Photographer
00siris
Posts: 19182
New York, New York, US
Daguerre wrote:
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. I'll drink to that - agreed
Photographer
Meech Creative LLC
Posts: 97
Frederick, Maryland, US
Sarah Ellis wrote:
My mother is an artist and as a child I posed for her countless times, both nude and clothed. I loved it. I loved an still love her paintings and prints of me. When I was 8 one of my friends saw a painting of me, partially nude, hanging in my house and told her mother about it. This lead to a huge uproar at my school, causing me a lot of grief and humiliation. I felt alienated from my peers and my Mom was labeled "dangerous" by many of my former friend's parents and my teachers.
Today, I am very thankful for my Mom's artwork, and I think she was only expressing her love for me in her work. I also know that being teased and whispered about really hurt me, but I got over that. As many have said, we live in a very sick society that doesn't see any distinction between an appreciation of beauty and base lust. Just make sure that you know the difference and forget about what others have to say. Excellent story and very well put. Kudo's!
Photographer
c_d_s
Posts: 7771
Lubbock, Texas, US
It's not the photographer, it's not the mother, it's not the child. It's the religious fanatics all around us. In Texas, as I read the law, the OP could easily be prosecuted for merely snapping the shutter. If he sends the film to a lab, and happens to get unlucky with who is working that day, and that person even thinks the photo might violate the law, then that person and/or the lab is required by law to call the cops. This is just one of many. I'm sure you can find plenty in other states. I came across this one while looking up the Texas law. http://www.interesting-people.org/archi … 00280.html
Photographer
BlackWatch
Posts: 3825
Cleveland, Ohio, US
Doug Swinskey wrote:
it is not illegal to shoot minors nude....think of all those bathtub pics parents have been taking for years...
if i was contracted to do it..i would... 6 years old is a little too big for parents to be snapping bathtub pics...you do that with a 0 -2 year old...3 to 4 is debateable...after 5& 6 that's starting to get kind of....
Photographer
Shadowscape Studio
Posts: 2512
MARCELL, Minnesota, US
BlackWatch wrote:
6 years old is a little too big for parents to be snapping bathtub pics...you do that with a 0 -2 year old...3 to 4 is debateable...after 5& 6 that's starting to get kind of.... Is that a direct quote from the BlackWatch Book of Ohio law?
Everybody has their ideas about what is moral and what is not, and they should abide by their feelings. But, lets leave what is legal to do to the law books and allow each of us to make our own decisions as to what is moral in our minds.
Photographer
The Cameraeye
Posts: 619
Orange, California, US
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 What does your gut tell you? What was your first thought when this was proposed to you?
That said, do you really need the money this assignment will offer you?
So if you have any doubt (and I imagine you do, or you would not be asking the advice of total strangers), just decline the assignment and move on.
Photographer
Aaron S
Posts: 2651
Syracuse, Indiana, US
BC Helm wrote:
So if you have any doubt (and I imagine you do, or you would not be asking the advice of total strangers), just decline the assignment and move on. Total strangers are often the best people to get advice from, as they are not your friends, don't care what you think, and have no investment in what you do.
Photographer
Meech Creative LLC
Posts: 97
Frederick, Maryland, US
C David Stephens wrote:
It's not the photographer, it's not the mother, it's not the child. It's the religious fanatics all around us. In Texas, as I read the law, the OP could easily be prosecuted for merely snapping the shutter. If he sends the film to a lab, and happens to get unlucky with who is working that day, and that person even thinks the photo might violate the law, then that person and/or the lab is required by law to call the cops.
This is just one of many. I'm sure you can find plenty in other states. I came across this one while looking up the Texas law.
http://www.interesting-people.org/archi … 00280.html Gray area here...but
a random photo lab? Yes, I wouldn't trust it/them. Lab you do work with constantly? Why worry.
Digital? No lab to worry about OR if shot on film, process them in your own dark room.
Model
karennn
Posts: 54
Huntington Beach, California, US
C David Stephens wrote:
It's not the photographer, it's not the mother, it's not the child. It's the religious fanatics all around us. In Texas, as I read the law, the OP could easily be prosecuted for merely snapping the shutter. If he sends the film to a lab, and happens to get unlucky with who is working that day, and that person even thinks the photo might violate the law, then that person and/or the lab is required by law to call the cops.
This is just one of many. I'm sure you can find plenty in other states. I came across this one while looking up the Texas law.
http://www.interesting-people.org/archi … 00280.html sorry, but that is why texas sucks.
