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

Caroline, there is a difference between something feeling bad and something being bad.  You must engage your brain and decide for yourself the truth of the matter.

This is your responsibility-- all our responsibilities-- before engaging the keyboard!  In my opinion.

And another thing.  On your other posts, if you do not use the word 'honestly', should we assume you are lying?

C David Stephens wrote:
Good grief, Alan. I post the paragraphs related to the definition and you scream that means nothing, where does it say it's illegal, where's the whole statute?

So I post the whole statute, then you PICK OUT PARTS OUT OF CONTEXT and say again where does that say it's illegal.

Well, it says it right here:

    (d)  A person commits an offense if, knowing the character
and content of the material, he produces, directs, or promotes a
performance that includes sexual conduct by a child younger than 18
years of age.
    (e)  An offense under Subsection (d) is a felony of the third
degree.

And, once again, several pages back, I stated quite clearly that we can argue forever on whether it's lewd or not, so once gain, you highlight lewd and say AHA! told you so, if it's not lewd, it's not illegal.

And one more, and for the last time, if I was going to engage in conduct that even might run afoul of this law I would seek a legal opinion, from a lawyer in Texas, not a photographer in California, and ask him for cases, which I would read myself, and then, and only then, decide my course of action.

But I posted the law I believe the guy in Austin was CONVICTED under, and the law that would cause me to carefully consider my actions. Maybe there's another one, maybe not. I really don't care. You will believe what you want to believe and will continue slightly adjusting your position to make it look like you are right and everyone else is an idiot. Good luck with that.

It does not say it is against the law to photograph a nude female child.
It says it is against the law to photograph the nude child in a lewd way.
"...or lewd exhibition of the genitals, the anus, or any portion of the female
breast below the top of the areola. "

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

Please do and I give up.  He won't get it.

Alan, you're a real piece of work.

You asked for the law that said it's illegal in Texas. I gave it to you. So now you say that I won't get it?

I told you that if you come to Texas and photograph a minor nude you're likely to be arrested. I showed you the law they'll use. And I don't get it?

Come on, big time. What time's your flight?

If you want to continue to pop off that there is no law, and even if maybe there is, that isn't what the law says, and even if it is what the law says, it doesn't apply to you, then come on down. Put your money where your mouth is.

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....

Why do you believe this to be?  From where do you grab your numbers?

Shadowscape Studio wrote:

It does not say it is against the law to photograph a nude female child.
It says it is against the law to photograph the nude child in a lewd way.
"...or lewd exhibition of the genitals, the anus, or any portion of the female
breast below the top of the areola. "

This is the law they will use to arrest you in Texas. Feel free to make this argument after you have been arrested, indicted, and put on trial.

C David Stephens wrote:

This is the law they will use to arrest you in Texas. Feel free to make this argument after you have been arrested, indicted, and put on trial.

20 years as a police officer.  I think I can read law a bit better than you.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:

20 years as a police officer.  I think I can read law a bit better than you.

Spoken like a true cop.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

Dost is a test based upon a federal statute.  While a state court might follow some of the logic in it if their statute was similar to the federal statute, the decision isn't binding upon the states with respect to state law.

That's great, but my reply to you was in reference to your comment:

but quoting from Wikipedia, where anyone can write something for that internet warehouse of misinformation is not a grand idea.   
We have become a society of quoting from the internet.  What we are doing is quoting someone else that may or may not have the slightest clue.

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

Haven't read the whole thread but, here's how I'd approach it. Meet with them. If the mother is drop dead sexy gorgeous....shoot them. if not, don't. lol My reason being that, if the mom is a hottie, the public's eye would probably focus primarily on her than the child. But if she has nothing going for her, then it will be so easy for everyone's attention to go straight to the child... and that to me, may not be a very good idea (just taking my personal ethics into consideration here)
Another thing to consider too is if she asking for some sort of privacy clause or something, that she is paying you but wants all rights to the image(s) if you are willing to give her that. just my 2 cents (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer!) lol

C David Stephens wrote:

Spoken like a true cop.

