally see nothing wrong with anyone naked, but that being said LAWS don't mimic that.
The issue was not whether the subject matter was good/bad, but more along the lines if it was a potentially sketchy situation. WHICH IT IS.
Photographer
fstopdreams
Posts: 4300
Chattanooga, Tennessee, US
Daguerre wrote:
Like a portrait session. Says the mother, the makeup artist, and the 2 photographic assistants.
Fear is the mind killer, after all. Dildos are still illegal in Alabama.
Photographer
Ryan Montgomery
Posts: 37
San Francisco, California, US
Sounds creepy...I wouldn't do it. But I'm a prude...
Model
Wenzel
Posts: 617
Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
Just sounds a little too freaky to me but I am a jaded cynic...so make of that what you will
Photographer
Shadowscape Studio
Posts: 2512
MARCELL, Minnesota, US
If nothing else this thread has supplied a list of people who not to recommend when a family asks who to contact for a nude shoot in their area. If anyone hears of a family in Minnesota wanting a shoot like this, send them my way. If you get the heebie jeebies Michael I would be glad to take this off your hands. 
Photographer
erik jensen
Posts: 421
NORTH HOLLYWOOD, California, US
sounds like a Dateline episode to me! make sure Chris Hansen isnt going to show up instead!
Photographer
Daguerre
Posts: 4082
Orange, California, US
Dawn Geary wrote:
It's not about one's interpretation of when nudity is/isn't appropriate.
I personally see nothing wrong with anyone naked, but that being said LAWS don't mimic that.
The issue was not whether the subject matter was good/bad, but more along the lines if it was a potentially sketchy situation. WHICH IT IS. The situation is not sketchy. Its very clear: If the OP does the shoot right, no problem. If not... well, you only lose 10% at bail.
Photographer
MS Graphix
Posts: 25
Denver, Colorado, US
lawsonpix wrote:
oooo that's a tough one.... my OPINION is not to shoot anyone nude over 2 years old... (except 18 or older of course) i'd say no... get some legal advice I agree with this guy. Just for laughs, you might want to see her "in person." She might have some blemishes or marks from those dumb enough to touch her with a ten foot pole. I would run for cover.
However, if you do decide to do this one: a. make sure your lawyer approves the whole thing in writing; b. make sure he has a lot of malpractice insurance; and c. make sure either you, or he, has a lot of influence with the cops and D.A "just in case" they get interested in this.
Photographer
Shoreline Studio
Posts: 302
Sandusky, Ohio, US
I'd suggest three things.
1 - Try and meet them at their home to talk about it. So you can have a clue as to what they are really like. (They come to your place, they could put on any kind of show.) If it seems real - talk blunt with them about your concerns on this, and how great of a shoot it could be - but also the perception problems you and they could face.
2 - Be careful, because this could so much be entrapment. Which is happening a lot. All those guys getting caught by cops, after arranging on the internet to meet underage girls for sex. Don't let it be you. If you didn't get into legal problems, you could still have some serious reputation problems out of this.
3 - If it all is good, don't shoot them alone! Have mom bring her mom. You bring your wife or someone. Have a couple other females there.
It does sound great, and I bet you can make some really wonderful images for this mother/daughter to cherish for years to come. Kids are so great around that age - I enjoyed my time with mine so much! Just don't risk yourself by being incautious.
Photographer
Meech Creative LLC
Posts: 97
Frederick, Maryland, US
rofl @ those pontificating that it shouldn't be done or talk to a lawyer like it will end up looking like kiddie porn instead of discussing how to do it and make it beautiful.
Not to mention that not EVERYONE (in reference to society) has a stick up their tight asses about being "naked" or having a slightly more open view about nudity amongst their family or their culture. But I sure bet that some of you saying "ewwww" to a beautiful shot like this would have NO problem saying yes to two 18 year olds playing innocent Lolita Lez roles for your camera, am I right?
I say meet them, get the ideas and tastefully go for it.
