Daguerre wrote:

Dawn Geary wrote:
And the parents who were arrested by the police department when they went to pick up their developed images...

ROTFLMAO!  a copyright release from yourself! Now that is funny.

The best/worst part about it is, I'm not even kidding about that part.

Nor about the lady who came there, from us, with a receipt that even said "Negatives Purchased - $$$" and that still wasn't good enough for them.

Chan Studio wrote:

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?

I am sure the Statute Of Limitations will have expired in 10 or 15 years.

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.

I just don't see how if the clients are legit, the shoot is being done in a legit studio and not a hotel, apartment or otherwise "questionable" location and the nudity of the child is implied rather than frontal (as a previously stated) why it would even be deemed as an eyebrow raising portrait.

Hell, again I'll reitterate that the photos on the above posted link come closer to something I would worry about shooting rather than a modest mother & child portrait.

Michael Wilkie Photos wrote:
I was recently contacted by a woman who wants to hire me to do a nude photoshoot including her and her daughter. The mother is 24 and the daughter is 6. She wants something innocent and beautiful to capture and remember her daughter in her youth (paraphrased). Something about this doesn't quite feel right. I'm looking for your feedback. Has anyone ever done a shoot like this with a mather and child (not an infant) nude?

Thanks for your time!

Michael

easy answer for me ...
Can you see yourself looking at a girl nude that is 6 years old? NO! Therefore would not shoot her.

NO WAY.

Chan Studio wrote:
...The point is this, you never know what others thinking (even if the images seem so innocent).

And if you run your life in the rear view mirror, worrying what others are thinking, you have done us all a disservice.

There is a huge problem in general with people not courageous enough to confront their accusers.  I would suggest to you that the best way to have handled that situation is to simply turn around and ask the woman why it is that she called you a perv.  No phone accessory necessary.  Just a simple mature conversation.  Does it matter that she thinks you are a perv (and by her definition you might be!)?  Or does she fall into the catagory of unreasonable, worth only an amusing smile at that?

Chan Studio wrote:

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.ChanStudio

lolz

00siris wrote:
easy answer for me ...
Can you see yourself looking at a girl nude that is 6 years old? NO! Therefore would not shoot her.

NO WAY.

You're immeadiately looking at it from a sexual prospective...if you're a true professional it shouldn't register anymore than the shooting an "of age" nude or sharing a co-ed dressing room as a model.

Adams Photography wrote:
I would sit down and have a long talk with the mother about what she wants and about all the things that you know could happen as a result of this if the wrong person decided to make an issue of it, like the childs father,prying puritanical grandparents etc...  befor all of that,I would call a lawyer FIRST and ask them.

Good advise-lawyer, model release and prudence.
I think it is an opportunity to create art and image, but,
you want to make sure of your footing before you step forward...

Adams...thank you for the many comments on my MM portfolio today.
The comments are very much appreciated and valued.

J Douglas wrote:

You're immeadiately looking at it from a sexual prospective...if you're a true professional it shouldn't register anymore than the shooting an "of age" nude or sharing a co-ed dressing room as a model.

not really -

I'm looking at from a psychological perspective. I understand the beauty of the body and bond associated with it.

And you're right it shouldn't register just as shooting a full grown adult, however, there is still, for me at least, a psychological hesitance to a setting like that.

Sin City Dreams wrote:
ugh... has this country gotten so narrow minded that the lovely idea of a mother and child nude photo is mentioned at the same time as the word porn?  THIS IS NOT SEX PEOPLE!  and they're not going to do spreads!   

get your proper legal release(s) to satisfy the lawyers and f--k the religious bigots.   where did our country go?  does anyone remember this was supposed to be a free county, not run by moralistic idiots who inflict their own views on everyone else as if they were right? 

hmmm... Jesus nude on the cross must have been porn too?  better cover up those statues of madonna and naked baby Jesus!  more porn?  get a grip.

Very well put!!

CDW Images wrote:
This could potentially ruin your reputation as a photographer for the rest of your life. While liberal people won't mind, just wait until someone from the Christain Coalition gets ahold of this. Do you really want your name mudded up with "kiddy porn"?

You are a really scary person.