Spoken like a true street lawyer.

CarolineVictoria wrote:

Male or female photog, the child is still posing nude for pics.  Just not a good message to be sending a 6 yr old...

Right, that nudity in ANY form is bad. GG. I pity your children and the issues they'll have growing up in such a closeminded home.

That's why most of this country is eff'd up, plain and simple is THAT mentality. lol

Aaron S wrote:

Yes, a terrible idea to send to a 6 year old, that nudity isn't something taboo to be hidden or ashamed of....then they might not have to have arguments like these when they're over the age of consent.

rofl

Shadowscape Studio wrote:

Spoken like a true street lawyer.

What time is your flight? You and Alan can share a room.

Our cops like to pop off just like you.

J Douglas wrote:

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Dost is a test based upon a federal statute.  While a state court might follow some of the logic in it if their statute was similar to the federal statute, the decision isn't binding upon the states with respect to state law.

That's great, but my reply to you was in reference to your comment:

Which is why, again, there are citations, and infact, there are two citations for that test, one from a NY Times article, and one from a BBC article.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Please do and I give up.  He won't get it.

C David Stephens wrote:
...I told you that if you come to Texas and photograph a minor nude you're likely to be arrested. I showed you the law they'll use. And I don't get it?

Come on, big time. What time's your flight?

If you want to continue to pop off that there is no law, and even if maybe there is, that isn't what the law says, and even if it is what the law says, it doesn't apply to you, then come on down. Put your money where your mouth is.

I'll tell you what, C David-- I will come to Texas and create beautiful photography of a nude mother and her 6 year old.  If I get arrested for it, you may have all of my photography equipement and entire state of the art imaging pre-press studio.

But if I actually make it back to California without being labled a fugitive, you have to pay for my trip, plus 10 grand for putting your mouth where YOUR money can't go...

And I can eat Good!

J Douglas wrote:

rofl

It could be even worse too....what if they took a six year old child to Nederland....then they might go to......Amsterdam.......gasp!

Aaron S wrote:

Which is why, again, there are citations, and infact, there are two citations for that test, one from a NY Times article, and one from a BBC article.

Ding!

Special Moments Photog wrote:
I skipped through most of the posts so if this has already been said I appologize, Talk with an attorney in the state that you live and find out about the laws.

I teach a class for professional photographers called "Getting Started Photographing Infants and Newborns" some of the images I show during the class are of 9 month and younger children that have a bare bottom. I was advised by the President of one of the groups I spoke to in NY to not show the images during the presentation, seems NY state deems even bare bottom photographs as child porn and in Maryland and VA there is no problem.

Thank God I moved out of NY...now I can run around bare-bottomed without pause.

Daguerre wrote:

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Please do and I give up.  He won't get it.

I'll tell you what, C David-- I will come to Texas and create beautiful photography of a nude mother and her 6 year old.  If I get arrested for it, you may have all of my photography equipement and entire state of the art imaging pre-press studio.

But if I actually make it back to California without being labled a fugitive, you have to pay for my trip, plus 10 grand for putting your mouth where YOUR money can't go...

And I can eat Good!

Do I get to designate the lab that develops your film?

    § 43.27. DUTY TO REPORT.  (a)  For purposes of this
section, "visual material" has the meaning assigned by Section
43.26.
    (b)  A business that develops or processes visual material
and determines that the material may be evidence of a criminal
offense under this subchapter shall report the existence of the
visual material to a local law enforcement agency.

Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1005, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Daguerre wrote:

Caroline, there is a difference between something feeling bad and something being bad.  You must engage your Brain and decide for yourself the Truth of the matter.

This is your responsibility-- all our responsibilities-- before engaging the keyboard!  In my opinion.

And another thing.  On your other posts, if you do not use the word 'honestly', should we assume you are lying?

