Tim Hammond wrote:
I was contacted by a potential client who wants some nice photographs to send to her husband in Iraq, including photos of their baby, whom her husband has never seen.  Her husband's a Marine private and she moved here to live with her mother

Suggestion:

What you could do is create some artistic B&W's side light Mother with new born showing partial breast.

New born cuddled in Mothers arm's while wearing white sheer long Robe open at the top.

Just my idea that comes to mind to solve the so called problem

Sincerely
Ron Blake

Tim Hammond wrote:
I was contacted by a potential client who wants some nice photographs to send to her husband in Iraq, including photos of their baby, whom her husband has never seen.  Her husband's a Marine private and she moved here to live with her mother when he got deployed.  Her mother died recently, and now she's trying to live on his private's pay plus a part time waitressing job and raise a baby in a very high-cost area with no family around.  She's been saving up and has most of the sitting fee, but wanted to know if she could make payments on the rest. 

She also wanted to know if the photos could include a tasteful partial nude of her, just to help keep her husband's spirits up.  Did I mention that she's 17?  I told her I'd love to help her out, but I simply can't afford the risk.  She can be married, raise a baby on her own, send her husband off to war before he ever sees his baby in return for less than a living wage, but the law says she's still a child and, therefore, not able to make a rational decision about whether her husband can see her breasts.

I figure I can donate her sitting fee and print costs to the baby food fund, so I told her her portraits will be free.  And yes, we'll come up with something sexy for him, but her breasts will have to remain hidden because, after all, she's just a child.

Sometimes I just have to shake my head at the insanity we create.

Fuck that!  I would shoot her partially nude for her husband... 

Then I would make ONE print to send him. Then I'd Delete/Destroy all negs/files. 

What the fuck is our country coming to?

If I get convicted for that, I need to move to another country!!!

Hamza wrote:
What the fuck is our country coming to?

If I get convicted for that, I need to move to another country!!!

A few years ago, we had a case here In PA where a husband was arrested for taking nude photos of his wife on their honeymoon -- he was 20 and she was 17. 

There are a lot of people whose idea of "doing good" involves telling other people what to do.

Sorry, but the risks of photographing a minor nude are just too great.  It's crazy out there right now.

*note:  if you don't want to take it from me, I'd suggest you google Jock Sturgess...although with the current White House subpoena on search engines, that might not be prudent just now.

Hamza wrote:
Fuck that!  I would shoot her partially nude for her husband... 
...

If I get convicted for that, I need to move to another country!!!

Ivan123 wrote:
...I would do the photos.

Not only would I do whatever photos she wanted of her self clothed or unclothed, I'd print them on fine art paper using the print shop I usually print at and I'd make sure to keep the negs/files so that if he wanted more prints he could get them made.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

A few years ago, we had a case here In PA where a husband was arrested for taking nude photos of his wife on their honeymoon -- he was 20 and she was 17. 

There are a lot of people whose idea of "doing good" involves telling other people what to do.

Sorry, but the risks of photographing a minor nude are just too great.  It's crazy out there right now.

Totally agree with you Melvin, why take the risk.  and good for you for offering to do her shoot for free as well.  it's a good cause.

If she's 17 now, she will likely be 18 sometime this year and she can come back for more racy photos.

Aperture Photographics wrote:

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Sorry, but the risks of photographing a minor nude are just too great.  It's crazy out there right now.

Totally agree with you Melvin, why take the risk...

Wow...what a bunch of...

never mind...

I can't honestly come up with a way of saying what I feel without "name calling"...

PhotoBob wrote:
The military does and will open packages going to that part of the world and if there is any nudity he will not only never get it he can get in trouble over it.

Interesting...can you point out the part of the UCMJ that says that?

What happened to the days of sending free playboy and penthouse subscriptions to military men overseas in hostile environments?

Ivan123 wrote:
The issue isn't nudity of minors, it is pornography using minors.

Whether it's illegal or not is pretty much irrelevant.  Those who enforce the law in my part of the world tend to define pornography as anything their pastor doesn't like.  They arrest, accuse, and pubilcize first then ask questions later.

If I took the photos and one person in this community complained, it's pretty much guaranteed that I would be arrested.  I might well win in court, though it would probably be after enough appeals to get away from a local court.  However, in the mean time, I'd loose my job, loose my farm, loose my part-time photography business, be removed from a couple of non-profit boards I volunteer on, be listed on the state's sex offender list, and become known in this little community as the guy who photographs naked kids.  And I don't even want to think about what the local fanatics would do to the poor girl. 