Sin City Dreams wrote:
ugh... has this country gotten so narrow minded that the lovely idea of a mother and child nude photo is mentioned at the same time as the word porn?  THIS IS NOT SEX PEOPLE!  and they're not going to do spreads!   

get your proper legal release(s) to satisfy the lawyers and f--k the religious bigots.   where did our country go?  does anyone remember this was supposed to be a free county, not run by moralistic idiots who inflict their own views on everyone else as if they were right? 

hmmm... Jesus nude on the cross must have been porn too?  better cover up those statues of madonna and naked baby Jesus!  more porn?  get a grip.

I think a more interesting question is, has this country ever been open to this?

I think it's time for our own French Revolution.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
we sound suspiciously like a nation afraid of its government....

where are we and when the fuck did this happen?

It started immediately after the first bureaucrat was hired, the first new department formed and the first direct tax levied.

J Douglas wrote:
I think I'll go through my box of my baby pictures and pics from me growing up and sort out all the nudies from bath's and general streaking around the house and try to sue someone because OBVIOUSLY i have been scarred for life.

/idiots

idiots? what is this? high school? are we playing the name game now? youre the idiot for using such a stupid word. a daughter sued her mother for slapping her, and won, so ANYTHING is possible. you want to talk about being close minded? you cant even respect other peoples opinions. nothing more close minded than that.

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!

I gotta agree with Idaho.

That's the 1st place my mind went.

LOL

OC Girl wrote:
Regarding the child suing.  If she were upset in 12 years, wouldn't she have to sue her mother for acting "badly" on her bahalf?  The photographer would only be liable for the mother.

Oh, and strictly from an outsiders and not photgrapher's view, if you were to shoot it, I say have a female assistant present.  Our society likes to think of men as perverted and not women for some reason.  And print out this thread.  It shows your intent.

What's the law in Canada?  Can you cross the border and do the shoot up there?

I wouldn't count on that.  If they can bust people for going to other countries to have legal sex with 12 y.o. as soon as they set foot back in the United States (I think they can even bust you before you leave if they know your intentions), they can bust you for shooting in Canada and coming back to U.S.

00siris wrote:
...for me at least, a psychological hesitance to a setting like that.

And there lies the root of the problem.  What is the true definition of your wright and wrong?  Any hesitance comes from indecision.  Do your homework.  Decide what is wrong, answer the question why, and psychological hesitation will plague you no more.

Aaron S wrote:
...I think it's time for our own French Revolution.

Not even close.

Daguerre wrote:

Not even close.

Well then we should probably hurry up and get to it before that time happens then. So we'll be ahead.

Daguerre wrote:
And there lies the root of the problem.  What is the true definition of your wright and wrong?  Any hesitance comes from indecision.  Do your homework.  Decide what is wrong, answer the question why, and psychological hesitation will plague you no more.

I know therein lies the problem and I don't have any real objections to those that would do it. However, the question doesn't plague me. I really don't give a squat. I just wont do it for reasons stated. No need for homework.

No judgement.

karennn wrote:

idiots? what is this? high school? are we playing the name game now? youre the idiot for using such a stupid word. a daughter sued her mother for slapping her, and won, so ANYTHING is possible. you want to talk about being close minded? you cant even respect other peoples opinions. nothing more close minded than that.

I respect opinions, but trying to have the foresight to suggest NOT taking a picture because the child may sue the mother and me saying "/idiots" as in "suggestions like that are TO ME idiotic" is my opinion, its not name calling.

I see many of the people suggesting NOT doing it as narrowminded and not seeing the possible portrait or implications as anything other than child porn or being in the setting as "icky" in and of itself disturbing. Which would worry me because THATS all they seem to be seeing this as.

Trevor Snyder wrote:

I suppose the children should bathe with clothes on too?

Our attitude towards nudity in the United States is completely unhealthy and fosters many more problems than it fixes.

I don't make the laws so don't go blaming me..
why the F would I want a 6 year old child to take a bath with her cloths on? Totaly un called for dude

Aaron S wrote:

I think a more interesting question is, has this country ever been open to this?

I think it's time for our own French Revolution.