/silliness
Model
KatieK
Posts: 619
Lawrence, Kansas, US
TXPhotog wrote:
Maybe if we get this out of the way you can actually get someone to give you a sensible answer to your question. Failing that, the following claims will inevitably be made:
1. It's immoral to shoot anyone nude who is under 18, even a lot under 18.
2. It's illegal to shoot anyone nude who is under 18.
3. Hey, anyone remember Jock Stuges and Sally Mann?
4. There will be a district attorney/chief of police/sherrif out to make a name for himself, so it doesn't matter what the law says.
5. There is nothing wrong with nude art of children, especially if their mother is in the shot also.
6. Always be sure to get a release, that will protect you from the law.
7. Ewww! Icky!
8. What are you, some kind of prevert?
9. A release can't protect you from a kiddie porn charge.
10. Some mother got arrested for shooting pictures of her kid in the bathtub.
What did I miss? It's almost creepy how exactly right on this is. Funny how nobody paid any attention to it, though. Hhhmmm. 
Here's a thought for you, OP. If it creeps YOU out, don't do it. If YOU have weird thoughts about it, don't do it. Otherwise....there is nothing illegal or weird about a tastefully done mother/child portrait.
Photographer
Daguerre
Posts: 4082
Orange, California, US
Trevor Snyder wrote:
...Dildos are still illegal in Alabama. I know-- I used to live down yonder.
Photographer
Daguerre
Posts: 4082
Orange, California, US
lawsonpix wrote:
oooo that's a tough one.... my OPINION is not to shoot anyone nude over 2 years old... (except 18 or older of course) i'd say no... get some legal advice MS Graphix wrote:
I agree with this guy. Just for laughs, you might want to see her "in person." She might have some blemishes or marks from those dumb enough to touch her with a ten foot pole. I would run for cover.
However, if you do decide to do this one: a. make sure your lawyer approves the whole thing in writing; b. make sure he has a lot of malpractice insurance; and c. make sure either you, or he, has a lot of influence with the cops and D.A "just in case" they get interested in this. HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Photographer
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 13322
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
I think the images could be very beautiful, tasteful and artistic. I'm fairly easily convinced. Judges and juries are often harder to convince and more expensive. So, I guess it would depend on what you did with them. If mom is paying you, and you give her everything, including all files and then wipe your computer clean and accept only cash and with the understanding that if anything happens she'll swear on a Bible that she was drunk and can't remember who the photographer was, that's one thing. If you want to publicly display them, that's another. If you have any assets, that's one thing, and if you don't and like the idea of three meals a day provided to you at the graybar hotel, that's another. Yeah, what the hell...go ahead.
Model
Jami Lea
Posts: 5747
Los Angeles, California, US
I would bring a friend and meet up with her at a coffee shop somewhere and let her know that you will be picking the photographer lol
Photographer
Rick Edwards
Posts: 6185
Wilmington, Delaware, US
I did a series of a friends wife from week 5 through and including the birth and then again at 1 week old and 2 months. She has a great series from the shoots. Because of it I became the "de facto" photographer to this work locally.
Wardrobe Stylist
Dawn Geary
Posts: 103
Brooklyn, Indiana, US
Daguerre wrote:
The situation is not sketchy. Its very clear: If the OP does the shoot right, no problem. If not... well, you only lose 10% at bail. No it's not "very clear" unfortunately in the society in the USA there are a lot of factors to consider. And it's ALWAYS best to imagine the worst case scenario in situations like these, just to feel out what could happen. As opposed to just just going at it with abandon and ending up (god forbid) having to register as a sex offender (Worst Case Scenario)
It's called being a responsible photographer. If he weighs the pros and cons and has no problem, then by all means, go for it.
Photographer
David Pankhurst Photo
Posts: 893
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Shadowscape Studio wrote:
Second! Third!!
Photographer
Benjamen McGuire
Posts: 3991
Portland, Oregon, US
It all sounded ok untill you said....... Michael Wilkie Photos wrote:
Something about this doesn't quite feel right. It may be legal, but trust your gut.