Legality aside, the risk is simply not worth it.

raveneyes wrote:
Wow...what a bunch of...

never mind...

I can't honestly come up with a way of saying what I feel without "name calling"...

I'd refer you to a photographer I know in Ohio who got tangled up with a minor...but I can't, because his site is down and he's on year 2 of his 5 years' probation.

raveneyes wrote:

Interesting...can you point out the part of the UCMJ that says that?

What happened to the days of sending free playboy and penthouse subscriptions to military men overseas in hostile environments?

Those days are still alive and well in NON Muslim Countries.  It is part of the General Orders in that Theater of Operations just as is the prohibition on consumption or possesion of Alcohol in those countries that do not allow that (less widespread). 

Bob

PhotoBob wrote:

Those days are still alive and well in NON Muslim Countries.  It is part of the General Orders in that Theater of Operations just as is the prohibition on consumption or possesion of Alcohol in those countries that do not allow that (less widespread). 

Bob

Ah, gotcha...I'd never heard about those G.O.s...I guess Maxim isn't racy enough to violate them...

Tim Hammond wrote:
Legality aside, the risk is simply not worth it.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
I'd refer you to a photographer I know in Ohio who got tangled up with a minor...but I can't, because his site is down and he's on year 2 of his 5 years' probation.

And thusly do we not only continue to allow, but encourage this type of behavior from a small sect of society that has no business deciding justice.

It's cases like this that make me wish I was a lawyer...I'd never make money though, because I'd just do all the cases for free.

ADGibson wrote:
My question would be simple. Is she an emancipated minor? If she is married I would ask. If she is then I believe she is able to enter into contract with another party.

Aaron

Being an emancipated minor might allow her to sign a contract, but I don't think it gets her out from under child nudity laws.  It doesn't sound like he's worried about payment, so what contract would there be?  He doesn't need a model release, because he doesn't intent to use the pictures himself.

In any case, she could model nude in Alabama.  The age here is 17.

-Dave

raveneyes wrote:

Tim Hammond wrote:
Legality aside, the risk is simply not worth it.

And thusly do we not only continue to allow, but encourage this type of behavior from a small sect of society that has no business deciding justice.

It's cases like this that make me wish I was a lawyer...I'd never make money though, because I'd just do all the cases for free.

One of my studio partners is a lawyer.  His advice.....is it worth ruining your business, your reputation, and your life, to shoot an underage nude?  If so, go for it.  But stop encouraging others to potentially ruin their lives over a risk that may not be worth it to them.  If it's worth it to you, fine.

Aperture Photographics wrote:
One of my studio partners is a lawyer.  His advice.....is it worth ruining your business, your reputation, and your life, to shoot an underage nude?  If so, go for it.  But stop encouraging others to potentially ruin their lives over a risk that may not be worth it to them.  If it's worth it to you, fine.

Your friend sees it pretty much the way that I do.  It might be legal, but then it might cause you problems.  Why take the risk?

Aperture Photographics wrote:
One of my studio partners is a lawyer.  His advice.....is it worth ruining your business, your reputation, and your life, to shoot an underage nude?  If so, go for it.  But stop encouraging others to potentially ruin their lives over a risk that may not be worth it to them.  If it's worth it to you, fine.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Why take the risk?

It is worth anyone ruining their business, their reputation, and their "life", if by not shooting it you're just encouraging activist prosecutors and religious zealots to further encroach on our rights.

Fuck it...I've obviously reached a communications impasse again...I just can't believe you people are so fucking scared...

Scared of what??? Loosing a few measly dollars?  Scared of ruining your 'reputation'...what the fuck good is your 'reputation' if it doesn't stand for anything?

Everyone is so full of CRAP!

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

Your friend sees it pretty much the way that I do.  It might be legal, but then it might cause you problems.  Why take the risk?

I find it interesting that the person that is advocating taking these pics (in this and many other similar topics on the forum) doesn't have any of the kind posted anywhere. It is real easy to say things as long as it is someone else taking the risk...

With some many models out there of legal age willing to do nudes why this need to take pics of underage models? Exactly what constitutional principle or natural right do you think is being violated here?

