Photographer
revolution photography
Posts: 114
Los Angeles, California, US
A model I'm working with is 17, the shoot's US-based (SoCal) and she is insisting on doing implieds. Only reason I'm considering it is because she trusts me to do it - I'm obviously flattered but I feel obligated.
Normally, it's not an issue - I'd simply refuse. But, legally, what are the issues about surrounding this? This isn't commercial work, it's for her port. Thanks much,
Chris
::rev
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
Do you have parental consent?
Photographer
revolution photography
Posts: 114
Los Angeles, California, US
Yeah, I actually met her dad. The folks are very cool but I don't want to endure an eternity of assrape just for doing someone a favor.
Chris
::rev
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
With the clear advice that you should consult with an attorney if you are truly concerned, note that the legal aspects of shooting a minor, even nude, are not nearly as bad as most people presume them to be. Note, of course, that any release should be executed by her parents.
Do consult with an attorney if this concerns you - and if you're not willing to do that, consider avoiding losing any sleep over the issue by politely declining the shoot.
This is, however, not legal advice.
Photographer
Aperture Photographics
Posts: 310
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
revolution photography wrote:
A model I'm working with is 17, the shoot's US-based (SoCal) and she is insisting on doing implieds. Only reason I'm considering it is because she trusts me to do it - I'm obviously flattered but I feel obligated.
Normally, it's not an issue - I'd simply refuse. But, legally, what are the issues about surrounding this? This isn't commercial work, it's for her port. Thanks much,
Chris
::rev yeah, talk to a lawyer, a real one. one of my studio partners is a practising lawyer and a photographer, but he's stopped giving legal advice to photographers because most of them think they know better than he does. his only advice that I'll pass on is, "you don't have to have done anything wrong to be sued or arrested".
they lawyer should be able to advise you on the legalities and the risks, but won't make the decision for you about whether the risks are worth it. only you can do that.
Photographer
Indochine
Posts: 609
Los Angeles, California, US
Aperture Photographics wrote:
yeah, talk to a lawyer, a real one. one of my studio partners is a practising lawyer and a photographer, but he's stopped giving legal advice to photographers because most of them think they know better than he does. his only advice that I'll pass on is, "you don't have to have done anything wrong to be sued or arrested".
they lawyer should be able to advise you on the legalities and the risks, but won't make the decision for you about whether the risks are worth it. only you can do that. As a lawyer myself I can certainly relate to your partner's sentiments. Everybody thinks they're a lawyer. I've seen it repeatedly on this forum--someone asks for legal advice, someone like me gives a solid reply and people who are not lawyers continue to debate the pros and cons as if a lawyer never even chimed in.
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
Scaramanga wrote:
someone asks for legal advice, someone like me gives a solid reply and people who are not lawyers continue to debate the pros and cons as if a lawyer never even chimed in. I'm sorry, did you say something? :-)
Photographer
Fotographic Aspirations
Posts: 1966
Long Beach, California, US
Maybe I am way over cautious : "Both" parents sign consent to photograph minor, copy of birth cert., have neutral third party sign release as witness, have non interested adult party present at shoot at all times + one parent. If you really want to CYA have parents and minor on video tape prior to the shoot, ask all the standard pre deposition questions such as has any party consumed alcohol or drugs within the past 24 hrs that may effect ability to give consent, in detail describe nature and use of photos, advise all parties of nature and form of compensation etc....
What your trying like heck to avoid is someone later making claims that the images were in any way shape or form to be used for any other purpose than modeling portfolio to the best of your knowlidge. At the point her legal guardians give consent it is in fact no different than photographing any other person. Society is just hyper sensitive to use of minors in any adult manor .
Measure with care the potential issues that may surface, why a shoot like this is important and how well you know the minor and parent(s).
Good luck,
FA
Photographer
revolution photography
Posts: 114
Los Angeles, California, US
Thanks for the advice, everyone. I've been thinking about this more - she just called me again, actually. I told her I was working on it. Sheesh...
Thing is, she'll just go do it with someone else - and, chances are, it's someone with a skewed moral compass (you bloody photog types!) so I'd *like* to help her, I simply want to do it right. Of course, I already know I'd do everything I could to conceal her. Shit, at this point, I'll probably start off by shooting her in the darkroom.
And even if it goes off without a hitch, someone could nail my ass 5 years from now. Damn, this is greasy...
Chris
::rev
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
revolution photography wrote:
Thanks for the advice, everyone. I've been thinking about this more - she just called me again, actually. I told her I was working on it. Sheesh... She called you at 11:30pm?!
Seriously, if it worries you this much, decline.
The legal aspects are trivial compared to your concern.
