|
Forums >
General Industry >
16 y/o nudist wants photos....
This post will undoubtedly turn into another debate over art and naked kids but hopefully a few will bother to read and understand my question. I did some photo work for an 18 y/o nudist and now her 16 y/o sister started saving up to hire me for a shoot. It's portrait work, obviously not porn. Her family is nudist and obviously have no problems with it. She contacted me and is paying me, I have no interest in using the photos for anything, not even portfolio. I'm a fairly low volume alt photographer in a medium small hippy/college town, should I allow her to be nude? I know it's legal but I don't want a bad rep from those who think differently. I'm not worried about legaity or morals, that dead horese has been well beaten. Look at my portfolio and tell me if a guy that does work like mine can do nudist portraits with reasonable acceptance. Sep 17 06 02:31 pm Link NO! For God's sake NO! Please review the federal laws regarding shooting minors. Don't do it - it's not worth 10 years in jail over a 3 hour photoshoot. Tell her when she turns 18 then you'll shoot here. /tim Sep 17 06 02:34 pm Link Let the mayhem begin... Sep 17 06 02:34 pm Link Damn, first response is about laws. Oh well. Sep 17 06 02:35 pm Link If you decide to not do the shoot, please by all means refer her to me. I will gladly do the shoot... even for free. Sep 17 06 02:36 pm Link Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote: Indeed. I'm simply amazed how some photographers set themselves for some major damage and/or headaches in the future - simply amazing. /tim Sep 17 06 02:36 pm Link I dont even want to know what a 16 year old girl looks like nude Sep 17 06 02:39 pm Link Right or wrong, you might be tagged as a perv. Strangely our laws seem to have no problem with minors being nude at nudist sites but the moment the camera comes out it's another issue. What it really comes down to is, Is it worth it? Do you want to be thought of as a perv? Do you want the government possibly looking over your work to determine if you can be charged with a crime? Walk away. Sep 17 06 02:40 pm Link Well that is really all there is to consider is the fact that it is against the law. Whether you use it not, if it is determined that you took a nude picture of a minor than you are subject to prosecution. The really interesting thing about those that get caught it is usually someone else that rats you out or the other party doing something stupid. Like if she shows the pics to her friends and then one of her friends parents see's it a call the police simply because 'they' think you are a 'perv'. It's just not worth the hassle and headaches that could come from it. Sep 17 06 02:41 pm Link don't, can of worms, esp with your portfolio.. you aren't exactly a nature, flowers photographer.. avant garde puts you on the outside to begin with.. Sep 17 06 02:41 pm Link Maxwell Digital Art wrote: Obviously the photos wouldn't be for your viewing. Sep 17 06 02:45 pm Link Tim Baker wrote: I'm simply amazed how spineless and stupid some photographers are... and how few have any resemblance to true artists in this day and age... simply amazed. Sep 17 06 02:45 pm Link Maxwell Digital Art wrote: What, weren't you 16, once? Sep 17 06 02:46 pm Link George Butler wrote: You are wrong. Sep 17 06 02:46 pm Link Yeah, go ahead and do it so you can give another black eye to our profession. Your site alone states "ALL AGES". With your work, wait until she's 18. By then she'll either have grown out of it or will be the best legal model to work with. Good luck, 16 will get you 20. Sep 17 06 02:48 pm Link lotusphoto wrote: Avant garde... I like that expression. I realize my work is almost exclusively provacative and that is why I even asked. Thanx for the 2nd opinion. Sep 17 06 02:49 pm Link Just DO IT! It's business... Just make sure one of her parents is there along with an MUA and Assistant to pose as witnesses that no porn was going on. It's simple really. Who said you have to tell anyone about what you are doing anyway? Who said you have to show the pics to anyone other than the client? Loose lips sink ships. It's no one elses business but yours. JUST DO IT! Keep your mouth shut, and all will be fine. Naked is naked, once you've seen a few thousand you've seen it all... Sep 17 06 02:49 pm Link I'd suggest passing on this one, regardless of the law, morality, whatever. Let one of her 16 y/o friends take some pics of her. What have you got to gain? a few hundred $? nothing more. Sep 17 06 02:50 pm Link Cspine wrote: I took out the emotionally charged word and came up with the same answer: no. Whatever you or others may describe your work as, "portraits" seems to me to be a poor descriptor. Perhaps you might try redefining what it is that you do, and then add the word back in and see how it fits. Sep 17 06 02:51 pm Link Tim Baker wrote: I bet Jock Sturges knows more about this than this guy does, ask him. Sep 17 06 02:51 pm Link James Jackson wrote: Yeah