Brian Diaz wrote:
The article says that he's charged with using a child in a sexual performance, not taking photos of a nude minor.

They can make that charge in regards to nude photographs if they think the photographs are sexual in nature.

Rebecca Alsbury wrote:
Not only what the hell was HE thinking, but what the hell was SHE thinking? I wonder if she was just naive, or if it was some slutty little girl who actually wanted to do this...it does make one wonder...doesn't it?

He offered money, she took it and posed nude. Not much of a question there. But then again, we are all assuming they are porn shots because of what is said in the article. If they are not pornographic nudes, and if it is proven he did not have her participate in any sexual acts, he really did not break any laws unless there is a law there that models under 18 have to have an adult guardian on location with them. Some states have those laws for certain ages.

Rebecca Alsbury wrote:
Not only what the hell was HE thinking, but what the hell was SHE thinking? I wonder if she was just naive, or if it was some slutty little girl who actually wanted to do this...it does make one wonder...doesn't it?

Don't you guys ever photograph teens? It isn't very unusual to be asked to "do just one for my BF". Of course, you know she's going to showmit so you need to be damn careful what you do. It is tempting, and it's real easy to wind up with a 5 figure attorney bill.
Still, with this one, you have to wonder what the photos were - "faces five felony counts of using a child in a sexual performance." In NH they state "overtly sexual nature."

Lens N Light wrote:

Don't you guys ever photograph teens? It isn't very unusual to be asked to "do just one for my BF". Of course, you know she's going to showmit so you need to be damn careful what you do. It is tempting, and it's real easy to wind up with a 5 figure attorney bill.
Still, with this one, you have to wonder what the photos were - "faces five felony counts of using a child in a sexual performance." In NH they state "overtly sexual nature."

Considering it is Florida, land of seniors, they are very conservative. They could very easily charge him with that for shots most of us would consider even as nice as a fine art nude.

If he is found innocent because the photographs are not deamed pornographic, and because he did not have her participate in any sex acts , which everyone is already pretty much hanging him for, then he is no more of a GWC than Sturges, Hamilton, Mann or Goedes.

Shyly wrote:
What amazed me is that "GWC" is now a term being used by the media.  Good grief.  If he is guilty, he's not a GWC, he's a predator.  I am so sick of that term!

I believe it was Kevin who is one of the biggies at OMP who used the term and he was just quoted using it.I am annoyed by the term,too. It is wrongly given to a lot of really good photographers.

As for that photographer being a predator, that really depends. If she willingly did it then how much of a predator is he really. If a Zebra puts its neck in the Lions mouth , did that Lion go hunting? Maybe so but the Zebra put its neck in the Lions mouth on its own.

We also know that a lot of young girls can be liars. Some lie about their age, have very good fake ID`s, lie to get attention. Maybe she said he made her do stuff so she doesn`t look like a naughty girl in Mommy and Daddys eyes.

Lens N Light wrote:

Don't you guys ever photograph teens? It isn't very unusual to be asked to "do just one for my BF". Of course, you know she's going to showmit so you need to be damn careful what you do. It is tempting, and it's real easy to wind up with a 5 figure attorney bill.
Still, with this one, you have to wonder what the photos were - "faces five felony counts of using a child in a sexual performance." In NH they state "overtly sexual nature."

I've been asked to do that by a girl who's mom went to go get some cigarettes. I vehemetly refused simply based on my standards and I don't want to wind up like this guy.

I like living jail free.

retphoto wrote:
Anyone notice that a certain website really gets slammed in the article, and stops short of claiming it's a 'sex for sale' type operation?

The comment made pretty much is a comment on any site of this kind.Not just the other one.

retphoto wrote:
Anyone notice that a certain website really gets slammed in the article, and stops short of claiming it's a 'sex for sale' type operation?

The comment made pretty much is a comment on any site of this kind.Not just the other one.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
If he is found innocent because the photographs are not deamed pornographic,...

David Linke wrote:
I agree that there is a problem here, and it need to be investigated before we round up the lynch mob.

There is actually no such categorisation in law as "pornographic." Something [in law] is either ONLY "indecent" or "obscene". Usually mere nudity does not even rise to the level of "indecent" but certainly not, without explicit sexual content, to the level of "obscenity."

The article does not address which might be the case here.

But once again... "a fair and impartial trial will commence at 10 o'clock; the hanging will be held promptly at noon."

Studio36

David Linke wrote:
Before we hang the photographer with out all the facts,  do you remember some of the images that Brook Shields did when she was under the age of 18.  I think some of them were done ay Dick Avedon, and they were beautiful pieces of art. 

I agree that there is a problem here, and it need to be investigated before we round up the linch mob.

I'm saying this as the father of two under age daughters.

Yea, she was 10, done playboy style and slicked up with baby oil in many of the shots. There was an interview with her mom and the photographer during one of her biography shows on tv and they both talked about how they wanted the shots to be provicative and sexual.

studio36uk wrote:

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
If he is found innocent because the photographs are not deamed pornographic,...

There is actually no such categorisation in law as "pornographic." Something [in law] is either ONLY "indecent" or "obscene". Usually mere nudity does not even rise to the level of "indecent" but certainly not, without explicit sexual content, to the level of "obscenity."

The article does not address which might be the case here.

