studio36uk wrote:
Ahhhhh, my kind of model. A "can do" approach rather than a "can't [or won't] do" at-ti-tude.

Studio36

BOOK ME BOOK ME! lol

Sian Louise wrote:
hahahaha - its legal issues silly you can't use a real kid for that junk. even if it is 'implied'

I don't know about the law in the UK, but over here in the good ole uptight, Puritanical USA it is even against the law to create an image portraying a child in a sexually provocative or explicit position by using an adult model posing as a child if the intent is to make the viewer think it is a child.  Even such things as photoshopping a child's head on an adult's body in an explicit image or explicit or suggestive artwork of a child is against the law.

Now, before you say anything,  the tacky images of DD silicone chested women in school girl outfits, saddle oxfords and pigtails in their hair don't count as there is no way the model could be mistaken for a 12 yr old girl.  Try the same image with a small, thin 19 yr old model with a flat chested pubescent body type and there might be trouble.

Sian Louise wrote:
oh wait you better see my coffee demands first

Coffee I can do, no problem. Maybe even the odd biscuit as well.

Studio36

Sian Louise wrote:
yes but [diva i don't do diet! non of that skinny latte rubbish for me /diva]

Nope - only a full bodied and well rounded cuppa with real full fat cream... none of that frothy trash 1% milk crap. LOL

Studio36

Sian Louise wrote:
i think you'll find my dear that you missed the point here.

I did?

Nora_Neko wrote:
I don't see why anyone would want to pose nude to look like a child.I'd feel weird doing that knowing pedophiles were probably getting off to it.

Pedophiles will get off sitting on a park bench, will you no longer take your kids to the park?

They also get off on japanese anime, the sears catalogue, and boy's life magazine.

It is not like iamges of an 18 year old that pass as 16 will turn a non-pedophile into a pedophile.

What we need to worry about more is keeping the pedophiles from acting on their urges. And limiting imagry is not going to do that, if anything, it will make them more apt to act on those urges.

Sian Louise wrote:
NO PORN PLEASE WE'RE BRITISH!

I'd shoot you while I'm in the UK but your sherrif and I have had ... issues.

Nora_Neko wrote:
I don't see why anyone would want to pose nude to look like a child.

Sexuality doesn't begin at an age prescribed by the state.  Child sexual activities exist and have been the topic of many mainstream books and movies.  Child pornography laws were originally predicated on the idea that children were being exploited when they are produced.  Simulation of underage sexual activities have repeatedly been declared Constitutional by the Supremes because children are not being used to produce them.  The latest changes to the federal child porn statutes that once again attempt to ban simulated activity have not been tested.

Nora_Neko wrote:
I'd feel weird doing that knowing pedophiles were probably getting off to it.

It will be a cold day in hell before I start restricting what I do based on the suggestion that someone somewhere might get a thrill out of it.  In fact, I don't see why anyone would give that degree of control to some unknown person who may or may not even exist.

Sian Louise wrote:
I do pregnancy tests, wrist slitting, pill taking and all that junk as a 'teen model'

Well shit, I can do that.

*slits wrists and dies*

Sian Louise wrote:
i just get annoyed at girls who *claim* to be something theyre not. And more so when girls refuse to do certain things because of the *morality police*...

Sian Louise wrote:
yes i dont do porn. full stop - i'm talking about lifestyle/commercial/editorial/social issues photography. i have to look like a general teenager but not like an inappropriate teenager - hence the out of focus type face shots.

Wait a sec.  You don't do porn?  Why?  Because of *morality* issues?  And what the heck do you mean by "inappropriate"?  You mean inappropriate according to the *morality police*?  Or just inappropriate by contemporary community cultural standards (as determined by a jury)?  Or is inappropriate just one of those terms that everyone agrees on?

Dave Krueger wrote:
The latest changes to the federal child porn statutes that once again attempt to ban simulated activity have not been tested.

If you are talking about the loopholes closed by the recent changes, I do not know of any group that would challenge them. I know the bookkeeping changes are under challenge, but the other aspects (eliminating the loophole of never producing a real image) no one is arguing.

So as to make sure you and I are on the same page, The loophole used to be as such:

If I have a camera with a digital card in it. I could take all the child porn shots I wanted to, as long as I did not download them from the camera.
I could then sell the card in it's entirety to you, and as long as you never downloaded them out of the camera, you'd never get in trouble either.

Now, there are some caveats to that.
The images on the card themselves must be coded in such a way that they are not normally viewable on a computer.
The actual act of taking the picture, in some jurisdictions, is technically punishable, but was not under the federal guidelines.