Photographer
B R E E D L O V E
Posts: 8022
Forks, Washington, US
C David Stephens wrote:
It's not the photographer, it's not the mother, it's not the child. It's the religious fanatics all around us. In Texas, as I read the law, the OP could easily be prosecuted for merely snapping the shutter. If he sends the film to a lab, and happens to get unlucky with who is working that day, and that person even thinks the photo might violate the law, then that person and/or the lab is required by law to call the cops.
This is just one of many. I'm sure you can find plenty in other states. I came across this one while looking up the Texas law.
http://www.interesting-people.org/archi … 00280.html Bullshit as an owner of a studio with a street front window display I can tell you it was the liberal feminist types who gave me most of my trouble. I never had any trouble with religious people.
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17825
El Segundo, California, US
KatieK wrote:
It's almost creepy how exactly right on this is. Funny how nobody paid any attention to it, though. Hhhmmm.  4 pages already, and you've been the only person to have mentioned it, though most of the issues were brought up in TX's post. I guess he's writing with invisible electrons.
Photographer
Chris M Goodman
Posts: 25
Portsmouth, Virginia, US
What has happened to our society that people have become so afraid of nudity when it comes to children? Just because it's a nude picture does not make it porn!
It's perfectly leagal to take shots of a minor in the nude as long as it doesn't have any sexual acts, references or sugestions and you have parental consent.
Does anyone remember the movie "Blue Lagoon" or "Pretty Baby"? Brooke Shields had nude scenes in both movies as young as 12 yeard old.
I'd do the shoot. Don't forget why you became a photographer...I'll bet it was to create beautiful and memerable images. This is one of those chances that will not likely be presented again.
Photographer
Meech Creative LLC
Posts: 97
Frederick, Maryland, US
Kevin Connery wrote:
4 pages already, and you've been the only person to have mentioned it, though most of the issues were brought up in TX's post. I guess he's writing with invisible electrons.
Saw it, read it, too big to quote...besides, I had pretty much rambled on about the same things. Didn't feel the need to acknowledge his post of what people would be saying.
Photographer
GianCarlo Images
Posts: 2427
Brooklyn, New York, US
Suggest that you are sure you could do a wonderful shot with them clothed, if not find another project.
Photographer
c_d_s
Posts: 7771
Lubbock, Texas, US
Chris Goodman/ CMG Pho wrote:
It's perfectly leagal to take shots of a minor in the nude as long as it doesn't have any sexual acts, references or sugestions and you have parental consent. State laws vary. In some states it is illegal to photograph a minor nude. It's not a matter of whether it's obscene, or porn, but clearly spelled out. This is why I suggested to the OP that he should consult a local lawyer. It's one thing to debate whether a nude photo is obscene, but if the law says it's illegal to photograph a female under the age of 18 if the breast is exposed below the top of the areola, then that's an entirely different matter.
Chris Goodman/ CMG Pho wrote:
Does anyone remember the movie "Blue Lagoon" or "Pretty Baby"? Brooke Shields had nude scenes in both movies as young as 12 yeard old. I also remember "American Beauty." I have an upcoming film that might have a 17-year-old female in a nude scene. Before I would shoot it in Texas I would have very thorough legal advice.
You can't point to laws of other states and other countries from years ago and try to apply them locally today.
Photographer
shotbytim
Posts: 1040
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, US
It's obvious that you're not thinking about doing anything illegal or immoral. That being said, a lot depends on attitudes in your community. Just because you're not breaking a law doesn't mean you won't have to defend yourself. Over-enthusiastic prosecutors often "shoot for the moon" to get publicity in an election year and charge people with crimes even when there's no hope of a convincing a jury to convict. They don't care how much of your money they make you waste.
If you think these won't be problems for you, I'd research all the 16th -18th century paintings I could for inspiration.
Photographer
c_d_s
Posts: 7771
Lubbock, Texas, US
J Douglas wrote:
Saw it, read it, too big to quote...besides, I had pretty much rambled on about the same things. Didn't feel the need to acknowledge his post of what people would be saying. It's easy to guess what people are going to say about a subject like. But the whole point of a forum is that a lot of people express widely different opinions on the same subject, some of them insane, some of them spot-on, some of them worth thinking about, and then the OP, and the other readers, can choose their own course of action.
Photographer
jack4photos
Posts: 323
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Photographer
A Traveler
Posts: 5506
San Francisco, California, US
WZ Studio wrote:
Hard to say.
I would meet with the mother first and question her intensions and purpose.