When I was a kid (eons ago!), kids would run around naked in the summer under a hose or 'swim' in a tub outside.  They were all different ages.   Some parents would take photos and laugh!  There was no thought or suggestion of sex in people's minds, but kid porn wasn't a problem either.   I can see both sides, but the problem is people have let their thoughts be taken over by those who consider everything wrong.  If you view a mother and six year old photographed nude as sex, then the problem is you.   Not a revolution per se, but it's time to stop giving up our freedoms because everyone is so fracking scared of what might happen to them.   Stand up or get run over.  That's the wisdom of old.

Sin City Dreams wrote:

When I was a kid (eons ago!), kids would run around naked in the summer under a hose or 'swim' in a tub outside.  They were all different ages.   Some parents would take photos and laugh!  There was no thought or suggestion of sex in people's minds, but kid porn wasn't a problem either.   I can see both sides, but the problem is people have let their thoughts be taken over by those who consider everything wrong.  If you view a mother and six year old photographed nude as sex, then the problem is you.   Not a revolution per se, but it's time to stop giving up our freedoms because everyone is so fracking scared of what might happen to them.   Stand up or get run over.  That's the wisdom of old.

A-freakin'-men.

I'll shut up now.

00siris wrote:

I know therein lies the problem and I don't have any real objections to those that would do it. However, the question doesn't plague me. I really don't give a squat. I just wont do it for reasons stated. No need for homework.

No judgement.

No Judgement.

I believe, however that one of the reasons that innocent subjects such as doing a nude mother/daughter portrait causes such alarm is that the unreasonable amoung us, who mostly act without thought, tend to make the most noise.  If the wisest and most reasonable amoug us aren't willing to give a squat and do the thought, then we will be a society bound and held captive by our own fear.  Beautiful images may never be created because of this fear.  And that is worth giving a squat about, in my opinion.

Still there is no judgement.

Sin City Dreams wrote:

When I was a kid (eons ago!), kids would run around naked in the summer under a hose or 'swim' in a tub outside.  They were all different ages.   Some parents would take photos and laugh!  There was no thought or suggestion of sex in people's minds, but kid porn wasn't a problem either.   I can see both sides, but the problem is people have let their thoughts be taken over by those who consider everything wrong.  If you view a mother and six year old photographed nude as sex, then the problem is you.   Not a revolution per se, but it's time to stop giving up our freedoms because everyone is so fracking scared of what might happen to them.   Stand up or get run over.  That's the wisdom of old.

I can see this. It's like with the business crazy 80s, so came the sue crazy. It's things like this that make me glad to be expatriating.

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.

Trevor Snyder wrote:
I suppose the children should bathe with clothes on too?

Our attitude towards nudity in the United States is completely unhealthy and fosters many more problems than it fixes.

I will drink to that.  But its not our attitude-- its the attitude of those who are afraid.  Of all these posts, how many have said:  'this shoot is wrong.'?  How many have said: 'I would be afraid to do it.'?

J Douglas wrote:

I respect opinions, but trying to have the foresight to suggest NOT taking a picture because the child may sue the mother and me saying "/idiots" as in "suggestions like that are TO ME idiotic" is my opinion, its not name calling.

I see many of the people suggesting NOT doing it as narrowminded and not seeing the possible portrait or implications as anything other than child porn or being in the setting as "icky" in and of itself disturbing. Which would worry me because THATS all they seem to be seeing this as.

unfortunately the reason they see things only one way is a direct result of conditioning from society. but going to or asking a lawyer for advice doesnt seem idiotic, it seems safe. once again, the SOCIETY we live in now allows people to sue for almost anything, even if it isnt wrong.

karennn wrote:

unfortunately the reason they see things only one way is a direct result of conditioning from society. but going to or asking a lawyer for advice doesnt seem idiotic, it seems safe. once again, the SOCIETY we live in now allows people to sue for almost anything, even if it isnt wrong.

Again, asking legal advice on the subject of the shoot...ok, fine. But assuming the child would sue later in life over a beautiful portrait with her mother being compared to a mother being sued because she slapped a child (also in its own right extremely eff'd up) is just stretching. EVEN by todays society and its messed up ideals. Far too PC for my taste.

I think its fairly obvious that enough people have posted that as long as it is done tastefully there should be no negative repercusssions.