Photographer
C and J Photography
Posts: 1986
Hauula, Hawaii, US
revolution photography wrote:
Of course, I already know I'd do everything I could to conceal her. Shit, at this point, I'll probably start off by shooting her in the darkroom.
And even if it goes off without a hitch, someone could nail my ass 5 years from now. Damn, this is greasy...
Chris
::rev I am more than a bit confused here. You ask about implieds, then talk about concealing her etc. How the heck do you shoot implieds? Implied means she is covered appropriately with clothing during the shoot. If you are shooting her nude and cropping with the lens, or later in your computer, Those are not implied. They are cropped.
What are you considering shooting?
Photographer
revolution photography
Posts: 114
Los Angeles, California, US
ArtisticDigitalImages wrote:
I am more than a bit confused here. You ask about implieds, then talk about concealing her etc. How the heck do you shoot implieds? Implied means she is covered appro bla bla bla... Gee, I dunno. I like to take a different approach.
Call me *ahem* old-fashioned but throwing a teddybear on a model's naughty bits is a little tired. I shoot full frame, if I need to crop, I'm using the wrong lens. That being said, I would present her in a nice setting but use some clever light to thoroughly conceal what we're not supposed to see. Light should work with you, not against you. And using an arm to create an implied is lazy if it's not integral to the pose.
Shooting her and cropping later obviously defeats the purpose. I don't want to be in posession of negs that are of underaged nudes. Shooting her and fixing it in post is not an option. Gimme a break.
Chris
::rev
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
You say you don't want underaged nudes.
May I ask why?
Would you be so kind as to quote me which law you would be breaking?
(consider this homework :-))
Photographer
revolution photography
Posts: 114
Los Angeles, California, US
Christopher Ambler wrote:
You say you don't want underaged nudes.
May I ask why?
Would you be so kind as to quote me which law you would be breaking?
(consider this homework :-)) I wasn't going to dignify this with a response but.. I'm relatively new here, I'll take my noob lumps. This time.
18 u.s.c. 2257 § Record keeping requirements
Did I pass?
Chris
::rev
Photographer
Robbie Wolf Photography
Posts: 569
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Anyone who is 17 is less than twelve months from being 18.
That's less time than you'll spend in court.
Model
Jay Dezelic
Posts: 5029
Seattle, Washington, US
Not worth the risk because most people in our society generally considered it to be morally and ethically wrong to shoot nude children. There are so many great models over 18, I don't know why anyone would want to take those kinds of chances. You don't need a layer, just common sense.
Photographer
Aperture Photographics
Posts: 310
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
revolution photography wrote:
Gee, I dunno. I like to take a different approach.
Call me *ahem* old-fashioned but throwing a teddybear on a model's naughty bits is a little tired. I shoot full frame, if I need to crop, I'm using the wrong lens. That being said, I would present her in a nice setting but use some clever light to thoroughly conceal what we're not supposed to see. Light should work with you, not against you. And using an arm to create an implied is lazy if it's not integral to the pose.
Shooting her and cropping later obviously defeats the purpose. I don't want to be in posession of negs that are of underaged nudes. Shooting her and fixing it in post is not an option. Gimme a break.
Chris
::rev If she is nude during the shoot, even if nothing is showing, this is NOT implied nudity. Implied nudity means she is wearing clothing, you've just cropped it out with your composition.
and what's the rush for her to have these in her portfolio? can't she wait until she is 18?
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
revolution photography wrote:
I wasn't going to dignify this with a response but.. I'm relatively new here, I'll take my noob lumps. This time.
18 u.s.c. 2257 § Record keeping requirements
Did I pass?
Chris
::rev no you actually failed quite horribly
The 18 u.s.c. 2257 Record keeping requirements are for pornography and pornographers....not photography and photographers
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Aperture Photographics wrote:
If she is nude during the shoot, even if nothing is showing, this is NOT implied nudity. Implied nudity means she is wearing clothing, you've just cropped it out with your composition. There are multiple definitions of implied nudity...please see the implied nudity thread for some of the more popular (use the search function at the bottom of the forums main page)
Implied nudity includes both images in which the model might be nude but the actually clothed but implied nude bits are hidden by composition or crop... *AND* ...actually nude bits hidden by part of the composition or a crop.
It is ridiculous that we keep arguing over what implied nudity is when it is clearly accepted as both, and even the words *implied nudity* can have either connotation.
She doesn't have to be naked for it to be implied that she is nude, and she doesn't have to be clothed for it to be implied (but not shown) that she is nude.