Love this follow up Quote

Couture Imagery wrote:
give up. don't seek advice on mm.

it's like asking a hamster for advice.

how....? i'm not sure...but i'm sure a hamster wouldn't offer much worse advice than is given here.

comparing  MMers to Hamsters I think thats a insult to the hamsters
  I think the hamsters smarter

Daguerre wrote:
...I'll tell you what, C David-- I will come to Texas and create beautiful photography of a nude mother and her 6 year old.  If I get arrested for it, you may have all of my photography equipement and entire state of the art imaging pre-press studio.

But if I actually make it back to California without being labled a fugitive, you have to pay for my trip, plus 10 grand for putting your mouth where YOUR money can't go...

And I can eat Good!

C David Stephens wrote:
...Do I get to designate the lab that develops your film?

Holy Shit!  Is that your best?

Of course not.  The OP is not going to use your lab, and neither would I.  I have controlled every aspect of my photography since I started 22 years ago.  This would be no different.

I am not afraid of texas.  And my stuff is very safe.

Daguerre wrote:

Daguerre wrote:
...I'll tell you what, C David-- I will come to Texas and create beautiful photography of a nude mother and her 6 year old.  If I get arrested for it, you may have all of my photography equipement and entire state of the art imaging pre-press studio.

But if I actually make it back to California without being labled a fugitive, you have to pay for my trip, plus 10 grand for putting your mouth where YOUR money can't go...

And I can eat Good!

Holy Shit!  Is that your best?

Of course not.  The OP is not going to use your lab, and neither would I.  I have controlled every aspect of my photography since I started 22 years ago.  This would be no different.

I am not afraid of texas.  And my stuff is very safe.

That's what I thought. You're really brave as long as you can hide in the dark, but when your work is exposed to the light of day and subjected to the opinions of others who might not agree with you, who might easily persuade the cops to arrest you, and a jury to convict you, then you run and hide.

C David Stephens wrote:

That's what I thought. You're really brave as long as you can hide in the dark, but when your work is exposed to the light of day and subjected to the opinions of others who might not agree with you, who might easily persuade the cops to arrest you, and a jury to convict you, then you run and hide.

No offense, but I love playing Devils Advocate...so play along.

Looking through your port, some beautiful nude portraits of YOUNG looking ladies and you living in Texas...do you shoot digital, film you process yourself or film you send out to a lab?

My guess is either of the first two unless it would be a trusted lab you sent out to.

So, technically aren't you doing the same thing in "hiding in the dark" that you're accusing him of doing if he did the shoot IN Texas?

C David Stephens wrote:
That's what I thought. You're really brave as long as you can hide in the dark, but when your work is exposed to the light of day and subjected to the opinions of others who might not agree with you, who might easily persuade the cops to arrest you, and a jury to convict you, then you run and hide.

I would do the job in Texas as I would do the job in LA.  I would not change a thing.  And that is the nature of this forum.  Should the OP be afraid to do the job?  I say no.  And I put my money where my mouth is.  If you are afraid to use a lab, then don't use the lab.  But why would you run and hide from the opportunity to create images of a mother and daughter-- images that will be cherished for the rest of their lives?  The mother asks you to create Beauty that no one else can, and when you pass up that opportunity, you do so out of fear.  And that, in my opinion, is sad.

To photograph this woman and create beautiful images that she will cherish for the rest of her life is the right thing to do.  Are we or are we not photographers?

To lack the courage to do the right thing because you are afraid of someone else saying its wrong is sad.  And you, in doing so, let the rest of us down.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
sounds beautiful..

Agreed--what's the big deal?

FemmeArt wrote:

Agreed--what's the big deal?

The big deal is, there are a lot of people afraid of their shadows.

J Douglas wrote:

No offense, but I love playing Devils Advocate...so play along.

Looking through your port, some beautiful nude portraits of YOUNG looking ladies and you living in Texas...do you shoot digital, film you process yourself or film you send out to a lab?

My guess is either of the first two unless it would be a trusted lab you sent out to.

So, technically aren't you doing the same thing in "hiding in the dark" that you're accusing him of doing if he did the shoot IN Texas?

