Christopher Ambler wrote:

Bad example. She had a body double.

Yeah, but she was like 10 when she did Pretty Baby, and there was no body double there. 

I agree that artistically, any age should be photographable in terms of nudity..as long as it is not sexual or perverse in theme/nature.  The problem is, this country has a VERY wide band of what it considers sexual/perverse. 

I have already turned down models that were 17 that wanted to do lingerie and implied nude shots.  I might not get into trouble doing it, but I'd rather not take the chance.  And non-legally speaking, I fear fathers with shotguns more than a judge with a gavel..

MainFragger/Brian

Gilbert Echeverria wrote:
I agree with Giuliana. don't be so shocked to know that it happens all over. It seems to be it be best you stay in the confines of your state so it makes life easier for everyone else. This country is somewhat hypocritical when it comes to these things especially when it comes to underage drinking and what have you.
It would be great if people would spend their energy on those things that really hampers today's youth as opposed to someone who is just modeling.
My point is, don't bark before you bite. Find out what is right and wrong in your own backyard before attacking someone when you have no clue of their lifestyle.

Ditto...

I also loved the first comment from the moderator. There is this bizarre self righteous over protectiveness in the US. We are quick to point out possible moral transgressions in order to appear pure and right and on top of the higher ground.

Let is go people.

TMShots Photo wrote:
But as it is, it is illeagal and rightfully so!

In Alabama a 17 y.o. can pose in non-sexually explicit nude with parental permission.  Laws vary. But nothing that is considered art and non-sexual will get a photog in jail, hassled maybe, but not jailed.

Ray Savage wrote:
Is it just me....or has MM been invaded by do-gooders trying to save the world lately?

WTF?

Hey Ray, I'm seeing an upswing in this too.  People having such good ideas about what other people shouldn't be doing, or what images to make, or not make.

Lots of assertions, nothing, not even common sense, to back them up.

And a lack of awareness about what it says about them.
Curt

DAntony wrote:
Makes me think a few years back when Brooke Shields was just a mere pre teen and how she starred in "The Blue Lagoon " and "Pretty Baby" for all the USA and ...GULP, world to see! Acting  in semi nude scenes and being portrayed  in a house of ill repute! It blew over. Made her more of star and most people have forgotten about it ! I'm having another glass of wine! Is there something else more interesting and pertinent to talk about?

Pretty baby was full nude well except for a G-string that Susan Sarandon gave her. Brook Shields was way underage at 13. She had her parents consent. They were on set and so was Child Protective Services (I think it was called child welfare back then)

Oh and the few years back that you mention - 28 years.  Someone mentioned it being a body double. Not for Pretty Baby.

Christopher Ambler wrote:
Bad example. She had a body double.

I think you may be wrong on that Chris! 
I was watching aa show one night about scandalous things and, they brought up the "American beauty" nude scene with Thora Birch... She was 17 at the time but, her parents gave consent to the filming and were on set when it happened (as well as a rep from the CPA).

Well, that's what the television told me and... It never lies, does it?? 


Edit:  The op is no longer a member.

T H Taylor wrote:
Edit:  The op is no longer a member.

Guess when he made the dare,

TMShots Photo wrote:
...I just dare someone to comment saying this action is ok, artistic and I'm making too much out of nothing.

.. he didn't like the answers he got.

So sad; too bad; bye bye.

Studio36

Surreal Eye Studio wrote:
I've found that the people who complain the most about art being 'overly sexual' are the ones who get turned on by it the most and subconsciously translate that arousal into disgust.

Or did I see that on Dr Phil....

"We fear that in others which we most fear in ourselves"
- - - Anon

Studio36

rachelrose wrote:
I think that there is a difference between the top models and top photographers shooting, because at least then you know it is a professional situation. I man Karolina Kurkova was in the Vistoria's Secret catalouge before she was 18. SHe has also shot topless before she was 18. I tsill don't get the obsession with nudes... must be a photographer thing.

I would think though, as a photographer, there are so many "bad guy" "perv" stereotypes anyways. You would want to do what you can to not put yourself in harms way. What if that girl said that you tried to "oil her up" or something.... having semi-nude pictures of her, probably is not going to help the defense. Now I am not a lawyer, so please do not come back at me just to show off your legal know how. I am just saying that from the eyes of an oustider, this is what it would look like to me. Even if there is a parent there, they could try to get money out of you or threaten you.

It just seems like a bad idea. But I also understand that many photographers are OBSESSED with shooting nudes and the only people who seem to be open to that (for free) are girls who are turning or barely 18 or women who are 39. So I can see why a 17 year old might be more tempting to shoot, no matter how in shape a 39 year old is... she will never be 17 again.

