Leprechaun wrote:

Let's disagree then... a "parent" letting a "model" run loose is about as smart as the "parent" who leaves their kid alone in the toy section of Walmart and then gets pissed when the kid pulls down a shelf and gets hurt.

Leprechaun, I am guessing you don't have teens at home.
  I don't know too many 16/17 years olds who frequent the toy aisle at WM. Most of them consider themselves adults, and are eager to prove it. Take a look at screen names teens choose for themselves. I was 17 in the 70's, and we conducted elaborate secret lives our parents had no clue of. Kids in the 00's are exposed to a lot more adult content, and the lines are getting fuzzy at an earlier age.
  This is not a "kiddie porn" issue. These are not children we are talking about, but young women who just happen to be minors at the whim of a Victorian legal system.
We are talking about Canadian law here which is considerably more liberal in these areas than that of the US.
   Whether or not Karim conducted himself inappropriately is not for us to determine, and certainly not based on the sole evidence of a corporate media outlet, whose primary interest is advertising sales. Truth doesn't pay, sensation does. This is an issue for the courts alone.
   If he is guilty, he will be punished. If he is innocent, he will still be punished, as he will carry the mark of the front page on his forehead the rest of his life. Announcements of innocence are published on page 72, under Peruvian Bus Plunge stories.
    For the record, I rarely shoot with minors, and if I do the parents are fully aware and involved. I do this for the same reason Wayne Gretzky only rode crowded elevators. I have watched innocent people be ruined by innuendo and scandal for things they have not done.

MandyTequila wrote:
how did u find out his bail conditions? and how would i contact his lawyer? id ont know how any of this stuff works so help me out please lol
and yes to whoever said im 17 and he has topless pics of me, he asked me with no force and i agreed because i felt comfortable with it, i told him absolutely no nude pics and he was fine with that, it makes no difference 17/18 i gave him my consent and thats all that matters..

I don't know what his bail condition are. It is an educated guess. I said "alomost certainly."

If there is enough money available for his defence, his laywer will find you. My concern is that there is not.

I don't know the easy answer, but if you know the court his bail hearing was held in, and go there and see the duty council, they will be able to find out.

The big question is do you want to help him by making the truth of you experience with him known?

I repeat what I wrote earlier. If he is innocent, and *you* will not help him, what chance does he have?

Incident Image wrote:
Wow, his pics suck.  They should've arrested him years ago for just doing awful work.

Other people in this thread have said that his pics are pretty good.

Can you reconcile?

Are you just part of the lynch mob, or are you saying the other posters are full of sh*t?

I will not accept a difference of opinion defence because you said "his pics suck". That is too emphatic.

BCI Photo wrote:
Uh, did you guys totally miss where she said he took topless pics of her... And she's 17?

Not at all.

David Hamilton took beautiful nudes of 8 year old girls.

In England, 16 year old boobie shots are fine.

What is your point?

Stephen Dawson wrote:

Not at all.

David Hamilton took beautiful nudes of 8 year old girls.

In England, 16 year old boobie shots are fine.

What is your point?

What's my point???

Guy's charged with shooting child porn and behaving innapropriately with a minor.... And you ask what my point is?

Ok, Is it legal to shoot 17 year olds topless in Canada? if so, then my mistake.

BCI Photo wrote:
What's my point???

Guy's charged with shooting child porn and behaving innapropriately with a minor.... And you ask what my point is?

Ok, Is it legal to shoot 17 year olds topless in Canada? if so, then my mistake.

Are you another MM conviction of this guy? Without benefit of a trial?

That is my major point. He has been charged. You act like he has been convicted.

And we have a model here who has worked with him and has nothing negative to say about him. And, yet, you have the rope out and want to lynch him.

For the record, any female in Ontario may be topless in any public place. We had a big court case a decade ago. Pretty safe to say that any female in Canada can be topless.

So it is OK to photograph them.

You have a problem with that?

Stephen Dawson wrote:

Are you another MM conviction of this guy? Without benefit of a trial?

That is my major point. He has been charged. You act like he has been convicted.

