kesha1 wrote:
Almost all of us are taking nude pics (photographers and models), aren't we suppose to have 2257 forms filled out for every shoot? And those special ID by the face pics?

Only if you show sex acts or simulation of sex acts...so no.

kesha1 wrote:
Almost all of us are taking nude pics (photographers and models), aren't we suppose to have 2257 forms filled out for every shoot? And those special ID by the face pics?

No. No. Only for images that would be considered "sexually explicit".

kesha1 wrote:
So, the authorities would not care to make sure that the people on the nude pics were over 18?

an adult model release would still likely be a good idea for nudes.

Damon Banner wrote:

an adult model release would still likely be a good idea for nudes.

Yeah and it can't hurt to shoot an ID by their face anyways. Why not.

kesha1 wrote:
That's what I though. I do check their ID's , but god forbid the rules will be changed on nude photography all together - a lot of very good works will have to disappear.
   Because if she showed you a fake ID ,or something, you still can get in trouble, huh?

I'm going off an assumption here. I'm pretty sure that if the law was changed it would only apply to works created thereafter.

kesha1 wrote:
So, the authorities would not care to make sure that the people on the nude pics were over 18?

No. Actually, it's a common misconception that there's some law that makes shooting nudes of people under 18 illegal. Don't get me wrong, I don't shoot nudes of underage models, but, technically, I don't think it's illegal here in Minnesota. Pornography (as opposed to nudity) is a totally different issue. The issue gets clouded because some people think that all nude images are pornographic.

kesha1 wrote:
Because if she showed you a fake ID ,or something, you still can get in trouble, huh?

No. Photographers are not required to be document authenticity specialists. When an ID is required to prove age, we only need to behave as most reasonable people would. If an ID is obviously fake that's one thing, but if it looks reasonably good, we don't have to verify it's authenticity. If it's good enough to buy cigarettes with, it's probably good enough.

kesha1 wrote:
Almost all of us are taking nude pics (photographers and models), aren't we suppose to have 2257 forms filled out for every shoot? And those special ID by the face pics?

No. You are an independant contractor.  1099.  Do you 10-4?

SI Photography wrote:
Only if you show sex acts or simulation of sex acts...so no.

Or what the "Church Lady" in a position of authority might deem as such.

Isn't that special!

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
The issue gets clouded because some people think that all nude images are pornographic.

Like that "Church Lady".

kesha1 wrote:
That's what I though. I do check their ID's , but god forbid the rules will be changed on nude photography all together - a lot of very good works will have to disappear.
   Because if she showed you a fake ID ,or something, you still can get in trouble, huh?

If someone used a fake ID, and this is documented photographically, the presenter should by viewed legally as an adult as far as the resulting images are concerned.

If they want to play adult, then let them have the experience.

kesha1 wrote:
That's what I though. I do check their ID's , but god forbid the rules will be changed on nude photography all together - a lot of very good works will have to disappear.
   Because if she showed you a fake ID ,or something, you still can get in trouble, huh?