Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
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.

I agree.  My point is not that these images DO trigger 2257 requirements, but that a knowledgeable lawyer, if asked, may well advise his client of the risk of posting those images without a 2257 label.  Risks never come home to roost until you get to court, but the discussion was about possibilities, not certainties.

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

Without going into legal arguments or arguments over the definitions of "implied nude" (Only one definition really matters, that of the Judge.), I'll just add this to the discussion.

Jock Sturgess lost his computer, negatives and disks and thousands of dollars in legal fees before he was cleared of the charges of child porn foro shooting nude underage girls.

A photograper in the midwest who was placed in handcuffs and placed in the back of a police car in the middle of photographing a teen fashion show in a shopping mall. Note, he had been hired by the mall authority to shoot the show.  It seems some busybody in the audience thought the was pointing his camera at the crotches of the fully dressed teen models as they walked on an elevated runway. He was ultimatedly released without charges, but after a rather embaressing incident and seeing his photo on the front page of his local newspaper as an accused child pornogrpher.

Then there were the mothers, two of whom I'm aware of, who were arrested for photographing their near infant children in the bath tub. Both spent time in jail and had their children removed from their custody, one for six months, before ultimately having charges dropped. Aside the the loss of their children, time in jail, loss of god knows how much money in legal costs, damage to their reputations, they were ultimately cleared, how many in their community still they were using their children for child porn?

As for your situation, consider that her parents might be happy and even eager for the to do the shoot you desribed, but how about her spinster Aunt Betty who gets a glimpse of portfolio, decides the images are porn and calls her neighbor, the police chief. Then you are off the races?

I've been in your situation with 17 year olds on a number of occasions and my advice is to 'just say no'!

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 :-))

Too many people conider only laws whichdirectly address child porn, esp Federal laws, but there is far more danger from local statutes. Some states have laws which spellout body parts which can not be shown in a photo. Then are othere are state laws, such as Child Endangerment,  Conributing the the Delinquency of a Minor and so on.  When a local district attorney or county sheriff who is up for reellection needs to, he can usually find a law to apply.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
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.

Exactly. On all points covered.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
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.

TXPhotog wrote:
I agree.  My point is not that these images DO trigger 2257 requirements, but that a knowledgeable lawyer, if asked, may well advise his client of the risk of posting those images without a 2257 label.  Risks never come home to roost until you get to court, but the discussion was about possibilities, not certainties.

I think the feds mucked up 2257 so much by the ambiguity and unclarity that its enforceability becomes more difficult. 

Attorneys, by their nature err towards conservatism, so I understand your point.

TXPhotog wrote:
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 section—
(1) the term “actual 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;

Again, I don't see the point of debating the issue since it is so unclear and I am not criticizing your comments.  This all comes down to the words actual but not simulated.

I think that language is going to come back to bite the feds.  That having been said, an attorney would clearly advise to err on the side of caution since there is nothing to prevent you from keeping 2257 records and complying with the requirements.  Obviouisly, if you had the records and kept them properly, whether it turned otu to be a covered image or not, there would be no risk.

I am not sure that the feds could prove the conduct was actual, rather than simulated but an attorney would probably suggest you not take the risk.  Whether or not it is covered, however, is another discussion.

If your point is that a conservative attorney would advise a client that the safest course would be to comply with 2257, I would agree, while I am not sure the image would actually trigger the requirements.

Chili wrote:
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?

Good point....

Always do your thinking with that body part sitting on your shoulders and you'll be fine

James Jackson wrote:

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.

It was my understanding that "implied nude" meant just that....the nudity was implied and not real.  Where as "covered nude" meant that the model WAS nude, but the nude parts were covered?

If a model comes into a project expecting "implied" and the photographer is expecting "covered", this can lead to issues.  I know girls who will do implied but won't do covered. 

If implied nudity was "clearly accepted as both", then nobody would ever question it.  Since there are questions, it's not "clearly accepted".

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
If your point is that a conservative attorney would advise a client that the safest course would be to comply with 2257, I would agree, while I am not sure the image would actually trigger the requirements.

Yes, that is exactly my point.

New subject, not directed at Alan:

revolution photography wrote:
But, legally, what are the issues about surrounding this?

For those who insist that we shouldn't be responding to this as a legal issue, please read the title of this thread and the quotation above.  It's fine to talk about other things if you feel motivated to, but it's off topic.  It was specifically "legal issues" that he asked about.

UnoMundo Photography wrote:
no no no no no no no no no no no

people fight and forget shit.

oh he made me sign, I was just a little teeny girl, your honor!

Thank you!  Stick to adults!

Aperture Photographics wrote:

It was my understanding that "implied nude" meant just that....the nudity was implied and not real.  Where as "covered nude" meant that the model WAS nude, but the nude parts were covered?