And we have a model here who has worked with him and has nothing negative to say about him. And, yet, you have the rope out and want to lynch him.

For the record, any female in Ontario may be topless in any public place. We had a big court case a decade ago. Pretty safe to say that any female in Canada can be topless.

So it is OK to photograph them.

You have a problem with that?

Are you nuts?

If it's illegal to shoot a minor topless in canada, regardless of whether or not he touched her, he committed a crime. I bet you her pics her part of his "child pornography" count. By the models own ADMISSION he took topless shots (which are nude shots, model girl)....

Dude... Nevermind.

PhotoSmurf wrote:
For the record, it is ILLEGAL to take topless shots of 17 year olds in Canada.

I haven't read all the posts in this thread and have no idea who is right, but to quote the article: 

"Police say topless photos themselves don't meet the definition of child pornography, even if the subject is under age. They need to be graphic and focused on the genital area."

Leprechaun wrote:

Let's disagree then... a "parent" letting a "model" run loose is about as smart as the "parent" who leaves their kid alone in the toy section of Walmart and then gets pissed when the kid pulls down a shelf and gets hurt.

I agree with you on that. Far as the parent knows, the photographers profile is safe after they do a check. That don't mean jack. A clean record don't mean nothing. I had a model who never seen me face to face, not a minor, wanted me to pick her up at the subway. She knew the mua that I worked with. but damn, I still wouldn't do any shit like that.

BCI Photo wrote:
If it's illegal to shoot a minor topless in canada, regardless of whether or not he touched her, he committed a crime. I bet you her pics her part of his "child pornography" count. By the models own ADMISSION he took topless shots (which are nude shots, model girl)....

Dude... Nevermind.

they cannot be part of his "child pornography" because child pornography is a CHILD which means under 16 . and as u can see even the police said its not because ITS NOT!

MandyTequila wrote:

they cannot be part of his "child pornography" because child pornography is a CHILD which means under 16 . and as u can see even the police said its not because ITS NOT!

.......

grabs the tylenol

MandyTequila wrote:
they cannot be part of his "child pornography" because child pornography is a CHILD which means under 16 . and as u can see even the police said its not because ITS NOT!

Which is what the news article seems to say as well.  I suspect the guy shot other models who were under 17 in poses that here more explicit and those were the pictures for which he was charged with child porn.

spyro2122 wrote:
where were the parents at those shoots?

Yea, do the parents just not check up on their kids and wonder where they are going randomly.. or perhaps check their usage of the internet (at least in thier own home) I know I'm nosey and I would lol..

Envy wrote:
I just noticed that Aida, the model who made the following statement :

“He wanted to go behind me like he's clothed and I'm nude and then he's like pulling my hair and I found that kind of weird,â€? remembers Aida Alves. “Like he never tried anything with me, but just the fact that -- I don't know, I just found it kind of creepy.â€?

Left him an acknowledgement on his OMP profile. That's comforting. I'm not placing any blame on this model, but it makes you question references.

She did have some pretty photos though (as per news feed lol)..  So I mean, that really sucks that this had to give OMP a bad name, but there are always bad apples and I tell everyone that you should never go to meet a photographer alone and others should know where you are.. but then again I don't think that people under 18 should be posing nude.  Somehow I think OMP shouldn't allow girls under 18.. or should help filter them or something, I dunno.

BCI Photo wrote:

Or maybe, just maybe the kid lied about their where-a-bouts?

*edit*

And still, that's no excuse on the photogs part. No way in hell i'm shooting a minor alone or without an adult present. That's just common sense 101

Again, you seem to be forgetting that common sense is not a common virtue.

Mark Reese Photography wrote:

Again, you seem to be forgetting that common sense is not a common virtue.

Oh I haven't forgotten it, but so many, many have.

MandyTequila wrote:

they cannot be part of his "child pornography" because child pornography is a CHILD which means under 16 . and as u can see even the police said its not because ITS NOT!

Not all correct, In Canada a person under 18 can not concent to haveing nude pictures taken.  The key here is you being under 18 can not say yes, your gaurdian must consent.   In Winnapeg about 5 years ago, a man was charged for taking pictures of his girlfriend, she was 17 he was 39.