Photographer
Meech Creative LLC
Posts: 97
Frederick, Maryland, US
FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
if it's done like this- I have no problem with it- http://www.masters-of-fine-art-photogra … es_01.html
But I'm not that photographer and it's not my genre While beautiful...those pics would be pushing the eyebrow raising level a bit, and I think are a little too much frontal as opposed to implied nudity in the case of the child for his project...or the way my minds eye would see it.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
we sound suspiciously like a nation afraid of its government....
where are we and when the fuck did this happen?
Photographer
Shadowscape Studio
Posts: 2512
MARCELL, Minnesota, US
Doug Swinskey wrote:
we sound suspiciously like a nation afraid of its government....
where are we and when the fuck did this happen? And why are we in this handbasket?
Photographer
Meech Creative LLC
Posts: 97
Frederick, Maryland, US
Doug Swinskey wrote:
we sound suspiciously like a nation afraid of its government....
where are we and when the fuck did this happen? For many it was 9/12/01
Photographer
David Pankhurst Photo
Posts: 893
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Rick Edwards wrote:
I did a series of a friends wife from week 5 through and including the birth and then again at 1 week old and 2 months. She has a great series from the shoots. Because of it I became the "de facto" photographer to this work locally. Hey hey...me too.
Because of the single maternity shoots she had seen, a lady and her husband have commissioned me to shoot her current pregnancy from start to finish (we are on monthe 2) and last weekend phoned to ask if I would be willing to attend and shoot the birth so the series could be completed. Glad to know I'm not the only one
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Idaho wrote:
Here I was thinking you were going to be talking about a hot 40-something milf and her 19 yr. old daughter. Damn! That's what I was hoping.
Here's my answer for the OP though.
Skip the mother. Pretend she didn't exist. Would you shoot a 6 y.o.? If not, you have your answer. If yes, then you have your answer.
Good luck!
Photographer
Mark Anderson
Posts: 2472
Atlanta, Georgia, US
I was asked to do something very similar --- my attorney advised against it because the "child has no say in it." Personally I see nothing wrong with it and it sounds beautiful if done well, but remember that this is the US and it could be a problem. Just my humble opinion.
Photographer
HungryEye
Posts: 2281
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Ahhh... America.
Founded by Puritans, dominated by them ever since.
Model
karennn
Posts: 54
Huntington Beach, California, US
please save the whole "we need to be more open about nudity" speech. your personal opinions about underage children being naked dont matter when the law is involved. google photographing children naked and see what comes up. mothers are being arrested for taking pictures of their kids in the bathtub. i really dont think theres anything wrong with it, but if you do chose to do it, BE CAREFUL. what does a mother want to do with a naked photo of her and her daughter anyways? hang it in the hall? i guess to each their own. they better be paying you well to have to deal with all this bullshit haha.
Photographer
Daguerre
Posts: 4082
Orange, California, US
Dawn Geary wrote:
No it's not "very clear" unfortunately in the society in the USA there are a lot of factors to consider. And it's ALWAYS best to imagine the worst case scenario in situations like these, just to feel out what could happen. As opposed to just just going at it with abandon and ending up (god forbid) having to register as a sex offender (Worst Case Scenario)
It's called being a responsible photographer. If he weighs the pros and cons and has no problem, then by all means, go for it. I've never holly shitted myself so much in any forum to date!
There is nothing wrong, nor illegal (ah, if there is, then nevermind), nor could it be reasonably interpretted as such if the images are executed in a professional and classically beautiful manner. If done right, there is nothing remotely wrong with photographing a mother and child nude.
The problem lies in the minds of the fearful who cannot distinguish for themselves the difference between right and wrong. Do not be afraid of those that would call you wrong for doing something right. Stand your ground and face the ignorant.
Its not called responsible, its called confusion. Be clear on where you stand, and the sketchiness dissipates.
Photographer
Aaron S
Posts: 2651
Syracuse, Indiana, US
Dawn Geary wrote:
And the parents who were arrested by the police department when they went to pick up their developed images... You mean the parents who had pictures like that who were arrested because the law was put in the hands of some photo kid at Wal Mart? Because, if those were taken to any reasonable photo lab, nothing would've happend.
This is simply because the people who work at Wal-Mart are complete morons, they won't even print images if you own the negatives, you need to get a copyright release from yourself, because they "look too professional".