So my advice is to be smart and watch yourselves. Because you are already percieved by the media as "the bad guy", so don't put yourselves in harms way.

Wish i could find some of those 39 year olds your talkin about...

(:-------

Hj

TMShots Photo wrote:
I just saw a picture that was quickly taken down after a complaint to the model on another site that made me ill!!  This model, female, 17 had a topless, back to the camera shot up and she didnt think it was an implied.  Now I know there are some of you that wont see anything wrong with this, You'll make yourself known as you comment to my rant.  But as it is, it is illeagal and rightfully so!  It is wrong and discusting.  I can not believe that there would be a photographer that would do such a thing and makes me just sick!! So what was the female models comment? Oh I'll be 18 in 14 days and I'll just put it up then.  IT WONT MATTER!!! IT WAS STILL TAKEN AS A MINOR!!!  So where will it stop? implieds with 16? 15?  Is this where our profession is heading???  Go ahead, make yourself known.  I just dare someone to comment saying this action is ok, artistic and I'm making too much out of nothing.

TMShots Photo wrote:
I just saw a picture that was quickly taken down after a complaint to the model on another site that made me ill!!  This model, female, 17 had a topless, back to the camera shot up and she didnt think it was an implied.  Now I know there are some of you that wont see anything wrong with this, You'll make yourself known as you comment to my rant.  But as it is, it is illeagal and rightfully so!  It is wrong and discusting.  I can not believe that there would be a photographer that would do such a thing and makes me just sick!! So what was the female models comment? Oh I'll be 18 in 14 days and I'll just put it up then.  IT WONT MATTER!!! IT WAS STILL TAKEN AS A MINOR!!!  So where will it stop? implieds with 16? 15?  Is this where our profession is heading???  Go ahead, make yourself known.  I just dare someone to comment saying this action is ok, artistic and I'm making too much out of nothing.

SimonL wrote:
Man - You Americans are so Uptight !!

Don't get upset about a (perfectly legal in the UK) photo of a 17 year old girl...

Get upset about the amount of teenage drug users you have, the amount of teenagers involved in serious crime. Get upset about things that MATTER !!

I doubt your own life is so pure and perfect that it would stand up to the sort of scrutiny we place upon the yound men and women who model.

I'm sure mine isn't, and I'm pleased about that !!

well there are a lot of things here that are illegal that are not overseas, it is easy to see why we have a higher crime rates- buying a pack of beer for a person under 21 is a serious crime here...not necessarily anything that would be a big deal over there. A 22 year old having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend...  probably not a big deal in the UK here, he can go to jail for years for rape.

AngelFishSolo wrote:
I know for a fact that it is illegal in the UK.  It comes under the Child Protection Act and the Obcene Publications Act.

AngelFishSolo

Actually not illegal either absolutely or in every case and circumstance but to be done only with great caution and full awareness of the law and how it is interpreted by the courts. A fully nude image, in some circumstances, may not be indecent and yet a dressed, or "implied" image, in others may be judged to be so. In fact, a fully nude one of an U-18 model in a naturist/nudist context is often a lot less problematic than a coy shot in, say, bra and knickers done with the exact same model posed on a bed.

Studio36

SimonL wrote:
Man - You Americans are so Uptight !!

It's our Purtian heritage...

rachelrose wrote:
well there are a lot of things here that are illegal that are not overseas, it is easy to see why we have a higher crime rates- buying a pack of beer for a person under 21 is a serious crime here...not necessarily anything that would be a big deal over there. A 22 year old having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend...  probably not a big deal in the UK here, he can go to jail for years for rape.

In the UK? More then likely a 14, 15 or 16 y/o boy having sex with his 12 y/o girlfriend... probably nothing would even be said unless she became pregnant at that age. Or 14, 15 and 16 y/o's sitting around drinking outside the local library... unless they get too rowdy and the neighbours complain... likely nothing would be said about that either.

Studio36

Gilbert Echeverria wrote:
Bob
in simple terms
mind your own business and move on.
get it !

Playin rough now, eh!

TXPhotog wrote:

No, I've been down that road already, and I know where it leads.  Some ignorant person comes on the forum with a holier-than-thou rant, claims something that is perfectly legal is not, and is challenged to prove it.

At that point, one of two things happens:  he either gets belligerant and vague, or he exits from the conversation.  Neither of those shed any actual light on anything, his opinion is never changed, and he refuses to confront his ignorance and actually learn anything.

Been there, done that, wore out the T-shirt.  And besides, everyone else is doing so well this time, I can afford to keep my pencils in reserve

Hey TX, did you see the post from the guy that told me to mind my own business? How bout you find a place for those sharp pencils somewhere in his neck.... of the woods.

