Photographer
John Paul
Posts: 937
Schenectady, New York, US
Posted by JvR:
Posted by theda:
Posted by JvR:
I can't believe this thread has reached five pages. What does it say about the photographers here if they go on endlessly about shooting nude minors, while threads about technique or working methods fall flat within one or two pages? We're all a bunch of dirty perverts way more hung up on first amendment rights than f-stops. I hope not. It makes me wonder what would happen if the law would suddenly allow shooting nude minors in seductive ways.
Would all these photographers here run out to the local middle and high schools, looking for models? Makes me shudder... Oh sure..... you bet they would.. In fact, I could see some dude going up to a group of children at a roller rink, armed with a video cam and an assistant holding a light, and asking the kids to pull their cloths off for the camera so they could be in "Teenagers Gone Wild"..
Never underestimate the power of the penis!
JP
Photographer
Ed Nazarko
Posts: 121
Lebanon, New Jersey, US
Posted by alexwh:
As the granddfather and photographer of the little girl in the blue swimsuit (I wrote at length how the picture came to be) you should assume I posted it for the very same reason you are commenting on it. If you go to my port you will see a few more of my Rebecca. There is no perversity here. Rebecca is a 7 year-old girl who has travelled with me (and my wife Rosemary) to plant conventions in DC and to Argentina and Uruguay. Rebecca, can not only identify 60 of my 70 garden roses but can identify around 15 by scent alone. If you want to read more about her try this essay (with pics)
http://www.artsandopinion.com/2004_v3_n5/hayward-4.htm And Rebecca is an absolutely amazing kid. 7? She's more self confident and "aware" in her gaze than most adults. Reminds me of some of the kids Loretta Lux photographs in the depth of gaze. You're very, very lucky to have a subject like her. But I'm glad I'm not her parents - yikes, she's gonna be a handful...
Photographer
alexwh
Posts: 3104
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted by theda:
Posted by JvR:
I can't believe this thread has reached five pages. What does it say about the photographers here if they go on endlessly about shooting nude minors, while threads about technique or working methods fall flat within one or two pages? We're all a bunch of dirty perverts way more hung up on first amendment rights than f-stops. I posted some pics in the photography forum with explanations on how they were made. What happened int the end? Theda our moderator said that no nude pics can be posted in the forum. I broke this "rule" in ignorant innocence yet some of you are allowed to post such things as "shut up". I marvel at things American. The reason this thread has reached this length is that the topic has not black or white andswers. The grey areas will allways garner interest and controversy.
Photographer
alexwh
Posts: 3104
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
I am appalled at my spelling mistakes and I realize how much I depend on Spell Check. Rebecca's mother Hilary (my daughter) was herself a handful. My wife Rosemary and I are now getting an early revenge! Rebecca has injected in a me a renewed desire to experiment with the portrait. I have no idea where she gets some of the poses she offers me that look so adult-like and so shocked my wife. She has asked me twice if I would photograph her nude which I immediately declined. The reason she has asked is that she sees most of my nude photos and matted photos and has also seen the work of my Argenting painter friends Juan Manuel Sanchez and Nora Patrich with whom I do joint work that we call colaboraciones. For more on this look here: http://www.artsandopinion.com/2003_v2_n1/sanchez.htm this one has more on Rebecca http://www.artsandopinion.com/2004_v3_n5/hayward-4.htm
Photographer
Anthony Citrano
Posts: 245
Venice, California, US
all very well put, especially mjr.
to me, sexual maturity is about pubescence/adolescence. while we've evolved a bit and grown a nice fancy cortex (rarely used these days, it seems), the fact remains that male mammals are biologically designed / hardwired to prefer neoteny. it makes sense for the species, at least to where the species was in recent history. it's dishonest to ignore this reality, because it plays a part in forming what we find appealing and what moves us.
i know 22 year olds who are mentally in their early teens, and vice versa. it's complex and varies greatly.
i think the responsibility of the photographer is to challenge but never exploit; help one push her creative envelope, while remaining within the bounds of her comfort and her maturity.
i think age of consent laws and majority laws are abitrary and foolish, but children need society's protection. but to me, a child, biologically speaking, is one who is not yet pubescent. mentally speaking it's much, much more complicated.
i also agree that if it's risque or sensual it's probably just best to shoot 18+ and avoid the hassles of it.
anyway, good discussion.
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45477
San Juan Bautista, California, US
Posted by JvR:
I can't believe this thread has reached five pages. What does it say about the photographers here if they go on endlessly about shooting nude minors, while threads about technique or working methods fall flat within one or two pages? The reason that threads like this one are so popular from the technique or working methods threads is simple. Picking up a camera and using physical technique (once you've learned it) is NOT as interesting to us as human interaction. The creative process and working with people is NOT an exact science. There are gray areas! These are debatable topics with no black and white answers.
This is ART!