All the nudes in my port were shot on film and the film was processed by a lab. All the models were over 18. For nudes, I shoot a close up of the model's face holding her drivers license on the first frame of the first roll of the session. There were probably four different labs used, only one of them in Texas, about 12 years ago, before the latest round of child porn paranoia. The others were in California.

There's no real challenge in slipping into a state, photographing a 6-year-old nude with a digital camera, and slipping out again without getting caught. Doing it on film and taking it the local lab in a state where the lab is required to rat you out is a different story.

We have no idea if the OP shoots film or digital, what lab he uses, or what the law says in his state.

Daguerre wrote:

I would do the job in Texas as I would do the job in LA.  I would not change a thing.  And that is the nature of this forum.  Should the OP be afraid to do the job?  I say no.  And I put my money where my mouth is.  If you are afraid to use a lab, then don't use the lab.  But why would you run and hide from the opportunity to create images of a mother and daughter-- images that will be cherished for the rest of their lives?  The mother asks you to create Beauty that no one else can, and when you pass up that opportunity, you do so out of fear.  And that, in my opinion, is sad.

To photograph this woman and create beautiful images that she will cherish for the rest of her life is the right thing to do.  Are we or are we not photographers?

To lack the courage to do the right thing because you are afraid of someone else saying its wrong is sad.  And you, in doing so, let the rest of us down.

You know, now that I read this post of yours, hell yeah, I won't back out of an opportunity like this myself. I won't compromise my art, my work because of what people will think. Although in the back of my mind, I would like to know the relationship that exists between mother and child first. This is a very sensitive subject for sure because I would not want to be a part of any child exploitation in any way, shape or form. 

Daguerre wrote:

I would do the job in Texas as I would do the job in LA.  I would not change a thing.  And that is the nature of this forum.  Should the OP be afraid to do the job?  I say no.  And I put my money where my mouth is.  If you are afraid to use a lab, then don't use the lab.  But why would you run and hide from the opportunity to create images of a mother and daughter-- images that will be cherished for the rest of their lives?  The mother asks you to create Beauty that no one else can, and when you pass up that opportunity, you do so out of fear.  And that, in my opinion, is sad.

To photograph this woman and create beautiful images that she will cherish for the rest of her life is the right thing to do.  Are we or are we not photographers?

To lack the courage to do the right thing because you are afraid of someone else saying its wrong is sad.  And you, in doing so, let the rest of us down.

Did you read the thread? I never said I would run and hide. I said I probably would do the shoot. If done properly, I have no moral objection to the subject matter. When I lived in California, I wouldn't have worried about it much at all. But now that I'm in one of the most conservative counties in a conservative state, a state where people have already been convicted under what I believe to be the same law I quoted, then I would seek legal advice in advance and weigh the artistic and commercial merit of doing the shoot against the possibility of being arrested and, whether convicted or not, financially ruined. I believe that's the advice I gave the OP.

I could care less if someone else says it's wrong. I care about paying a lawyer $30,000 to maybe keep me out of jail when someone else says it's wrong and convinces a prosecutor to take it to trial.

If I decide to make such photographs, or motion pictures, and I may, it would likely be for something far more important to me than a paid session for a client.

Daguerre wrote:
Damn Darren--  but back to our previously scheduled program...

Nothing I do is for the money.  Every photoshoot I execute, without exception, whether its for free or a $10,000 a day national consumer ad, is because it is something that I want to do.  And if a mother asks me to do timeless images of her and her daughter, then no matter the state or conservative county, I will do it.  And I will see anyone in court over it if necessary.

I absolutely agree, in principle. If I thought I was right, I'd fight a chain saw. But at the moment, the reason I'm back in Texas, is that I'm caring for my elderly mother, who is rather ill. She's also very conservative, and if I were to even be arrested for photographing a nude child, no matter how artistic, legal, and righteous, she would be devastated. If I were convicted, it would likely kill her. So pardon me if I like to pick my battles out of respect for my mother. When she's gone, I'll be right there in court with you.