Photographer
Visur Fine Art Photo
Posts: 27
Carmel Valley Village, California, US
Tell her to come back after her 18th birthday and to keep her clothes on in photos until then. It just isn't worth the risk, for you or for her. As others have mentioned, the dad might be OK but the mom might not. Changed minds at later time could dispute the capacity for consent. The conduct of the shoot itself needs witnesses that wouldn't be parties to a later legal dispute. If you want to protect her from sleazoid shooters, tell her not to shoot with sleazoid shooters and come back when she is 18. This is not legal advice and should not be construed as such.
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25351
Santa Barbara, California, US
revolution photography wrote:
Yeah, I actually met her dad. The folks are very cool but I don't want to endure an eternity of assrape just for doing someone a favor. Isn't that actually an alternative definition of marriage?
Photographer
photosbydmp
Posts: 3808
Shepparton-Mooroopna, Victoria, Australia
revolution photography wrote:
Yeah, I actually met her dad. The folks are very cool but I don't want to endure an eternity of assrape just for doing someone a favor.
Chris
::rev not even something i would like to consider, leave it till she is 18, mum or dad change circumstances, and one gets angry ,your in a world of hurt.
Photographer
Visur Fine Art Photo
Posts: 27
Carmel Valley Village, California, US
18 U.S.C. § 2257. Record keeping requirements
(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter whichâ
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.
(b) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall, with respect to every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conductâ
(1) ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performerâs name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations;
(2) ascertain any name, other than the performerâs present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name; and
(3) record in the records required by subsection (a) the information required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection and such other identifying information as may be prescribed by regulation.
The statute goes on to distinguish actual sexually explicit conduct from simulated conduct.
So no, you don't have a recordkeeping requirement unless she engages in actual sexual conduct on camera. You just have the normal concerns: contributing to the delinquency of a minor (usually abated by parental consent), privacy lawsuits (usually abated by a release), and the universal damage to reputation or intentional infliction of emotional distress and local obscentity regulations that might be construed more narrowly when a minor is involved (yeah, yeah, "I know it when I see it"--Potter Stewart). That said, Jock Sturges spent years and more money than I have fighting legal battles over nude photos of underage people that hung in art galleries around the world.
Why do you want this headache? Why is she so insistent on "growing up" so fast?
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
revolution photography wrote:
Had copied the wrong title while actually referring to this;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ … -000-.html You are still missing it. Implied nudes are not covered by the federal statutes unless there is a lacivious display of the genitals (legs spread, hands in pants, etc). That is not what the OP is talking about.
I have a simple response to the OP. Forget whether it is legal or not legal. If you are not comfortable, why are you even considering it?
Your comment is that if you don't do it someone else will. Well, that is like saying that if you don't drive drunk someone else will so you might as well do it too!
I am not taking a position on whether you should do it or not. It probably isn't illegal. I just don't know why you are making such a big deal about it if you are unsure. Just pass and move onto something else.
Photographer
PDXImaging
Posts: 1476
Lake Oswego, Oregon, US
I am an attorney, just not in your state (which very likely has it's own governing law on the issue and I'd be surprised if any of them have a mom and dad ok'd the shoot defense). There's no way I'd advise a client to proceed with the shoot... So much could go wrong for you, even with the model and parental consent, and where's the upside for you, particularly balanced against the risks? This is one of those issues I would not want to view with the clarity of 20-20 hindsight if some child porn or contibuting to the delinquency of a minor allegations arise...
Photographer
James Johnson
Posts: 223
Anaheim, California, US
Save yourself the potential trouble. Wait till she is 18. So many things could go wrong here. For example, what happens if the parents don't like the pictures so they call the police saying this is not what they consented for?
I can't even believe someone is willing to put themselves in this much risk for no reason. Why?
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
PDXImaging wrote:
I am an attorney, The job of attorneys, it seems, is to tell people about all the horrible things that could possibly happen if they take any course at all.
As an attorney, why don't you tell us, in your judgement, what realistic laws would be broken by shooting non-sexual implied nudes of a 17 year old girl with parental consent?
Yes, we know that attorneys can and do manufacture all sorts of hypothetical problems - that's what they think they are paid for. Now, just for the moment, try not doing that and dealing instead with a realistic assessment of the risks.
And while you are at it, would you advise your clients to shoot nudes or implied nudes of models over 18? Isn't it true that they could also open themselves up to all manner of unrealistic, but possible, dangers by doing that as well?
Let me help. There are two images in your MM port that arguably meet the standards (as defined in case law and 18 USC 2256) for labeling under 18 USC 2257. Your profile contains no 2257 label. Do you meet the record-keeping requirements of the law and the new Federal Regulations for those and similar images?
