Forums >
General Industry >
From the "What the Heck were You Thinking" file
http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBF4XOMJIE.html Shooting nude photos of girls under 18 and without their parents concent is against the law, here in Florida anyway. Jan 17 06 11:27 am Link 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? Jan 17 06 11:35 am Link The article says that he's charged with using a child in a sexual performance, not taking photos of a nude minor. EDIT: I take that back. The article blurs the line, perpetuating the myth that it is the underage nudity that is illegal, not the underage sexual performance. Jan 17 06 11:35 am Link Brian Diaz wrote: They can make that charge in regards to nude photographs if they think the photographs are sexual in nature. Jan 17 06 11:38 am Link Rebecca Alsbury wrote: 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. Jan 17 06 11:43 am Link Money talks and if you're 17 living under the parents roof a C note sounds pretty good to hang out nude for awhile. This guy is a perfect example of a GWC. Jan 17 06 11:44 am Link Rebecca Alsbury 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. Jan 17 06 11:45 am Link Lens N Light wrote: 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. Jan 17 06 11:49 am Link 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! Jan 17 06 11:52 am Link Shyly wrote: 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. Jan 17 06 11:54 am Link Lens N Light wrote: 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. Jan 17 06 11:59 am Link 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? Jan 17 06 11:59 am Link retphoto wrote: The comment made pretty much is a comment on any site of this kind.Not just the other one. Jan 17 06 12:20 pm Link retphoto wrote: The comment made pretty much is a comment on any site of this kind.Not just the other one. Jan 17 06 12:22 pm Link 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. Jan 17 06 12:37 pm Link 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. Jan 17 06 12:40 pm Link 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. Jan 17 06 12:41 pm Link Glamour Boulevard wrote: David Linke 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." Jan 17 06 12:41 pm Link 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 by 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. Jan 17 06 12:41 pm Link David Linke 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. Jan 17 06 12:45 pm Link studio36uk wrote: Glamour Boulevard 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." 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. Jan 17 06 12:48 pm Link x Jan 17 06 12:50 pm Link Glamour Boulevard 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... Jan 17 06 12:50 pm Link studio36uk wrote: The word "pornography" as in "child pornography" is certainly in NH law, but it requires penetration. Jan 17 06 12:50 pm Link 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... Jan 17 06 12:51 pm Link David Linke wrote: The Lynch mob doesn't care IF certain images were done with Parent's Permission. Jan 17 06 12:51 pm Link studio36uk 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. Jan 17 06 12:52 pm Link Just click the reply button once. It may take some time but it will eventually post. Jan 17 06 12:53 pm Link I think it is certainly nice of Kevin Whitcomb of omp # 126883 to say this quote, "Kevin said most of the photographers are amateur "GWCs," or guys with cameras." Jan 17 06 12:53 pm Link Lens N Light wrote: It will almost certainly be further defined in that statute. Jan 17 06 12:53 pm Link Kitapanda wrote: 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. Jan 17 06 12:53 pm Link Kitapanda wrote: says who? Jan 17 06 12:53 pm Link Glamour Boulevard wrote: It is true AFAIK. Any praise now may be only a matter of "putting on a brave face" Jan 17 06 12:55 pm Link Kitapanda wrote: Legally, it does matter. Jan 17 06 12:59 pm Link Kitapanda wrote: 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. Jan 17 06 01:11 pm Link Glamour Boulevard wrote: A quick peek at her bio on IMDB shows this: "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 Jan 17 06 01:20 pm Link 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? Jan 17 06 01:21 pm Link studio36uk wrote: Glamour Boulevard wrote: A quick peek at her bio on IMDB shows this: Not disputing it happened. I was just sayin what I saw in her mother in her interview. Jan 17 06 01:22 pm Link Glamour Boulevard wrote: No problem - I only pulled the quote because you seemed surprised to hear it. Jan 17 06 01:25 pm Link Claudette V wrote: 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. Jan 17 06 01:25 pm Link |