The new changes eliminated that and similar loopholes by stating that the act itself and the transmissions of the result of that act, which could produce child porn, is now illegal.

I have tried to explain it in generic terms simply so I know if we are on the right page. It is actually much more technical than that.....

Sian Louise wrote:
back to the point... tips on looking old/young in photos? besides no make up and pig tails.

Good lighting that fills in any shadows that would normally fall on the side of the nose or along the sides of the mouth (smile lines).

Dave Krueger wrote:

Sian Louise wrote:
i just get annoyed at girls who *claim* to be something theyre not. And more so when girls refuse to do certain things because of the *morality police*...

Wait a sec.  You don't do porn?  Why?  Because of *morality* issues?  And what the heck do you mean by "inappropriate"?  You mean inappropriate according to the *morality police*?  Or just inappropriate by contemporary community cultural standards (as determined by a jury)?  Or is inappropriate just one of those terms that everyone agrees on?

you're funny. i laugh at you because you really are funny. this hijack isn't appropriate though. this thread was in responce to many cropping up about lies and age and agencies... my images have been changed today so you won't even see the ones i was talking about.

Underage sex is not something many need the morality police to call them about. Its general something that crops up as a sore point on ones own moral compass.

*morality police* are generally American. They reside in the bible belt.
*the law* is the law.
i think as a *photographer* you ought to know this.

They're very up on it when back chatting the police or when threatening a model for asking if she can edit her images.

Its funny that the most useful tip on lighting away wrinkles came from a model - a very helpful one come to think of it

Kalika wrote:
Nice

It's good to be versatile. People always check my ID too because they think I'm under age. It's so bizarre. I pass anwhere from 13 to 23 in real life. I don't really know how old I look in pictures though..

Yeah, I would definetly have to check your id and possibly through ncic just for reassurance lol

Jim Ball wrote:
I don't know about the law in the UK, but over here in the good ole uptight, Puritanical USA it is even against the law to create an image portraying a child in a sexually provocative or explicit position by using an adult model posing as a child if the intent is to make the viewer think it is a child.  Even such things as photoshopping a child's head on an adult's body in an explicit image or explicit or suggestive artwork of a child is against the law.

Now, before you say anything,  the tacky images of DD silicone chested women in school girl outfits, saddle oxfords and pigtails in their hair don't count as there is no way the model could be mistaken for a 12 yr old girl.  Try the same image with a small, thin 19 yr old model with a flat chested pubescent body type and there might be trouble.

Those laws, including the entire portion of the CDA mandating it, have been routinely struck down.
The onerous record keeping laws have largely taken their place.

Sian Louise wrote:
oh wait you better see my coffee demands first

(sounding silent alarm) uh, you didn't tell us that hostages were involved ...

FML

Sian Louise wrote:
hello So all you people who claim to be able to do any age any time... please take a look at my port mwahahahaha

I do pregnancy tests, wrist slitting, pill taking and all that junk as a 'teen model'

I do art nude as a 'youthful model'

I shoot as an adult

Just so you know - taking a brave step on the NONE WHATSOEVER make up front really helps even posting straight from the camera without colour correction and editing can be a way to be all this is me like it or lump it

Comments?

Who messed with your cookies when you were younger ?

SLE Photography wrote:
Those laws, including the entire portion of the CDA mandating it, have been routinely struck down.
The onerous record keeping laws have largely taken their place.

Where (which branch of the courts) and when were they struck down?  I hadn't heard that.  My original post was intended to help prevent someone from inadvertently running afoul of the law.

Colonial Photography wrote:
NCIC is hte national crime information center. its where cops (read already busy 911 dispatchers) can run anything from people to Bulldozers to see if they are wanted or stolen etc. Done on computer and is pretty fast. Some cops can do it from thier cars if equipped.

Each state has its own state version which is where the info is entered into the system. Ga's is called GCIC, etc.

I was a cop/911 dispatcher for 10 yrs.

At least I think thats what was mentioned.

thanks i reckon there must be something similar in the uk. but we have a thing called a cbr - criminal buero records or something like that... you pay a fee and get your criminal record checked out... so people can tell if you are fit and able to work with youngsters or vulnerable adults. i don't have one because i'm not a nurse or anything and also the fact that i'm so young... most convictions that occur before the age of 18 become spent under the rehabilitation act once the child becomes an adult - so the 12 year old shoplifter who stole a mars bar or something doesnt remain a theif for the rest of their life. but either way i've never been arrested... a cop once offered me a ride hom late at night but i kindly said to him it'd be a lot more dangerhouse if i got home in a po-lice car then by walking... which was kinda true.