If a model comes into a project expecting "implied" and the photographer is expecting "covered", this can lead to issues.  I know girls who will do implied but won't do covered. 

If implied nudity was "clearly accepted as both", then nobody would ever question it.  Since there are questions, it's not "clearly accepted".

Well since the question seems to only come about on internet forums and the long accepted standard for implied nudity is any form of photo which seems to suggest that the model is nude, I'd say that it acutally is "clearly accepted" that implied nudity just means that the naughty bits won't be shown.

If you are unsure what implied nudity means to the general populace of artists, photographers, and models bring up this term "covered nudity" in polite conversation at your local arts college and count the number of people who look at you like you have three heads.

Seriously...it is a stupid debate.  Implied nudity or covered nudity, either way you can't see the nudity, so you have no way of telling by looking at a photo which it is.

Further it is a pointless debate because implied, covered, or full nudity the law and morality of the situation does not change.

James Jackson wrote:

no you actually failed quite horribly

The 18 u.s.c. 2257 Record keeping requirements are for pornography and pornographers....not photography and photographers

The California courts do not distinguish the two as easily as you assume.
He will see 7+ months of jail and $20,000+ in legal fees and more based on the assinine advice being doled out here.

Why is this even a topic... walk away.

James Jackson wrote:

Implied nudity or covered nudity, either way you can't see the nudity, so you have no way of telling by looking at a photo which it is.

Further it is a pointless debate because implied, covered, or full nudity the law and morality of the situation does not change.

While I agree with the last 2 points (you have no way of telling by looking at the final photo, and it doesn't change the situation with respect to the law), it simply DOES matter to the model (unless the model is fine with being nude, then of course it's immaterial).

Is there something the matter with caring to be clear with a model about what's expected of her by using language and terms that are clear and unambiguous?

Steven Bigler wrote:
Chris... you are a fool to consider it.

Check the CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE... search section "311.2" and similar.

It is easier to pass on the shoot... than to argue your RIGHTS from the wrong side of a jail cell.

Let's get real, shall we?  Prudence is one thing, but grossly mischaracterizing the law is quite another.

Section "311.2 and similar" do not prohibit a person from taking implied nudes of a minor.   Just for once I'd like to see a discussion of these issues without someone wildly misconstruing the law.  Here is what is actually prohibited, and it bears no relationship to what the OP was considering doing:

(d) (1) As used in subdivisions (b) and (c), "sexual conduct"
means any of the following, whether actual or simulated:  sexual
intercourse, oral copulation, anal intercourse, anal oral copulation,
masturbation, bestiality, sexual sadism, sexual masochism,
penetration of the vagina or rectum by any object in a lewd or
lascivious manner, exhibition of the genitals or pubic or rectal area
for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer, any lewd or
lascivious sexual act as defined in Section 288, or excretory
functions performed in a lewd or lascivious manner, whether or not
any of the above conduct is performed alone or between members of the
same or opposite sex or between humans and animals.  An act is
simulated when it gives the appearance of being sexual conduct.

artphotodude wrote:
A number of major magazines will shoot the work with a parent's release, then hold the pictures till the model becomes 18 then publish.

Could you name some of those magazines?  I've certainly never heard of it.

artphotodude wrote:
I once had a shoot with a 14 year old (before everyone gets freaked-out, she came from a family  of serious fashion models, and looked like she was 21).  Her parents were happy to sign full releases and permission slips, and basically, it went really well.  We shot very classical tasteful stuff, and everybody was happy with the work, but the trouble was that under copyright law, you may have a serious problem being protected if somebody were to try and steal the pictures.  Then, if they were to turn up in some naughty venues, there would be serious trouble for everyone.  A number of major magazines will shoot the work with a parent's release, then hold the pictures till the model becomes 18 then publish.  If the model is wanting these right away, I would decline, but if she is willing to wait, then that might be better - but of course, if she were willing to wait, then you could simply shoot then, and save a lot of grief!!

Jumping in late on this ... I've done the same thing 10 to 20 years ago.  Shot some 16 year olds doing implied, and the parents had no problem with it!  Then the Internet happened and (sarcastically!) "everyone knows that the Internet makes all models instant porn stars!"   It's a misconception on the part of uneducated parents, but many are paranoid that their daughters are going to some how be harmed from having images on the 'net!

One thing that you wrote is very confusing ... "A number of major magazines will shoot the work with a parent's release, then hold the pictures till the model becomes 18 then publish."   If parents sign a release for a minors pictures to be published, then there doesn't need to be a waiting period.  It would seem strange to have a "waiting period" when the images are perfectly legal.  Now if we are talking about shooting a minor age then trying to publish her pictures after she is an adult, there might be a problem?  At least I think so!