MandyTequila wrote:

they cannot be part of his "child pornography" because child pornography is a CHILD which means under 16 . and as u can see even the police said its not because ITS NOT!

Child can actually mean anyone under legal age. I know you at 17 do not want to be called a child, but in the wording of the law,,,,,,,well -shrug-

PhotoSmurf wrote:
For the record, it is ILLEGAL to take topless shots of 17 year olds in Canada.

There was a controversial decision in 1996 by the Ontario Court of Appeal which allowed ADULT women to expose their breasts in public. But this NEVER applied to underage girls and even the 1996 ruling was soon reversed by federal court.

EDIT: Individuals who offer their own interpretation of the law would be well advised to consult competent legal advice first. For example, I consulted my brother, a lawyer with White & Case, and one of my clients, a senior partner with McMillan Binch Mendelsohn. Their legal opinion regarding taking topless shots, in Canada, with 17 year olds was unambiguous.

For the record, you are just wrong

Topless is OK for 17 year old girls (perhaps really dumb for the photographer).

The Gwen Jacobs case did not limit its effect to adults. And it was never reversed by a federal court. Where do you get this stuff?

Because the legal advice you cite is so wrong, I am left believing that you are making it all up, and just trying to sound like an authority.

Tyler wrote:
Not good.  I may have to take us 18+.

Ha.

You can't buy this sort of publicity.

Ask Madonna.

Dave Krueger wrote:

If liking 17 year old boobs makes you "sick" and liking 18 year old boobs makes you healthy, then the sick folks have a lot of company.  In fact, it's interesting that female  physical development apparently happens at an earlier age even as laws acknowledging their maturity have been pushed out to later ages.

I think we're all going to have to wait and see what the real facts are.  Despite all the sentiments that the guy should fry, I don't think there's enough detail in the story (there almost never is)  for anyone to have a very clear picture of what the guy did.

You don't owe the guy anything but the truth.  Just the accusations will destroy his life, so his ass is already grass, but there's no need to jump on the bandwagon to hang him just because that's what everyone else is doing.

Yes!

Spoken like a real statesman.

(A deep bow)

PhotoSmurf wrote:
P.S. The Gwen Jacobs case involved "indecent exposure". The defendant was an adult and child pornography was never an issue.

The Gwen Jacobs case was about being nude in a public place.

Some people just make it up as they go.

Dave Krueger wrote:

Hmmm...  I think the title of photographer is fiting for someone who has a camera in their hands.   

I'm not referring to what you said, but personally I get tired of hearing how sleazy every photographer is who doesn't have a store front, degree, and apprenticeship history with some high end New York fashion shooter.  I don't think that being an amateur necessarily makes you anymore likely to be interested in molesting young women.  The one thing that makes these events newsworthy is that they aren't that common (relative to the number of photographers and models out there).

Well said. I started out as the web developer for a photographer and as he sunk further and further into alcohol abuse I took on photography to keep the money coming in. While the code hacking still is my bread and butter, I also make a good living off the niche market for photography I work. On the upside, things are going along well enough that I am moving to an office space in the next month or two.

I have not won any awards for my work but even better I've had my work show up in Suntory liquor ads, several SE Asian sites, and one of my shots of a company HQ in Pudong PRC is now their trademarked logo image.

Some people still stick their nose up at me as if I were not a photographer because I don't have their education.

But I get paid more than they do, so there!

PhotoSmurf wrote:
It would appear certain individual(s) are trying hard---perhaps too hard---to convince others that it is OK to photograph underage girls in topless poses.

I am willing to bet some already do but just do not say the model is under 18. Such an act would be frowned upon here but sites such as photo.net, an american based site, and fotocommunity.com, a UK based website have members such as at least one of the controversial names mentioned in many threads like this, and that photographer displays many under 18 nudes.

BCI Photo wrote:
All I know is, you'll NEVER get me to take topless/nude shots of any female between the ages of 10 and 17, nor will I be a part of or friends with anyone that does.

But, that's just me.