a true Rebel, kudo's to you! Sep 17 06 02:52 pm Link i have no stand on weather i think you should do it or not, that's your call, but it is NOT against the law, I realize YOU know that, but these photogs that keep posting "no its illegal" or what not really just need to study the laws. I do not have a law degree or a law book in front of me, but the laws regarding minors naked to the best of my recolection state the photos have to be sexual or have sexual undertones (Led Zeppelin's houses of the holy anyone?), granted thats a very very wide range of varience from person to person, court to court, but if she's from a nudist family you should be fine. Here's an idea to cover your ass, while not covering hers.... Shoot a nude FAMILY PORTRAIT, if its the whole family a) you can probably charge more b) it cant look sexually negative if ya pose them family portrait like c) mom and dad are obviously not just consenting, but consenting IN the photo. Sep 17 06 02:52 pm Link she tells her friends at school and word gets around not saying that teenage girls talk and exagerate or anything Sep 17 06 02:53 pm Link Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Federal Statute specifically state that "exploitation" of a minor is the part that makes it illegal? It's been a while since I read it, but I remember something like that in the law. That 1. It has to be deemed of prurient interest. AND 2. It has to be deemed exploitation. In other words you selling the photos. Something like that. It doesn't sound like you're doing either of these. Sep 17 06 02:54 pm Link TXPhotog wrote: HER photos would be portraits, I don't really know what the majority of my photos would be classified as. Sep 17 06 02:55 pm Link I love it when people start threads knowing the responses that they will get, and the emotions that come with it, and they already know the correct answer... And yet they start the thread anyway... Sep 17 06 02:57 pm Link STFU about Sturges and the law already lol. Re-read my original post. Sep 17 06 02:57 pm Link Step back and let her find a fellow 16 yr old to shoot that stuff. Sep 17 06 02:58 pm Link Cspine wrote: I wouldn't do it if I were you. you'e curious about "reasonable acceptance", but it's the unreasonable that would give me pause. sadly, narrow minds aren't always accompanied by narrow heads (which would make them obvious) and you just don't know where they lurk, or when you'll encounter them. Sep 17 06 02:58 pm Link Cspine wrote: Then I don't know what was meant by, "look at my portfolio and tell me if a guy that does work like mine" . . . . Sep 17 06 02:59 pm Link i'm sure you would be okay afterwards, since we all know that 'exploitive' is the key word, and that you would be smart enough to bring her folks.. what you asked is, 'given my body of work should i do it..' eventually you'd be okay, but you might have a major headache till you did and since she's just 16, what if later in life she rebels against her parents (nudists) and decides she didn't like having been photographed nude? Sep 17 06 02:59 pm Link Image K wrote: But it's fun! I'm actually supprised at the percentage that are staying on topic so far. Consider this the internet version of me thinking out loud. Sep 17 06 02:59 pm Link Cspine wrote: Excuse me, I was responding to the respondant not the OP. You might want to tone down the lettering in your response, I travel a lot. Sep 17 06 03:00 pm Link I'm no lawyer...and I don't claim to know the law. However. I don't think its "illegal" to photograph a 16 year old girl nude. (Art vs. porn...child pornography vs. art...its all muddy waters.) Would I do it? Nah. I don't really shoot nude photos. I know I'd tred lightly...I'd have her and her parents sign off on every waiver you can muster....AND I'd make doubly sure to have an assistant there. (For liability reasons.) Sep 17 06 03:03 pm Link James Jackson wrote: Tell that to the police when a 'mindless' photographer's computer is seized because some 16 year old bragged to the wrong people about being photographed nude. The police find the images. The photographer is arrested. Sep 17 06 03:03 pm Link I wonder what that idiot, Dr. Laura would say about this subject. Sep 17 06 03:03 pm Link This isn't something that's going to happen often enough for you to make money at it, and it sounds like there's a chance the downside could be big (lots of flak, bad rep, police accusing you of porn, etc). You're not even using the photos for anything in your port. Give a big potential downside, no significant upside, why even consider it? If the upside is a chance to toe the line, that's another matter but it doesn't sound like that's the case. Sep 17 06 03:03 pm Link Bob Randall Photography wrote: I think he was responding to the respondent as well... not you... your point was well made. Sep 17 06 03:04 pm Link Do it under an assumed name. Tell everyone your name is Jerry Falwell. mjr. Sep 17 06 03:05 pm Link Cspine wrote: "but Judge, her family are nudists...." Sep 17 06 03:06 pm Link |