But once again... "a fair and impartial trial will commence at 10 o'clock; the hanging will be held promptly at noon."

Studio36

Ok, now we are getting down to the semantics of one single word,lol. I meant the same thing you said. I just used the word pornographic.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
Yea, she was 10, done playboy style and slicked up with baby oil in many of the shots. There was an interview with her mom and the photographer during one of her biography shows on tv and they both talked about how they wanted the shots to be provicative and sexual.

AND the mother and Brookie spent many thousands in later years trying to suppress the images... but one guess who signed the release on behalf of her under-age daughter...

So sad; too bad; here's a quarter - call someone that gives a f...

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
There is actually no such categorisation in law as "pornographic." Something [in law] is either ONLY "indecent" or "obscene". Usually mere nudity does not even rise to the level of "indecent" but certainly not, without explicit sexual content, to the level of "obscenity."
Studio36

The word "pornography" as in "child pornography" is certainly in NH law, but it requires penetration.

David Linke wrote:
Before we hang the photographer with out all the facts,  do you remember some of the images that Brook Shields did when she was under the age of 18.  I think some of them were done ay Dick Avedon, and they were beautiful pieces of art. 

I agree that there is a problem here, and it need to be investigated before we round up the lynch mob.

I'm saying this as the father of two under age daughters.

The Lynch mob doesn't care IF certain images were done with Parent's Permission.

studio36uk wrote:

AND the mother and Brookie spent many thousands in later years trying to suppress the images... but one guess who signed the release on behalf of her under-age daughter...

So sad; too bad; here's a quarter - call someone that gives a f...

Studio36

She did? How odd considering in the interview which was done not too long ago she talked about how she liked the photos, she had no hint of regret in anything she said, in fact she seemed like one of those pageant mommies who does anything to get her girl famous at any cost and knew what would work and had no regrets.

Lens N Light wrote:
The word "pornography" as in "child pornography" is certainly in NH law, but it requires penetration.

It will almost certainly be further defined in that statute.

Studio36

Kitapanda wrote:
Should it really matter if the pictures were pornographic or artistic? The girl was 17... 17 year olds shouldn't be posing naked in the first place...

Not to start another thread that has already been started dozens of times on here but perhaps you have not seen them,,,,,,,nude images , at any age, is not illegal, wether she is 12, 17 or 70.

Kitapanda wrote:
Should it really matter if the pictures were pornographic or artistic? The girl was 17... 17 year olds shouldn't be posing naked in the first place...

says who?

Why 17?

What if she were 2 (3,6,8,10) months older when she turns 18...does some sort of majic happen?

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
She did? How odd considering in the interview which was done not too long ago she talked about how she liked the photos, she had no hint of regret in anything she said, in fact she seemed like one of those pageant mommies who does anything to get her girl famous at any cost and knew what would work and had no regrets.

It is true AFAIK. Any praise now may be only a matter of "putting on a brave face"

Studio36

Kitapanda wrote:
Should it really matter if the pictures were pronographic or artistic? The girl was 17... 17 year olds shouldn't be posing naked in the first place...

Legally, it does matter.

Kitapanda wrote:
Should it really matter if the pictures were pornographic or artistic? The girl was 17... 17 year olds shouldn't be posing naked in the first place...

Ummm, I had two friends pose for me at that age as part of a high school project I was working on, and that was about 17 years back. What exactly is wrong with posing naked, especially if there was NOT anything sexually explicit or implied in the session? Until fairly modern times, that is approximately the last 100 years or so 17 year old "girls" were often married, and in no way considered mere children.

To clear this post up a bit, I was also 17 at the time, and there was no way they could be considered porn. It did stir some controversy in the school though...

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
She did? How odd considering in the interview which was done not too long ago she talked about how she liked the photos, she had no hint of regret in anything she said, in fact she seemed like one of those pageant mommies who does anything to get her girl famous at any cost and knew what would work and had no regrets.

A quick peek at her bio on IMDB shows this:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000222/bio

"Nude photos of Brooke, taken by photographer Garry Gross, when Shields was 10, were displayed in Manhattan's American Fine Arts Gallery, September 10th, 1998. The actress had sued Gross in 1981, tearfully testifying that the pictures embarrassed her, but a court decision in 1983 gave Gross the okay to display the photos."

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
She did? How odd considering in the interview which was done not too long ago she talked about how she liked the photos, she had no hint of regret in anything she said, in fact she seemed like one of those pageant mommies who does anything to get her girl famous at any cost and knew what would work and had no regrets.

A quick peek at her bio on IMDB shows this:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000222/bio


Studio36

Not disputing it happened. I was just sayin what I saw in her mother in her interview.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
Not disputing it happened. I was just sayin what I saw in her mother in her interview.

No problem - I only pulled the quote because you seemed surprised to hear it.

Studio36

Claudette V wrote:
When I was in Spain half of the women/girls were topless.  Is it illegal to develop film of topless teenagers at the beach?  Just curious because at what age does it become illegal.  Surely an 8 year old child running around half naked is not illegal and an 18 year old can do as she pleases.  What if any are the rules regarding nudity?

Although nudity itself  in photographs at any age is not illegal,usually developers are required to report nudity in photographs when the person appears to be underage. Although, there are some art photography developers who would have no issue developing it.