How would you know unless they told you they did or showed you the images?

Christina Janeiro wrote:
If you're 35 and posing topless that's your issue.
If you're 10 and posing topless that's still your issue.

I don't know. I think that the actually people posing nude and doing the pornography should be more focused on. Obviously, if they're young (young to me is still dependent on your parent[s]) and posing nude than something must be going on, whether it be from the parents or school, whatever.

Stop protecting the kids and start interrogating them. They're the ones showing their breasts. The photographers are just pervs.

Are we talking about 10 or 16 now. I agree with you that if a prepubescent child shows any sexual behavior then it's something in their environment that needs to be looked at. People who take advantage of them are sick and if they can't stop themselves from hurting kids they should be put away for life. Kids that age can't be held responsible for their actions in the way that adults can. That's just biology, their brains are not the same as adult brains.

Late teens are a different story. They have the hormones, sexual behavior is natural to them. The issue here is that they don't have enough life experience to judge how posing nude may affect their lives in their communities and sometimes repercussions can have long term effect on them and their families. I think that legal requirement to have their parents involved in the decision is a good idea and if my daughters really wanted to do it for the right reasons I wouldn't stand in their way. They are both legal adults and they didn't want to as minors although one of them painted herself and her friend (clothed) each with a hand on the other's breast for her high school art class assignment.

llegal or not I don't think it's immoral or wrong to take nude pictures of young people lets say 16 and up. For pornography I would say early twenties are more like it. By then what you do is really your own business.

BCI Photo wrote:
All I know is, you'll NEVER get me to take topless/nude shots of any female between the ages of 10 and 17, nor will I be a part of or friends with anyone that does.

But, that's just me.

Why not?

Is it a purely legal issue or is there a moral / public relations issue at play here?

Stephen Dawson wrote:

Not at all.

David Hamilton took beautiful nudes of 8 year old girls.

In England, 16 year old boobie shots are fine.

What is your point?

It may be legal for women to sunbath topless, maybe even walk down a street topless...but definitely not legal to photograph a 17 year old girl topless in your studio.

MandyTequila wrote:

how did u find out his bail conditions? and how would i contact his lawyer? id ont know how any of this stuff works so help me out please lol
and yes to whoever said im 17 and he has topless pics of me, he asked me with no force and i agreed because i felt comfortable with it, i told him absolutely no nude pics and he was fine with that, it makes no difference 17/18 i gave him my consent and thats all that matters..

Mandy,
A photographer should not ask you to pose topless until you have reached the age of 18. Even though you gave consent, he should have not proceded. In the eyes of the law, you cannot give consent.

I won't pass judgement on either of you for many reasons, but I would like to just leave it as saying that he knew your age and topless photos should not have even entered his mind.

BCI Photo wrote:
All I know is, you'll NEVER get me to take topless/nude shots of any female between the ages of 10 and 17, nor will I be a part of or friends with anyone that does.

But, that's just me.

Lmao! I wouldn't sweat. Just be wise to who you are dealing with. There some decietful young girls out here too. Sometimes it's not about the lack of parenting.

As for the photographer, who knows. I'm not going to go on the attack on this photographer, because I see how people can be quick to judge a situation without actually knowing all of the details. There are so many weakminded people out here who don't question things for themselves. It's not just the perv. you have to watchout for.

ImageWerks wrote:

It may be legal for women to sunbath topless, maybe even walk down a street topless...but definitely not legal to photograph a 17 year old girl topless in your studio.

As the police have been quoted in this thread, it is not illegal.

Why do you insist that it is?

I agree that a photographer is well advised to not take boobie shots of models under 18.

Stephen Dawson wrote:

As the police have been quoted in this thread, it is not illegal.

Why do you insist that it is?

I agree that a photographer is well advised to not take boobie shots of models under 18.

Because it is illegal. I'm sure whatever quote you are refering to(I don't have time to look through every thread) is most probably a misquote. If it was legal, I'm sure you would see underage topless pictures everywhere.

However, just for clarification, what are you saying...it is legal to photograph underage topless females in general or legal in this case because she is 17?