ImageWerks wrote:

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?

Damn,

amazing how this has turned into an argument. I'm sure the Po-Po had their reasons for stating it was legal. While you won't catch me photographing a minor period, because people are too damn paranoid. I recall a well known female photographer, photographing her children in the raw and put them in books for the world to see. While it seems strange, she was able to do this, but not without controversy. There was nothing that they could do because the way the images were displayed wasn't classified as porn.

What I'm thinking is that the photographer had a series of nudes, something like many of those European photographers shoot oer in Europe. A lolita fine arts style, and people tripped out and exposed him. He may not have had bad intentions on shooting what you classify as porn.

When I think about it, it's funny and weird at how some countries can have their children and adults but naked around in villages. but here if someone sees a pair of panties people lose their damn minds.

It was unwise for the photographer to take a risk like that, even if he was sincere. Very unwise.

Legacys 7 wrote:

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.

Oh now i'm weakminded because I don't want to go to jail over some overzealous DA's interpretation of porn?

Look people, that's MY PERSONAL DECISION IN LIFE THAT I HAVE TO LIVE WITH, not yours.  So what if i'll never shoot an underage girl topless. If you guys want to shoot topless teenagers, knock yourselves out, be my guest. I've already had my inventory raided before, and i'll be damned if I go through it again.

Plus I do think you're forgetting something. Take this girl in this thread for instance.
She goes to the shoot, does topless pics without her parents knowledge. Now if i'm her father and I run into these pics, guess who's ass is getting kicked????

Yes, the photographers. I wouldn't want to hear any "ifs," "ands" or "buts." You're a grown ass man, there's no way in HELL you can justify having my 16 year old topless, I don't care if Jesus was your art director on the shoot while Superman was helping with lighting. And that's me talking as a man with common sense.

I question anyones motives that wants to shoot underage girls nude "just because" or for "her portfolio."

ImageWerks wrote:
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.

What sort of argument is that? "I sure if it was legal, you would see it everywhere."

Having sex is legal (and as disturbing as it may be, even with a 14 year old, in Canada), but that does not mean you see it happening everywhere.

ImageWerks wrote:
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?

There is no law in Canada that makes it, ipso facto (a greek phrase that has the legal meaning "in and of itself") illegal to take photographs of a nude person, no matter how young.

For nudity to become kiddie porn there has to be a depiction of sexual activity, or a focus on the sex organs or anal region.

I posted the exact text from the Criminal Code of Canada earlier in the thread.

I suggest the main reason you do not see publication of pictures of topless 17 year olds is because their is a big downside to doing it (controvercy) and no upside.

The law gives us a very nice, clear, distinction, that at 18 someone is an adult. And lots of things suddenly become legal.

I think it is pretty smart to stay on the 18+ side.

BCI Photo wrote:
Oh now i'm weakminded because I don't want to go to jail over some overzealous DA's interpretation of porn?

Well, I think in the US shooting a topless pic of a 17 year old *is* illegal.

Laws vary depending on what jurisdiction you are in. The case we are talking about occured in Canada.

The laws of Canada and Ontario apply.

Stephen Dawson wrote:
I suggest the main reason you do not see publication of pictures of topless 17 year olds is because their is a big downside to doing it (controversy) and no upside.

The law gives us a very nice, clear, distinction, that at 18 someone is an adult. And lots of things suddenly become legal.

I think it is pretty smart to stay on the 18+ side.

Say it again, I don't think they heard you.

Stephen Dawson wrote:

What sort of argument is that? "I sure if it was legal, you would see it everywhere."

Having sex is legal (and as disturbing as it may be, even with a 14 year old, in Canada), but that does not mean you see it happening everywhere.

What, now you're linking sex into this thread? What sort of argument are you trying to bring forth...that now not only is it legal to take pictures of underage models, you should have sex with them too.