To the orginal poster: You are doing a great thing. Your plan is just fine... giving her and her husband a great gift while protecting yourself.

raveneyes wrote:

Aperture Photographics wrote:
One of my studio partners is a lawyer.  His advice.....is it worth ruining your business, your reputation, and your life, to shoot an underage nude?  If so, go for it.  But stop encouraging others to potentially ruin their lives over a risk that may not be worth it to them.  If it's worth it to you, fine.

It is worth anyone ruining their business, their reputation, and their "life", if by not shooting it you're just encouraging activist prosecutors and religious zealots to further encroach on our rights.

Fuck it...I've obviously reached a communications impasse again...I just can't believe you people are so fucking scared...

Scared of what??? Loosing a few measly dollars?  Scared of ruining your 'reputation'...what the fuck good is your 'reputation' if it doesn't stand for anything?

Everyone is so full of CRAP!

I expected you to have a much more daring portfolio for someone so fearless.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

I expected you to have a much more daring portfolio for someone so fearless.

Amen...
... talk is cheap.

Bryan Benoit wrote:
Exactly what constitutional principle or natural right do you think is being violated here?

The natural right and constitutional right for an artist to express him/herself

I could care less if it was nude minors or albino pygmies...if there's an artisticlly merited reason for the photograph or other type of depiction then it IS NOT, and should NEVER BECOME illegal.

Allowing people to force artists in to not doing things for fear of prosecution is unconscionable.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
I expected you to have a much more daring portfolio for someone so fearless.

Bryan Benoit wrote:
Amen...
... talk is cheap.

My artist portfolio and commercial portfolios are two entirely different things.

raveneyes wrote:
Wow...what a bunch of...

never mind...

I can't honestly come up with a way of saying what I feel without "name calling"...

Why are you so harsh on people who want to obey the law?  People can choose to express themselves any way they want, nude or non nude, in accordance with law or breaking the law.  Shoot your damn nude minors if you want and leave everyone the hell alone.

Why is the law so important to you when it comes to evolution and not when it comes to the universal protection of minors and people's right to choose to stay out of court?

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
Why are you so harsh on people who want to obey the law?  People can choose to express themselves any way they want, nude or non nude, in accordance with law or breaking the law.  Shoot your damn nude minors if you want and leave everyone the hell alone.

For two reasons.

1) Because it's NOT OBEYING A LAW...
2) Because it ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO SAY IT'S BREAKING THE LAW

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
Why is the law so important to you when it comes to evolution and not when it comes to the universal protection of minors and people's right to choose to stay out of court?

GAH!  *bangs head against nearest blunt object to attempt to lower intelligence level to that of responder*

The law is important to me in both cases.

The law is that pornography involving minors is illegal.  The law is not that photographing minors is illegal.  The law that therefore is important is the right to freedom of speech.

There is no right to choose to stay out of court...one day if you have your way, they'll come knocking on your door because they have a subpoena summoning you to a law suit against you for "mentally injuring a child" with this picture:

because it made little Jonny cry and did irreparable damage to his psyche by causing him to fear clowns.

raveneyes wrote:
For two reasons.

1) Because it's NOT OBEYING A LAW...
2) Because it ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO SAY IT'S BREAKING THE LAW

1) You don't have to do everything that is not illegal.  Don't tell people they should do something just because it isn't illegal, and they are not proper artists if they don't.
2) It is not illegal to shoot a minor nude
3) It IS illegal to shoot pornography of a minor
4) What defines pornography is completely subjective and determined by the court in individual cases so NO MATTER WHAT you shoot of a nude minor it is entirely possible that the court might call it pornography and send you to PRISON.  The truth is, you have NO IDEA if what you shoot will magically become illegal because the court deems it so on your trial date.  It doesn't make someone less of an artist if they make that decision.  And it's none of your damn business.

I guess if someday I got some bizarre inkling to shoot a minor nude to fullfil my vision, I'll hop right up and do that, because some guy on the internet said I was chicken shit if I didn't follow my artistic instinct.  Yeah, right.

raveneyes wrote:
The natural right and constitutional right for an artist to express him/herself

I could care less if it was nude minors or albino pygmies...if there's an artisticlly merited reason for the photograph or other type of depiction then it IS NOT, and should NEVER BECOME illegal.

Allowing people to force artists in to not doing things for fear of prosecution is unconscionable.