Vivus Denuo wrote:
Who among us would be happy if we got arrested by an overzealous cop, held in jail on high bail,threatened or beaten while in jail, mortgaged the house to make bail, had our cameras and computers seized and forensically examined, spent thousands to hire a lawyer, got prosecuted by a zealous prosecuter, then got acquitted because the law was on our side?

Save yourself the trouble.  Wait until she's 18.  Meanwhile, shoot with the zillions of models who are of age. 

My point exactly.  Even if you do it "by the book" and are technically not in violation of applicable law, is that really going to make you feel better if the sh** hits the fan?  (not a legal term, I know)

Patrick Walberg wrote:

One thing that you wrote is very confusing ... "A number of major magazines will shoot the work with a parent's release, then hold the pictures till the model becomes 18 then publish."   If parents sign a release for a minors pictures to be published, then there doesn't need to be a waiting period.  It would seem strange to have a "waiting period" when the images are perfectly legal.  Now if we are talking about shooting a minor age then trying to publish her pictures after she is an adult, there might be a problem?  At least I think so!

What I mean is that magazines like Playboy like to get talent before it is all over the place and often will sometimes hire models who are underage and shoot all kinds of fairly risky stuff, but then hold it until the model is 18 to publish.  This is due to US copyright law that states that photos depicting minors in sensual poses may not be copyrighted, so if they published the shots even with a parent's permission, they could not stop anyone from reproducing the pictures.

artphotodude wrote:
What I mean is that magazines like Playboy like to get talent before it is all over the place and often will sometimes hire models who are underage and shoot all kinds of fairly risky stuff, but then hold it until the model is 18 to publish.  This is due to US copyright law that states that photos depicting minors in sensual poses may not be copyrighted, so if they published the shots even with a parent's permission, they could not stop anyone from reproducing the pictures.

You know, I like a good joke as much as anyone.  But this isn't even a good joke.

1.  Playboy does no such thing.

2.  There is no such copyright law.

I really think this is the most completely senseless thing I have ever seen on the MM forums - and that is saying a lot!

artphotodude wrote:
What I mean is that magazines like Playboy like to get talent before it is all over the place and often will sometimes hire models who are underage and shoot all kinds of fairly risky stuff, but then hold it until the model is 18 to publish.  This is due to US copyright law that states that photos depicting minors in sensual poses may not be copyrighted, so if they published the shots even with a parent's permission, they could not stop anyone from reproducing the pictures.

TXPhotog wrote:
You know, I like a good joke as much as anyone.  But this isn't even a good joke.

1.  Playboy does no such thing.

2.  There is no such copyright law.

I really think this is the most completely senseless thing I have ever seen on the MM forums - and that is saying a lot!

Don't you know, everyone is entitled to invent a law every now and then?

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Don't you know, everyone is entitled to invent a law every now and then?

I'm learning . . . .

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

artphotodude wrote:
What I mean is that magazines like Playboy like to get talent before it is all over the place and often will sometimes hire models who are underage and shoot all kinds of fairly risky stuff, but then hold it until the model is 18 to publish.  This is due to US copyright law that states that photos depicting minors in sensual poses may not be copyrighted, so if they published the shots even with a parent's permission, they could not stop anyone from reproducing the pictures.

Don't you know, everyone is entitled to invent a law every now and then?

It's so much easier than dealing with those nasty legistlators.

artphotodude wrote:
What I mean is that magazines like Playboy like to get talent before it is all over the place and often will sometimes hire models who are underage and shoot all kinds of fairly risky stuff, but then hold it until the model is 18 to publish.  This is due to US copyright law that states that photos depicting minors in sensual poses may not be copyrighted, so if they published the shots even with a parent's permission, they could not stop anyone from reproducing the pictures.

Maybe I can do the shoot afterall, will you represent me?

Chris
::rev

Aperture Photographics wrote:

It was my understanding that "implied nude" meant just that....the nudity was implied and not real.  Where as "covered nude" meant that the model WAS nude, but the nude parts were covered?

If a model comes into a project expecting "implied" and the photographer is expecting "covered", this can lead to issues.  I know girls who will do implied but won't do covered. 

If implied nudity was "clearly accepted as both", then nobody would ever question it.  Since there are questions, it's not "clearly accepted".

My girlfriends & I agreed that we have never been asked to do COVERED nude...its not really nude if you are covered, it is seen as implied!
People clearly have different ideas about what implied is...  either the nudity shows in some way, or it is merely implied, or it is implied when it wasnt ever really there - a more exact definition, I agree
But whether it WAS there or not in the studio isn't really ever going to be known to the casual observer

My concern is that :
A) His concern is intuition he's not listening to
hes asking advice and rationalising instead of steering clear for a few months
B) This 17 year old minx is INSISTING???
SHE is NOT the boss

ok?

Good Luck