So of course the topics about sleeping with models, drinking with models, what age to do nudity, should the models bring an escort (dahhh ... especially after those first three!) etc etc etc ... are the ones that will have the most posts. It's just human nature to be interested in topics having to do with the interaction between artist and muse.
As for there being a bunch of perverts here ... well you are posting on this topic just as I am ... so I guess we both are! LOL
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45477
San Juan Bautista, California, US
Posted by Ty Simone:
Posted by John Paul:
Posted by Patrick Walberg:
Posted by John Paul:
Ok guys.,......so you say that photographing minors nude is o.k......then do it... go find a bunch of minors, get their permission to photograph them nude, and exposeing themselves, and post those pictures here on MM just to prove that you aren't all just talking out of your tail ends..
May I suggest going to a public swimming pool armed with a bag of candy?
Oh, and bring your camera with you..
;-)
JP Don't be such an ass! Personally I see no reason to go out and PROVE my point. The way society it in the USA, I would have a fight on my hands that maybe I would rather not get into. The laws are decided by judges on the Federal courts, and they do not always see things the way you or I do. It is not clear cut. The point that is made is that "nudity" does not automatically mean "obscenity!" That is the only fact!
I am not a creep for fighting for freedom of art and expression. If I had the money to battle in court, I would consider shooting minors nude if it was what I wanted to do. But because about half of the USA thinks it's perverted, I would not try it. That is a real shame! Of course I am going to be an ass because you SHOULD go out and prove your point..... why are you not?? Do you have something to fear?? If you so claim that there is nothing wrong with it, then you wouldn't have to fear reprisals now would you?
Come on Pat,..put up or shut up!
JP
This challenge was issued to me once before.
I will post a nude minor on my website just for you if it makes you feel better.
I have no fear of it, because I once shot a bunch of nude minors (although you could not see anything in the final picture Thanks to L. Abernathy) when covering a story about a nude beach.
I have also been asked by a company to shoot a brochure for their nudist colony, that would have nude children in it.
Although I opted not to take the above job, it was not because of the nude children, but because of other issues with the client.
State Law does not trump Federal Law.
Ask all those pot smokers in California and Oregon.
Also, any case that was based on a law more restrictive than the Supreme Court's standard has been deemed unconstitutional.
Once the Supreme Court speaks, it is undisputed law of the land, unless the Supreme Court later overturns it.
Since the Supreme Court has already ruled that simply because a Minor is nude, it is not automatically obscene, and therefore has First Amendment protection, no law can be made by any jurisdiction to say otherwise.
Ty, Thank you for supporting me on this!
Photographer
Ty Simone
Posts: 2885
Edison, New Jersey, US
In reverse to the challenge of posting a nude minor picture, or of taking one, Show me ONE law actively on the books in any jurisdiction in the United States that says it is illegal to simply photograph a minor in the nude.
One law.
From a credible source.
I worked several times with innocent images to help stop child porn.
I have turned over sites to the FBI that I have found that contained child porn.
I understand the definition, I understand the law.
It is NOT illegal to simply shoot minor in the nude!
Unless you can provide the law above, you are simply stating what you THINK is the law.
BTW, you will find that most IT heads / Web guys like myself, are constantly policing the web for stuff.
Just recently, after having a similar discussion, in this forum, I was pointed to a "Pay Teen girl" site that crossed the line (actually 4 of them) between art and obscenity.
In one, although the girl was completely covered, the outfit was sheer, and her legs were spread for the camera.
12 years old.
I turned the info over, and it was down the same day.
That is where things cross the line, that is where it becomes illegal.
Not simple nudity.
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45477
San Juan Bautista, California, US
Posted by John Paul:
I'm not asking for you to shoot child porn.... I am simply asking you to "put up or shut up"...because I hear you going around and around on this topic, on several threads,....including Theda and others, about how legal it is to shoot minors in the nude. I have seen links to pictures in this site showing underaged (now) super models poseing nude, and the person writing the thread advocating the photographer's "rights" of expression with nude minors, and uses those pictures as "proof" that it can be done but leaves out a very important point...that those were taken in countries other than in the USA,... Geeeeeee......go figure..
Yes, I called in regards to a forum topic regarding a private issue where some low life was using my pictures, and I had asked you not to give the guy a crumb of support, and I did enjoy speaking to you..
You see,.....what may be "legal" may not be the "right" thing to do.....and if you are advocating the photographer's "right" to photograph minors in the nude, but wouldn't do it yourself because of mob mentality, well,...why is it that I haven't read this in any related thread? Why advocate something as if you do it, so that the "not so smart", or "not so law savy" photographer says to himself,........"Sure, there must not be anything wrong with it,....in fact after reading from all these people here, I'll use their words as my defence if anything does happen....so I think I'll go ahead and photograph minors in the nude and post those pictures on my various websites.." ...and then gets himself into a LOT of trouble? Why advocate this if you aren't willing to participate in it? How about warning those reading this that you even with all that you know on the topic, you wouldn't do it? ...Because I haven't read anywhere before (please correct me if I am mistaken) from you, or Theda, or others that have discussed how legal it is to shoot minors in the nude; the down side of it..