These days, if something like that gets out on the internet, it could tarnish your career. I'm sure you would make them look beautiful and all but, you have to think about the legal issues here. I'd think about this, long and hard. tarnish his career? that is ridiculous...
there are NO legal issues. it's not porn, it's a mother and her child represented in their most natural state.
it is NOT illegal to photograph a nude child. Especially a nude child with her mother. Like someone else said, this is a style that has been done in art for centuries.
now, if the mom is a creepball it may be a different story, but I for one would certainly not think less of anyone who shot this sort of portrait in a tastefull, well light way - possibly black and white.
and how would it "get out" on the internet. i doubt the mom has some kiddy porn site.
come now people. lets take our heads from out of the sand. flipping through this thread I am amazed at this paranoia that seems to be sweeping the land of photos.
Model
CarolineVictoria
Posts: 331
Beverly Hills, California, US
Honestly, if I had a 6 yr old child, I would NEVER want a stranger (the photog) to take naked pics of her. Six year olds are aware of whether or not they are wearing clothes. As innocent as it "might" be, we do not live in an innocent world. The whole idea just feels WRONG to me.
xoxoxox
Caroline
Photographer
ImpactFoto
Posts: 457
San Diego, California, US
CarolineVictoria wrote:
Honestly, if I had a 6 yr old child, I would NEVER want a stranger (the photog) to take naked pics of her. Six year olds are aware of whether or not they are wearing clothes. As innocent as it "might" be, we do not live in an innocent world. The whole idea just feels WRONG to me.
xoxoxox
Caroline Agreed.... wierd... : /
Photographer
ImpactFoto
Posts: 457
San Diego, 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! So now I FINALLY know where the other half of my brain went!! lol
Photographer
Benday Dotz
Posts: 24
Santa Monica, California, US
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
Photographer
Benday Dotz
Posts: 24
Santa Monica, California, US
It's totally alright. No precedent here: Check out Jock Sturges, he did masterpieces. He also got raided by the FBI, but if you casually draw a limit, like you won't shoot the girl's private area,' that's a legitimate request on the part of the mom and quite an honor that she trusts you that much.
My last girlfriend had a 10 and 12 year old and they all showered together 'cause it's the only way they could get to school on time. If it's noble human interaction, it's fair game to shoot. That doesn't explain photo shoots at the White House, but I'll try to stay on track.
Photographer
BlackWatch
Posts: 3825
Cleveland, Ohio, US
Shadowscape Studio wrote:
Is that a direct quote from the BlackWatch Book of Ohio law?
Everybody has their ideas about what is moral and what is not, and they should abide by their feelings. But, lets leave what is legal to do to the law books and allow each of us to make our own decisions as to what is moral in our minds. That's why I said " starting to get kind of...."
And left it blank for others to fill in...
Photographer
Benday Dotz
Posts: 24
Santa Monica, California, US
Yeah, I'm with Idaho. I was going to book 'em next  Ben
Photographer
fstopdreams
Posts: 4300
Chattanooga, Tennessee, US
BlackWatch wrote:
6 years old is a little too big for parents to be snapping bathtub pics...you do that with a 0 -2 year old...3 to 4 is debateable...after 5& 6 that's starting to get kind of.... Says you. And probably many others. And therein lies the unhealthy attitude.
Photographer
Benday Dotz
Posts: 24
Santa Monica, California, US
I DID NOT SHOOT THE FAMILY SHOWERS.
I just got an email; thought I'd clear that up. Heard about it, wasn't there, didn't get the wet t-shirt.
BD
Photographer
Rick Athearn
Posts: 492
Boulder, Colorado, US
No Way, No How. Is this really worth the risk? Arrest, ruined reputation, ruined life, bail, jail, etc. etc. I don't think so.
Photographer
Dee EN
Posts: 420
Los Angeles, California, US
with out hesitating you should always look to the law and see what is defined there, no matter what one would think. Look at the California Penal code and go from there, use law.net or any other source from the library. better safe than sorry.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
C David Stephens wrote:
State laws vary. In some states it is illegal to photograph a minor nude. I'm just curious. I am staying out of the debate on whether the OP should do or not do this job because it has become one of emotion and knee jerk reactions.
But, as to the statement you have made, can you cite the law in a single state that has an actual ban on photographing a minor in the nude. There are certainly restrictions, but people have made that claim so many times yet none has ever been able to cite a statute which is an actual ban.
I am curious if you are familiar with one or if you just presume it to be the case because of things you have heard.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
Benday Dotz wrote:
I DID NOT SHOOT THE FAMILY SHOWERS. Right, that's not what I heard ... J/K
Photographer
ImageConcepts
Posts: 447
San Francisco, California, US
Benday Dotz wrote:
My last girlfriend had a 10 and 12 year old and they all showered together 'cause it's the only way they could get to school on time. If it's noble human interaction, it's fair game to shoot. That doesn't explain photo shoots at the White House, but I'll try to stay on track. Showering together is different that shooting together. We're not talking about the mother...we're talking about the photographer getting in trouble. Would you rather be spending days or months trying to convince everyone that what you did was okay...or you'd rather spend that time shooting some other pictures and not looking back?