It seems that we agree to disagree and if you feel an upside to shooting underage models topless, go for it. Using your definitions, a model could pose for the pictures but could not purchase her pictures because you have to be 18+ in this country to purchase adult related material.

However, keep in mind that a model needs to be 18+ to sign a contract or have a parent or guardian present to sign.

ImageWerks wrote:
What, now you're linking sex into this thread? What sort of argument are you trying to bring forth...that now not only is it legal to take pictures of underage models, you should have sex with them too.

It seems that we agree to disagree and if you feel an upside to shooting underage models topless, go for it. Using your definitions, a model could pose for the pictures but could not purchase her pictures because you have to be 18+ in this country to purchase adult related material.

If you ever got into a logic or philosophy class you would be (metaphorically) roasted alive for using straw man arguments the way you do.

You would probably do very well on a fundie debating team, however. You may want to consider auditioning for FOX news.

MandyTequila wrote:

i dont all of a sudden not like him based on what the tv says. i am actually still confused on whether i should defend him or not, because i have no reason not to.. i am just being cautious because with these accusations IF they are true why would i want some sick pedaphile having my topless pictures in his possession.. if none of this stuff was true and he didnt do anything and was innocent it would make no difference to me. but now that hes been accused of all this shit i dont know what he could have done to my topless pictures do u know what i mean? he could have put them on like a kiddie porn site eventhough thats more of an under 14 thing, or sold my pictures to other sick people like him and made money off of it, u never know and thats why i was a lil scared and just trying to protect myself. i would actually like to speak to karim myself.. i heard he let out on bail so maybe ill be able to contact him and i just want to see what he will say about all this u know, i want to hear it from his side but im gonna talk to the police n stuff before i make any contact with him again just incase.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is why you don't shoot nude or topless with minors! If push comes to shove, they may say anything to protect themselves from public condemnation or Daddy's anger.
There's nothing illegal about it as long as the shots are not sexual in any way, but you can be crucified even if you are innocent.

Lens N Light wrote:

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is why you don't shoot nude or topless with minors! If push comes to shove, they may say anything to protect themselves from public condemnation or Daddy's anger.
There's nothing illegal about it as long as the shots are not sexual in any way, but you can be crucified even if you are innocent.

You can't tell certain people that, they love underage girls too much to understand the logic of why they shouldn't do it.

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

Please.

mjr.

Stephen Dawson wrote:
Well, I think in the US shooting a topless pic of a 17 year old *is* illegal.
Laws vary depending on what jurisdiction you are in.

It is in some places, but if you live in the progressive state of Alabama (LMAO!), it's only illegal if you're 16 and under.  But, when the Alabama Attorney General tried to prosecute Barnes & Noble for selling child porn (in the form of books by Jock Sturges), B&N didn't cave in to the indimidation and the charges were ultimately dropped.  Simple nudity at any age has generally been upheld as protected expression by the Supremes.   That only offers minimal protection though.  The attitude among some over-zealous prosecutors is "We may not be able to win, but at least we can destroy their lives".  And, of course, they're right.  Mention children and  most people want to hang 'em first and ask questions later.

fuscophoto wrote:
How could anybody defend him. The police found child porn on his computer.

The police say they found child porn on his computer.  I don't think people are defending him so much as suggesting that he not be condemned simply because of an unsubstantiated and rather vague set of facts.

It always surprises me how quick people (especially the media) accept whatever the cops and prosecutors say without challenge or the even the slightest bit of skepticism.

Stephen Dawson wrote:

If you ever got into a logic or philosophy class you would be (metaphorically) roasted alive for using straw man arguments the way you do.

You would probably do very well on a fundie debating team, however. You may want to consider auditioning for FOX news.

You were the one that brought up the extraneous info.

fuscophoto wrote:
How could anybody defend him. The police found child porn on his computer. Many of you don't understand how serious this is for him already because he photographed a minor nude. If your underage, you need to check references and bring somebody to the shoot. Models, use your F#$#in brains and keep your clothes on until your 18+.