My artist portfolio and commercial portfolios are two entirely different things.

Until you show us some skin, it's all talk.  I'm a committed pornographer 24/7 and proud of it, no hair-splitting between "this portfolio" and "that portfolio".  If you expect me to do something so stupid that I'll land in the GP of the local correctional facility, the least you can do is put some b@@bies on your page.

raveneyes wrote:

Bryan Benoit wrote:
Exactly what constitutional principle or natural right do you think is being violated here?

The natural right and constitutional right for an artist to express him/herself

I could care less if it was nude minors or albino pygmies...if there's an artisticlly merited reason for the photograph or other type of depiction then it IS NOT, and should NEVER BECOME illegal.

Allowing people to force artists in to not doing things for fear of prosecution is unconscionable.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
I expected you to have a much more daring portfolio for someone so fearless.

My artist portfolio and commercial portfolios are two entirely different things.

Once again.... talk is so cheap. Where are your so called 'artistic' pictures? If you REALLY believe in what you say you shouldn't be ashamed or afraid to show them to the world. It seem we found the one that is really full of c%$# here.

Stop telling other to do what you are too afraid to do yourself.

raveneyes wrote:
For two reasons.

1) Because it's NOT OBEYING A LAW...
2) Because it ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO SAY IT'S BREAKING THE LAW


GAH!  *bangs head against nearest blunt object to attempt to lower intelligence level to that of responder*

The law is important to me in both cases.

The law is that pornography involving minors is illegal.  The law is not that photographing minors is illegal.  The law that therefore is important is the right to freedom of speech.

There is no right to choose to stay out of court...one day if you have your way, they'll come knocking on your door because they have a subpoena summoning you to a law suit against you for "mentally injuring a child" with this picture:

because it made little Jonny cry and did irreparable damage to his psyche by causing him to fear clowns.

THE LAW is that what is and is not pornography is determined by the court on a case by case basis!  THE LAW is that you don't know how a judge is going to react to your "totally harmless" picture of a nude 15 year old until you're already locked up.

Perhaps you do have dozens of nude pictures of minors sitting around in your "private collection."  In many people's opinions that would make you gross and stupid, not brave.

I'd appreciate if you didn't attack my intelligence.  And if you didn't imply that I'm a facist for suggesting you stop telling people they aren't proper artists if they don't take nude photos of children.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Until you show us some skin, it's all talk.  I'm a committed pornographer 24/7 and proud of it, no hair-splitting between "this portfolio" and "that portfolio".  If you expect me to do something so stupid that I'll land in the GP of the local correctional facility, the least you can do is put some b@@bies on your page.

here are you happy now??? (all links 18+)

raveneyes wrote:

here are you happy now??? (all links 18+)

Funny that you are in favor of photographing nude children whether it's illegal or not but you comply with message board rules to label nude photos to protect those under 18 from seeing them.

That's somewhat of a paradox.

Bryan Benoit wrote:
It seem we found the one that is really full of c%$# here.

Stop telling other to do what you are too afraid to do yourself.

WHAT??? I have BOOKS of nude photography...  I have GALLERY SHOWS of nude photography...just because I don't think that the web is a valid way to market my nude photography doesn't mean that I don't do it

Amanda Schlicher wrote:

Funny that you are in favor of photographing nude children whether it's illegal or not but you comply with message board rules to label nude photos to protect those under 18 from seeing them.

That's somewhat of a paradox.

Rules of a message board owned an operated by an individual overrule the right to freedom of speech.  If it were my message board I wouldn't have to label them as 18+, just as I do not label them in any way on my web site.

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
I'd appreciate if you didn't attack my intelligence.  And if you didn't imply that I'm a facist for suggesting you stop telling people they aren't proper artists if they don't take nude photos of children.

Well I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me what to say and what not to say...and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop implying that nude photography of minors is illegal...and I'd appreciate it if you'd go fly a kite, but a lot of times what I'd appreciate doesn't happen.

raveneyes wrote:

Rules of a message board owned an operated by an individual overrule the right to freedom of speech.  If it were my message board I wouldn't have to label them as 18+, just as I do not label them in any way on my web site.

I just meant I think it's funny that you respect the rules of the messageboard but you don't respect the possibility that any court in America could easily throw you in jail for something you would never consider pornography.  People have gone to jail for much less.