Unless you like the Jacko type of publicity that could possible arise from this shoot, don't do it. Do you have starving family and the client's paying you thousands? If no, not worth the risk...why take the chance.
Photographer
ImageConcepts
Posts: 447
San Francisco, California, US
Oh...think Murphy's Law!
Here is a real situation: During a lunch time Christmas party, a man gave one of his employee an expensive bottle of brandy to take home. The gift was sealed and wrapped. Somehow the guy got into an accident...bottle was broken...brandy all over the car. The guy had some wine during lunch...tested fine, but the cops still ruled that his drinking caused the accident. Oh, the cops suspect that he might have been drinking from the bottle too. Both guys got fired by the company.
Photographer
Meech Creative LLC
Posts: 97
Frederick, Maryland, US
CarolineVictoria wrote:
Honestly, if I had a 6 yr old child, I would NEVER want a stranger (the photog) to take naked pics of her. Six year olds are aware of whether or not they are wearing clothes. As innocent as it "might" be, we do not live in an innocent world. The whole idea just feels WRONG to me.
xoxoxox
Caroline Would it matter to you if the photog were a female instead of a male?
Photographer
Meech Creative LLC
Posts: 97
Frederick, Maryland, US
ImageConcepts wrote:
Oh...think Murphy's Law!
Here is a real situation: During a lunch time Christmas party, a man gave one of his employee an expensive bottle of brandy to take home. The gift was sealed and wrapped. Somehow the guy got into an accident...bottle was broken...brandy all over the car. The guy had some wine during lunch...tested fine, but the cops still ruled that his drinking caused the accident. Oh, the cops suspect that he might have been drinking from the bottle too. Both guys got fired by the company. That's fired by a company due to neglagence...not arrested for DWUI. Apples / Tomatos
Photographer
ChanStudio
Posts: 9219
Alpharetta, Georgia, US
Aaron S wrote:
I am sure the Statute Of Limitations will have expired in 10 or 15 years. And you think the Statue of Limitations won't change? After all, these laws are made by human for another human in US.
ChanStudio
Model
Janos
Posts: 1572
Atlanta, Georgia, US
I would have the mother sign papers of course giving consent since this is the states, this seems fine to me if the mother wishes to have this foto shot, remember it is art, not what some of you folks maybe thinking.
Just my own opinion, but those who have a problem with this probably have a deeper issue anyways. Hell, we were all born naked anyways. If this were Italy, or some other country no would give two shits.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
ImageConcepts wrote:
Here is a real situation: During a lunch time Christmas party, a man gave one of his employee an expensive bottle of brandy to take home. The gift was sealed and wrapped. Somehow the guy got into an accident...bottle was broken...brandy all over the car. The guy had some wine during lunch...tested fine, but the cops still ruled that his drinking caused the accident. Oh, the cops suspect that he might have been drinking from the bottle too. Both guys got fired by the company. While I don't doubt that a situation similar to that is possible, I have a couple of problems with what you have written. First, cops don't rule on anything. They may accuse you of something, but judges and juries decide if you are guilty.
Second, if they suspect him of drunk driving, they will take a breathilizer or a blood test. If he claims to have had a single glass of wine, it will be quite evident from his blood alcohol level. The presence of a broken bottle would probably not be an open container, if the bottle broke during an accident.
Third, the cops would administer a field sobriety test. It is possible to be impaired even if your blood alcohol level is well below the legal limit, but with one glass of wine, the burden would be upon the police officer to prove impairment. There would be no presumption.
Finally, the mere fact that you had a single glass of wine followed by an accident doesn't mean the glass of wine was a contributing cause. People eat pizza and have an accident afterwards.
I have seen some beautiful mother/daughter photos online, in magazines and in galleries. On the other hand, there are certainly some issues you would want to consider.
The sky falling is not one of the issues to worry about.
Photographer
Shadowscape Studio
Posts: 2512
MARCELL, Minnesota, US
Trevor Snyder wrote:
Says you. And probably many others. And therein lies the unhealthy attitude. As I said, we each have our own ideas as to moral values. I have no business trying to tell someone else what their values should be, according to Dave Swanson. Likewise I get really pissed when someone tries to inflick their values on others.
If you want to quote a law, please do so. I have yet to see one that says you can't photograph a nude child, even though there have been those who have said there is. I suspect they heard that from reading some internet thread and took it as gospel. Lots of knowledgeable comments are made that way.
|