I might also add....photographers use your F#$#in brains and just don't shoot topless, nude, unclothed minors.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

Please.

mjr.

I wholeheartedly agree.

ImageWerks wrote:

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?

In Ontario? It's 100% legal to photograph models of any age topless, not recommended but legal.

Canada's funny that way ... we have provisions for art.

MandyTequila wrote:
i did want to pose topless, i didnt mind because i felt comfortable with him, the only reason i said i dont want him to have those pics now is because of what hes been accused of, otherwise it wouldnt make a difference to me. and the stupid citytv didnt put the good things i said on tv.. they edited the whole interview and made it seem so more dramatic and bad than they should have.

got love the Media
   Once they get his Photos/PC they will have the proof they need to throw him in jail.  Till then he is "Free", except to the media

thisismyurl wrote:

In Ontario? It's 100% legal to photograph models of any age topless, not recommended but legal.

Canada's funny that way ... we have provisions for art.

With parental consent. She would not be able to sign a release as she is a minor.

Stephen Dawson wrote:
I believe that the day someone turns 18, is really just another day, **in the context of parental  responsibility**.

It may be so, however, in legal context it a whole new ballgame (of course age, "18", depends on local laws).

Stephen Dawson wrote:
I just caught the story on the television news (Global).

They made a big deal that he met the models on OMP and they gave his name and OMP number, 6107.

http://member.onemodelplace.com/member.cfm?P_ID=6107

Looked like they have video of someone from OMP talking to them on the phone.  They left an impression that the legitimacy of OMP and sites like it may be doubtful.

They featured a 14 year old female model who looks 20, shooting with a Toronto photographer who said the PC things, and he warned about GWCs. Then they had the owner of Sutherland's on, and it was implied models should only work through an agency.

As a news story it rates a 10. As for accuracy, maybe a 6.

There is a photographer  in Nashville who shoots 14 year old's looking like they are 20 . I refused to shoot with the girl after she shot that look with him . She is just as nice as she can be but the images are just wrong for her at her present age. I did not want it to be assumed that I agreed with her images from him.

Gregory Garecki wrote:
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.

Oh come on!  We are talking about a society where the laws have yet to catch up.  Canada may be better than most places in their laws, but they are still behind.  12 year olds are having babies!!!!!  The do not realize how that will impact their future either, but they are choosing to do it.  How is this different than posing nude. 

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.

So let me get this straight, it is okay for a baby girl to walk the beach in her diaper and no shirt, but then from age 3-17 she must wear a top, then at 18 she can take it back off again?!?! NO! In Canada women/girls can walk around topless outdoors, PERIOD! In establishment, they can set their own rules.

BUT THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT TOPLESS LAWS! It is about pictures of topless minors.  A picture of a minor topless is not against the law.  That is why you can find many, many pictures of children in baths, topless children in Africa, Anne Gedies picture of topless babies, and the list goes on. 

This man must have had taken more pictures than what we can find online easily.  For the court to be charging him, he must have had been ACCUSED of sexually assulting someone or they may SUSPECT him of having more graphic images. 

In my personal opinion, even if he had graphic pictures of 16 years olds, there should not be anything wrong with that (though clearly our Canadian laws do not say that).  Truth be told, at 16 I was fully aware of my body and even much to open with it.

Monika Maple wrote:
This man must have had taken more pictures than what we can find online easily.  For the court to be charging him, he must have had been ACCUSED of sexually assulting someone or they may SUSPECT him of having more graphic images.

I am not certain about the timeline, but it seemed that the cops claimed he had kiddie porn on his computer a little too soon. The cops making the raid would not rush it back to the station, boot it up, and go searching. Handling seized evidence properly takes time.

Something triggered a complaint from one of the underage models, and a claim that he did something inappropriate.

Corroberation of an assertion is not required to get a warrent, and lay charges.