So in other words, the people at Wal Mart can barely take care of themselves, let alone decide if something is obscene or not.
Photographer
c_d_s
Posts: 7771
Lubbock, Texas, US
J Douglas wrote:
rofl @ those pontificating that it shouldn't be done or talk to a lawyer like it will end up looking like kiddie porn instead of discussing how to do it and make it beautiful.
Not to mention that not EVERYONE (in reference to society) has a stick up their tight asses about being "naked" or having a slightly more open view about nudity amongst their family or their culture. But I sure bet that some of you saying "ewwww" to a beautiful shot like this would have NO problem saying yes to two 18 year olds playing innocent Lolita Lez roles for your camera, am I right?
I say meet them, get the ideas and tastefully go for it.
/silliness I don't have the slightest moral problem with shooting a mother and 6-year-old daughter nude. I have a problem with losing my house to a lawyer because someone else has a problem with it. I have a problem with not having an expensive enough house to lose to a lawyer good enough to keep me from being forced to register as a sex offender.
If you are willing to risk all your assets, your freedom, and your ability to make a living, to guarantee me that my local prosecutor and every single potential jury member doesn't have a stick up his ass about being naked, then I'll be more than happy to shoot the job in question.
I might be willing to go to jail in defense of freedom of expression for my own art, but not necessarily for the sake of one paying job.
Let everyone make his own decision.
Photographer
Daguerre
Posts: 4082
Orange, California, US
Dawn Geary wrote:
And the parents who were arrested by the police department when they went to pick up their developed images... Aaron S wrote:
...[they] at Wal-Mart are complete morons, they won't even print images if you own the negatives, you need to get a copyright release from yourself, because they "look too professional". ROTFLMAO! a copyright release from yourself! Now that is funny.
Model
karennn
Posts: 54
Huntington Beach, California, US
C David Stephens wrote:
I don't have the slightest moral problem with shooting a mother and 6-year-old daughter nude. I have a problem with losing my house to a lawyer because someone else has a problem with it. I have a problem with not having an expensive enough house to lose to a lawyer good enough to keep me from being forced to register as a sex offender.
If you are willing to risk all your assets, your freedom, and your ability to make a living, to guarantee me that my local prosecutor and every single potential jury member doesn't have a stick up his ass about being naked, then I'll be more than happy to shoot the job in question.
I might be willing to go to jail in defense of freedom of expression for my own art, but not necessarily for the sake of one paying job.
Let everyone make his own decision. AMEN!
Photographer
ChanStudio
Posts: 9219
Alpharetta, Georgia, US
Daguerre wrote:
Like a portrait session. Says the mother, the makeup artist, and the 2 photographic assistants.
Fear is the mind killer, after all. The problem is that the mother might knows what she wants. However, the 6 years old might not. There is no guarantee that the six years old won't sue you or the mother when she reach 18. We change (our mind/our body) as we grow older. It is OK if you take the pic of the mother nude while the six years old have something on. Or the mother cover the six years old in a way that it doesn't show any sign of nude for the child.
It is just risky when images like these gets into the wrong hand. People think differently.
Let me tell you a funny story: Few months ago I took some regular pics of a model (no nude, no lingerie and not even in bikini). The model is way above 21. Anyway, I was in the train and while riding the train, I decided to view the images to see which one I like so that I could modify them. There was a lady (around 40ish) behind me called me a "pervert". I thought that was funny in a way but also feeling pissed. So I called the model on the phone and told her that there was a lady behind me calling me pervert while I viewed the images. The lady behind me finally realized that she made a mistake calling me names. She tried to covered it by saying she was reading some book, blah, blah..
The point is this, you never know what others thinking (even if the images seem so innocent).
ChanStudio
Photographer
ChanStudio
Posts: 9219
Alpharetta, Georgia, US
Adams Photography wrote:
I guess I should say, call a lawyer FIRST if YOU are that worried about it. The problem is that calling a Lawyer now and the lawyer might say "It is OK since the law is this....". However, the law will change in 10 or 15 years. What if the daughter decided to sue someone regarding this image?
|