James Jackson wrote:

It is not illegal, it is ok it is artistic and you're making much too big a deal about nothing.

See the following:

http://www.kochgallery.com/artists/cont … y/Sturges/

if you look in the image stats they were taken in france. not U.S

GWC wrote:
ALL WOMEN SHOULD WEAR BURQUA. ALWAYS.

BECAUSE b(o)(o)bies are an affront to Zod. And girls that less than 230 lbs or that are younger than 77 should not pose naked.

What if she is 76 and 11 months?

OH, and no more of that shaving your pooter into a narrow little line. What's up with that?! If Zod had wanted girls to have their pooters with little mustaches above them, he'd have made them that way. So stop it already!!!! Um, but keep with shaving the legs.

GWC!

I agree, Hitler should had shaved his mustach!
Oh wait - You were talking about women's.....

Nevermind

Ty Simone wrote:
What if she is 76 and 11 months?

Then U do like the rest of us do: take the pictures anyhow, and hide them and j*** off over them in private for the month that they are still naughty.

GWC!

SimonL wrote:
Man - You Americans are so Uptight !!

Hey now....don't lump us ALL together or I'll have to talk all about UK residents' horrible teeth.

Sad, tho, that guys here ogle breasts and come unhinged when they see a hint of nipple. A guy I know had the cops called on him for shooting a young girl in a park.  The cop investigated and laughed it off. The uptightness in many comes from ignorance and shielded upbringing. Don't worry, we'll catch up in a few hundred years.  And all of our teeth will be perfect.

James Jackson wrote:
It is not illegal, it is ok it is artistic and you're making much too big a deal about nothing.

See the following:

http://www.kochgallery.com/artists/cont … y/Sturges/

Moda Photographic wrote:
if you look in the image stats they were taken in france. not U.S

I don't want to get in the middle of this thread because it has been beaten to death so many times.  However, you are using a bad example.

Sturges is from San Francisco. While the largest segment of what he shot was in the South of France, a lot of his work has been in naturist colonies and nude beaches in Nor. Cal.   His most famous model, Misty Dawn, now in her early 20's is from Nor. Cal. and he has been shooting her nude since before she was a teenager.

T H Taylor wrote:

I think you may be wrong on that Chris! 
I was watching aa show one night about scandalous things and, they brought up the "American beauty" nude scene with Thora Birch... She was 17 at the time but, her parents gave consent to the filming and were on set when it happened (as well as a rep from the CPA).

Well, that's what the television told me and... It never lies, does it?? 

My "body double" comment was specific to Brooke Shields and The Blue Lagoon.

Curt Burgess wrote:

It's our Purtian heritage...

Surely you jest. The original "pilgrims" retreated to this land because of many of their incredibly-warped sexual behaviors, not just religion.

Lies your history teacher told you...

studio36uk wrote:

Actually not illegal either absolutely or in every case and circumstance but to be done only with great caution and full awareness of the law and how it is interpreted by the courts. A fully nude image, in some circumstances, may not be indecent and yet a dressed, or "implied" image, in others may be judged to be so. In fact, a fully nude one of an U-18 model in a naturist/nudist context is often a lot less problematic than a coy shot in, say, bra and knickers done with the exact same model posed on a bed.

Studio36

Christopher Ambler wrote:
Surely you jest. The original "pilgrims" retreated to this land because of many of their incredibly-warped sexual behaviors, not just religion.

Lies your history teacher told you...

Incredibly warped sexual behaviors?   Please, list some examples.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

James Jackson wrote:
It is not illegal, it is ok it is artistic and you're making much too big a deal about nothing.

See the following:

http://www.kochgallery.com/artists/cont … y/Sturges/

I don't want to get in the middle of this thread because it has been beaten to death so many times.  However, you are using a bad example.

Sturges is from San Francisco. While the largest segment of what he shot was in the South of France, a lot of his work has been in naturist colonies and nude beaches in Nor. Cal.   His most famous model, Misty Dawn, now in her early 20's is from Nor. Cal. and he has been shooting her nude since before she was a teenager.

I wont argue your point because I dont dissagree. just the link you posted with the 2 images were from france. thats all.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
you are using a bad example

Well there's dozens of other examples, and unfortunately my mind is like swiss cheese when it comes to memory of names so I couldn't look up the appropriate references, but in simple just turn the pages of any fashion magazine and look for coverage of runway shows and you'll see all the underaged nudes/implied nudes/photographs of teen nipples that you can handle, and most of those are taken in the US (for US fashion mags).

If anyone else has any good examples of US based and photographed nude under age models, please post...I know we've been down this path many times before, but Jock Sturges was the only name that came to the forefront of my mind...I know there's an equally famous female photographer who's work is mostly about her family, and I'm just stuck for a name.