ImageWerks wrote:

With parental consent. She would not be able to sign a release as she is a minor.

True, she is unable to enter into a contract without parental consent but that has nothing to do with the legality of the photography, simply that as a photographer you have to be aware that you are shooting without a release and as such, you have to ensure that you’re not photographing her face … which if I understand his interests, wasn’t what he was interested in anyways.

The model could easily of posed for butt & boob shots without the photographer having any legal requirements for a release, as long as she was not recognizable … or so I’ve always thought.

J. Welborn wrote:
There is a photographer  in Nashville who shoots 14 year old's looking like they are 20 . I refused to shoot with the girl after she shot that look with him . She is just as nice as she can be but the images are just wrong for her at her present age. I did not want it to be assumed that I agreed with her images from him.

What about the sick freaks who shoot a six year old as if she were twenty?




Sorry, gang, eighteen sounds like a fine place to draw the line.

ImageWerks wrote:

With parental consent. She would not be able to sign a release as she is a minor.

Actually under Canadian contract law, an adult and a minor may enter into a contract.

But most likely the terms are not enforcable on the minor. The terms would, most likey, be enforcable on the adult.

And while we know a model release is required for commercial use of the images, other uses may not require any release at all.

Stephen Dawson wrote:
Actually under Canadian contract law, an adult and a minor may enter into a contract.

Under U.S. law as well.  Dealing with minors is one of the most misunderstood things on this board.  Minors enter into contracts all the time.  If a 16 year old goes in and orders a new bicycle, that is a form of contract.

In most cases, a contract by a minor is rescindable by the minor (they can change their mind) but is enforceable against the adult.

As an example, if a minor ordered a bicycle and then changed his mind, you would most probably have to refund the deposit.  On the other hand, if the minor purchased the bicycle and it had a defect, you would have to honor the warranty.

If you sold a minor a bicycle on a payment plan, you would have a difficult time suing the minor for the late payments.  On the other hand, if the minor gave you a deposit on the bicycle and you failed to deliver, you could be sued for the loss by the minor.

Likewise, a  minor can sign a release, and unless they were so young as to be incompetent to understand what they were signing, the release would probably be valid.  The problem is that the minor could sign the release today and change their mind tomorrow.  Once they notified you of their change of heart, the release would probably become invalid.

A parent is competent to grant consent on behalf of their child and therefore it is binding.

Now shooting minors topless is an entirely different issue.

BCI Photo wrote:

Oh now i'm weakminded because I don't want to go to jail over some overzealous DA's interpretation of porn?

Look people, that's MY PERSONAL DECISION IN LIFE THAT I HAVE TO LIVE WITH, not yours.  So what if i'll never shoot an underage girl topless. If you guys want to shoot topless teenagers, knock yourselves out, be my guest. I've already had my inventory raided before, and i'll be damned if I go through it again.

Plus I do think you're forgetting something. Take this girl in this thread for instance.
She goes to the shoot, does topless pics without her parents knowledge. Now if i'm her father and I run into these pics, guess who's ass is getting kicked????

Yes, the photographers. I wouldn't want to hear any "ifs," "ands" or "buts." You're a grown ass man, there's no way in HELL you can justify having my 16 year old topless, I don't care if Jesus was your art director on the shoot while Superman was helping with lighting. And that's me talking as a man with common sense.

I question anyones motives that wants to shoot underage girls nude "just because" or for "her portfolio."

Man loosen up your panties. Where in my post did I state that BCI was weakminded? Damn, some of you people on this website have some serious issues. All that I stated is that some people don't question things, they just assume that it is something else vs another. Whatever your choice and belief is, is your own. Not only did you missed that point, but you also missed my point of me not putting myself in that position. I didn't miss anything that you have addressed nor the girl.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:

What about the sick freaks who shoot a six year old as if she were twenty?




Sorry, gang, eighteen sounds like a fine place to draw the line.

and let's not forget the mother who got away with murder.