So, for the record,... you wouldn't shoot minors in the nude under any circumstances right now because of fear of "ignorant" district attorneys, and or "Joe Schmo public" who may want to harm you....but you know that you know that you know that it is just fine to do..and that you could get away with it if you had the resources to defend yourself......say like Michael Jackson the 40 + year old guy who admits to sleeping with children, who invites wacky people over to his house....(admit it, you've got to be wacky to allow your kids to sleep with a guy like him right?) who has been caught with highly controversal books that contain explicit images of under aged children in the nude......who hangs out with children, who gives lots of gifts to children,...who sets up the children's sleeping guest room next to his so that they have to cross his room(bed) in order to get out of their guest room.. Who paid millions of dollars to a family some ten years earlier for accuseing him of virtually the same things.....(if he were just some 45 year old dude who made 40K a year, and performed all the things that MJ did like the sleeping with kids, the hanging out with kids, the giving of gifts to kids, the getting them buzzed with wine and being accused of child molestation, Joe Schmo would be locked up by any sensible jury).. Well,....if you have enough money, and fame, you can even get away with child molestation just as you can with murder...ask OJ, or Robert Blake! Unfortunately, defending themselves cost them millions of dollars.....which I suppose you don't have..
Another thing,... I think Tyler would allow just about anything on this site as long as it didn't involve penetration or "oral".. Just my opinion..
Bottom line,... "Beware".....right?
JP OK, that's fair. However, I do not normally shoot nudes as a part of my repertoire. My photography direction has been more towards other categories of modeling plus other completely different areas of photography (for example; weddings, live events, etc.) Although I have shot some nudes in the past, it just is not the main focus of my photography right now.
Of course someone stealing your pictures is clearly a violation of copyright laws ... same reason I would not steal a photo from Sturges or Hamilton only to post it here to prove a point. There are things we can agree on! I'm sure we both agree that thief's, liars, and two bit hackers are the scum of the Internet!
I have always found obscenity laws to be amusing and rather unclear. What if through the centuries the great artists in sculpture and painting were told that their work would be judged on obscenity rather than the merits of the work itself?
I collect coins as one of my hobbies. Did you know that in the 1916, when the US Mint put out a quarter with the lady Liberty exposing one breast ... there was an uproar from the newly formed obscenity police? There was also a 5 dollar bill with a beautiful painting that showed a mother with children. Her breast was exposed. The coin and 5 dollar bill were quickly replaced. What does that tell you about our society? Some of the most beautiful coins in my opinion were created by artisans from Mexico, France, Italy and the Philippines. Makes sense, doesn't it!
So you think that those people are guilty even though others disagree. Now as far as those criminal court cases go, you and I were not on those juries. For any of us to argue that the accused is guilty even though a jury of our peers found otherwise is to argue that the jury system in the United States is not to be respected. It is not perfect. Nothing is! I could argue that I know more about the court case than you do, but what good does that do since I was not on any of these juries either.
It seems to me that Tyler is more conservative about this website than what you see on OMP. At that other place, I've seen a lot of adult industry stuff!
So you said ".....what may be "legal" may not be the "right" thing to do" and I tend to agree with you on much of that. I'm not advocating people pick up their cameras and start shooting nudes of children ... not anymore than I would advocate that we all go out and shoot weddings. I know many photographers who are fearful of shooting weddings. There could still be legal (although civil) ramifications in doing the wrong thing or making mistakes.
Before I would shoot nudes of a child, I would probably shoot many more nudes of adults first so that I could practice capture of images that fit the category within "art" and not anything pornographic. I would have the confidence to do it. Make sense?
Much of this is a gray area, it's not all black and white. So it is possible for you and me to both be right in many respects! But the answer is "no" I don't want to take my chances with a local DA ... at least not at this time! LOL I need to save up some money to be able to pay for a membership here on MM ... when that time comes!
Photographer
Anthony Citrano
Posts: 245
Venice, California, US
Posted by Kevin Rodgers:
There is nothing alright about an underage model posing nude or implied nude. You know people are born naked, right?
Photographer
Anthony Citrano
Posts: 245
Venice, California, US
Posted by Marcus J. Ranum:
Back when I was hoping to get rich as one of those dot-com millionaires (it didn't happen) it did for me, and i still didn't have any money. so don't feel bad... 
Photographer
udor
Posts: 25255
New York, New York, US
Posted by Anthony Citrano:
Posted by Kevin Rodgers:
There is nothing alright about an underage model posing nude or implied nude. You know people are born naked, right? That is devils propaganda! bwahahahahahahaaa
Photographer
Anthony Citrano
Posts: 245
Venice, California, US
Posted by Todd Steinwart:
I can see how, properly photographed, even a just-budding girl could be breath taking and emotionally uplifting. I also know that it could, in the wrong hands, lead to carnal thoughts and possibly deeds. sorta like everything can?
|