Yes, the chances of getting charged with a crime for not doing so is very small - but would an attorney advise you to ignore the 2257 requirements? I'm confident that many attorneys, knowledgeable in the field, would advise you not to do what you have done, based on the possible legal ramifications.
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
If you feel you need to consult a lawyer before taking a photo, you probably shouldn't take the photo.
Photographer
PDXImaging
Posts: 1476
Lake Oswego, Oregon, US
TXPhotog wrote:
The job of attorneys, it seems, is to tell people about all the horrible things that could possibly happen if they take any course at all.
As an attorney, why don't you tell us, in your judgement, what realistic laws would be broken by shooting non-sexual implied nudes of a 17 year old girl with parental consent?
Yes, we know that attorneys can and do manufacture all sorts of hypothetical problems - that's what they think they are paid for. Now, just for the moment, try not doing that and dealing instead with a realistic assessment of the risks.
And while you are at it, would you advise your clients to shoot nudes or implied nudes of models over 18? Isn't it true that they could also open themselves up to all manner of unrealistic, but possible, dangers by doing that as well?
Again, a little sense of proportion and reality goes a long way. There are any number of laws that could be violated, consult an attorney in your state if you want meaningful answers as each state is different. I've identified issues of concern to me based on the question. Are you advising photographers to shoot nudes/implieds of minors? I'm sure that will be of comfort to someone standing in a jail cell with their back to a wall while the issue gets sorted out or bail is posted. And it's an old maxim that the way you determine if an issue requires the advice of an attorney is to go in and pay an attorney for the answer. If the photographer is seriously considering the shoot, this is one of those issues that requires legal advice. If you want to pay me my hourly rate for legal advice under the laws of the state of Oregon, I'm happy to accomodate you. Your retainer can be paid by cash, check or credit card...
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
PDXImaging wrote:
Are you advising photographers to shoot nudes/implieds of minors? I'm advising photographers that the situation is not nearly as stark, forbidding and unyielding as some people, including attorneys, would like to make it. Yes, a boogeyman might actually be found in a child's closet at night. But a little prudence without all the hyperventilation about "concievably possible" unrealistic dangers seems to me a better course.
As I've pointed out, your own profile has chosen to take a legally risky course. Would you advise others to follow your lead? I can guarantee you that there is legal risk in what you are doing - even though I could also advise you and others that the probability of actually going to jail for it is not great.
Do you suppose we could be more realistic, and not get all hung up on the tiniest of legal risks?
Photographer
PDXImaging
Posts: 1476
Lake Oswego, Oregon, US
The post asked a question about risks associated with shooting models under the age of 18. Why you have the time, energy or inclination to turn the discussion into one involving my shooting preference, style or portfolio escapes me. I can only assume you had some unfortunate experience with a lawyer in your past.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
PDXImaging wrote:
The post asked a question about risks associated with shooting models under the age of 18. Why you have the time, energy or inclination to turn the discussion into one involving my shooting preference, style or portfolio escapes me. I can only assume you had some unfortunate experience with a lawyer in your past. I've had many unfortunate experiences with lawyers, as anyone who has been in court has. That misses the point, except in the sense that such experiences add to the basis of knowledge people have to make judgements about the world.
I made no judgment about your shooting preference, style or portfolio except a legal one. The issue is one of legal risk. You, as an attorney, are giving advice about risk - so it seems reasonable to inquire how you, as an attorney, take your own advice about risk. It seems you are perfectly willing, in the real world, to accept certain legal risks. By implication, you advise others that those risks are acceptable (although, as an attorney, I'm sure you (and certain others) would advise that those risks are real.)
Which gets back to my point: attorneys can find all manner of risk in anything. That's what they think they get paid to do. But real people, in real situations, have to make judgments about the magnitude and probability of the risk, and act accordingly. Just as you did.
Photographer
PDXImaging
Posts: 1476
Lake Oswego, Oregon, US
TXPhotog wrote:
I've had many unfortunate experiences with lawyers, as anyone who has been in court has. That misses the point, except in the sense that such experiences add to the basis of knowledge people have to make judgements about the world.
I made no judgment about your shooting preference, style or portfolio except a legal one. The issue is one of legal risk. You, as an attorney, are giving advice about risk - so it seems reasonable to inquire how you, as an attorney, take your own advice about risk. It seems you are perfectly willing, in the real world, to accept certain legal risks. By implication, you advise others that those risks are acceptable (although, as an attorney, I'm sure you (and certain others) would advise that those risks are real.)
Which gets back to my point: attorneys can find all manner of risk in anything. That's what they think they get paid to do. But real people, in real situations, have to make judgments about the magnitude and probability of the risk, and act accordingly. Just as you did. There's no question, people make their own choices and reap the benefits or pay the consequences. That's what keeps me in business...
as an aside, I liked your polka dot dress shot, nicely done and very creative...
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
PDXImaging wrote:
There's no question, people make their own choices and reap the benefits or pay the consequences. That's what keeps me in business... I suppose it is what keeps you in business. But you say it as though it's a bad thing. As your own behavior points out, it isn't. People CANNOT allow themselves to be paralyzed by low-probability risks, or they would never do anything. Life is about accepting risk, or it is worthless.
That's not to say that it isn't prudent to know the possible risks, and to do a mature assessment of them. But it is to say that advice of the form, "Risks exist, so I can't advise you to do anything" should not be taken literally by anyone. And it also is to say that "mature assessment" does not mean that if a risk is found, one should not proceed.
Attorneys, as a matter of practice, always advise their clients on all the horrible things that could happen. As I noted earlier, that's what attorneys think they are paid to do. But as Shakespeare also noted, there comes a time when people have to think for themselves.
Photographer
Chili
Posts: 5146
Brooklyn, New York, US
chili raises his hand and sez
"excuse me? but what does God need with a starship?"
oops wrong movie
but same redundant point that nobody seems to adddress here, the issue is a legal issue at all, i think the real question we should all be asking the OP
what the F does a minor need with 'implied nudes'?
seriously? just because she sez she wants to do them?
so if she wants to try to smoke some crack too, you're just gonna go get her some?
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Chili wrote:
what the F does a minor need with 'implied nudes'? Not an unreasonable question, but we don't have enough information to know if there is a reasonable answer. There may well be, as the fashion industry in New York continually points out.
As is so often the case in these discussions, insufficient information exists to make a good, informed judgment.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
TXPhotog wrote:
Let me help. There are two images in your MM port that arguably meet the standards (as defined in case law and 18 USC 2256) for labeling under 18 USC 2257. Your profile contains no 2257 label. Do you meet the record-keeping requirements of the law and the new Federal Regulations for those and similar images? I totally understand your comments about attorneys. The job of an attorney giving advice is to provide an ounce of prevention. By definition, giving that advice will always be conservative and err well on the side of caution.
I think we all know that shooting implieds of a minor, by and large, is not illegal. That doesn't mean an overzealous cop won't cause you trouble or look for something simply because he is offended. I think caution is a perfectly good reason not to do the shoot, although it is probably totally legal and under the right cirucumstances, I would do the shoot.
I am curious though, what images do you consider to be subject to the 2257 requirements. This isn't an argument. I am more curious of your interpretaiton of 18 U.S.C. 2256 and 2257. A lot of people on the forums seem to see it differently than attorneys for the adult industry.
Generally speaking, 2256 and 2257 are seen as discreet. 2256 delinneates conduct which is illegal, 2257 identifies the circumstance under which specific records must be kept. There is an overlap, but 2256 is broader than 2257. As an example, 2256 specifies that the lacivious display of the genitals of a minor, clothed or unclothed, is unlawful. However, there is no requirement for recordkeeping under 2257 for lacivious display. There is an amendment to 2257 making its way though congress (although its passage is now becoming less likely), which would expand the record keeping to include lacivious display and simulated sex, simply because 2256 is broader than 2257.
Anyhow, without saying you are right or wrong, (I'm not interested in a debate), I take it you feel that his port has images with a lacivious display, covered by 2256 and thus you think he is required to maintain records pursuant to 2257?
Since there are clearly two schools of thought on this, no debate between us really matters until the Feds start enforcing 2257 and we get some court cases on the issue. Until then, it would just be a bunch of lay people debating something which won't make a difference until the courts intercede (that is if the feds ever try to prosecute someone on a records violation based solely on lacivious display or simulated sex). At this point, it hasn't happened.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I am curious though, what images do you consider to be subject to the 2257 requirements. I think this one: https://img4.modelmayhem.com/060610/11/ … 9b1d8c.jpg is very likely within the requirements for 2257. Others are more arguable.
Please note that 2257 as it stands no longer makes clear what is included within the law, because the format of 2256 has changed. 2257 says:
As used in this sectionâ
(1) the term âactual sexually explicit conductâ? means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;
However, there used to be subparagraphs (A) through (E), and "lascivious display of the genitals" was subparagraph (E) and therefor not included. That is no longer true:
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode1 … -000-.html
So some lawyer could discuss the risk created (or perhaps removed) by the changes, but since "lascivious display of the genitals" is now a subset of subparagraph (A), it would arguably now fall within the 2257 rules.
|
