Vito wrote:

Kinetic Photography wrote:
Of course. I am now a rapist because some girl is having sex with some guys.  Good point.  I stated a fact to the mother.  The truth hurts sometimes.  Personally I dont care about my reputation.  I wont lose any potential models.  I have a perfect record and models know I produce great images.  I am not a professional photographer and I have never wanted to be.  This is a hobby for me.  I am often disgusted by the entire industry and the PC game they play to be cool and popular.  This industry is so vain and afraid of reputations its like junior high all over again.

and


You were way out of line telling her mother anything she (the 17 year old) is up to that you've read on MySpace (where everyone tells the truth about themselves). It was not your place to reveal this and if you can't understand this (after a bunch of us explaining it to you) then you are beyond reasonable and should not be working with people. As others said, what the girl does is irrelvant. You could have just said "well if you don't trust me, okay" then either shoot her (with escort) or not. Your feelings got hurt...boo hoo. If her mother didn't know about her sex life, you just made her next few years miserable. I'm sure you'll get a lot of referrals.

i actually doubt that the mother will really believe him.  It's not like she is going to assume he actually found proof that her daughter gets around, she is going to just think he was throwing around any insults he could think of, and she probably won't take them seriously.  If he wanted her to really know that he should have added in the fact he saw her myspace, and suggest she go take a look.  but then again, that is really hurting the daughter in the end, not the mother, who he is trying to get at becuase of her assumptions.

Vance wrote:

What does that have to do with this thread?

And for the sake of your post.. I dont see criminal charges..Or the place being closed down..

And it looks retouched to me as well...Look at the hair line..
OK..so?

This is not what we are talking about..

maybe not exactly... but it does point to the reasons to be extra cautions shooting (or editing) pics of minors...  Relax.

RohanB wrote:
Well I didnt do an exhaustive search and of course a law enforcement official is not gonna arrest Marge dropping home her friend's son from school but here is NYS Penal Code on "Custodial Interference"

http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/miss … erence.pdf

here is also the Child Protection Act of NYS

http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/miss … ct2003.pdf

See I used to work for NYC-EMS, we used to be prepped on many laws concerning minors obviously. In other states they are more restrictive about children even being with a stranger, for laws that can be upheld if they find reason that the person had intentions to harm the child. Of course this is not the situation as a photographer, but none the less it is concerning a minor and an adult.

I don't know.  Maybe all those years and tens of thousands of dollars I spent on my legal edumacation were a waste. 

Weren't you saying it was against the law to even be in the presence of a minor without a legal guardian present? 

RohanB wrote:
In some states, being not the guardian of a child, it is against the law for them to even be in your prescence without their legal guardian.

The New York Penal Code that you posted discussed "custodial interference".  It didn't say anything about it being illegal to be in the presence of a child with or without a legal guardian.  The congressional act you posted doesn't contain the word "guardian", doesn't contain the word "present", doesn't contain the word "presence", only contains variations of the word "parent" in the context of "parental kidnapping" and the appropriation of funds to educate "parents" about drug clubs, doesn't contain the word "alone" and basically talks about preventing the sexual exploitation of children.  Admittingly I didn't read the entire 47 page document, but it does not appear -- and certainly doesn't list anything like this in the table of contents -- that it ever discusses ordinary people being in the presence of minors with or without legal guardians.  It does spend a lot of time discussing sexual abuse penalties, sexual offenders, sexual tourism, kidnapping, and so on. 

It's scary to know that people in the position you said you used to have are being so well-prepped that they can interpret statutes against sexual abuse and kidnapping as supporting the idea that you can get in trouble for being alone with a child without their legal guardian present.  Even your comment "strangers even being with a child" is misleading.  As you yourself noted, you need something more, like "intentions to harm a child."  What gets one in trouble there is not the being alone with the child -- it's the "intentions to harm the child" while being alone with them. 

I especially like the "none the less [sic] it is concerning a minor and an adult."  There are laws about people and cats, too.  You can't mistreat them in certain ways.  That doesn't translate into a law making it illegal for a person to be alone with a cat.

-- rick

[DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer.  I don't even play one on TV.  I'm a recent graduate from law school who is currently waiting to hear if he passed the State Bar Examination.  This post is intended as a comment on the craziness posted by another non-lawyer that one can get in trouble just for being in the presence of a minor without their legal guardian present.  It is not intended as legal advice, because I'm not qualified to give legal advice.  Also, I'm not advising anyone to get rid of their cats in order to avoid prison.]

Kinetic Photography wrote:

Hmm, interesting.....a minor is having sexual relations with adults and a 3rd person who knows about it is NOT required or even allowed to notify anyone about it.  I guess Foley would love you guys as friends

Boy you better speak up and throw some light on this..I am thinking you beter explain your OP better, or am I barking up the wrong tree...Should I be defending you?

Speak up DAWG!

Legend Images wrote:

maybe not exactly... but it does point to the reasons to be extra cautions shooting (or editing) pics of minors...  Relax.

Again, this is not about being cautious..this is about a mother who got beyatch slapped for talking smack. the OP, laid into her..use heavy ammo and now he is on the cross...follow me?

Relax?  You see any caps? or !!!!!!!?

relax?

Hmmmm, interesting....

So Shoot Me! wrote:

RohanB wrote:
-- rick

[DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer.  I don't even play one on TV.  I'm a recent graduate from law school who is currently waiting to hear if he passed the State Bar Examination.  This post is intended as a comment on the craziness posted by another non-lawyer that one can get in trouble just for being in the presence of a minor without their legal guardian present.  It is not intended as legal advice, because I'm not qualified to give legal advice.  Also, I'm not advising anyone to get rid of their cats in order to avoid prison.]

good cause I cant live with out my p..     well you know...

Frog516 wrote:

Don't make this a Biggie and Tupac issue, next thing you know we will have photographers popping caps in each other throwing up gang signs at photo shoots. East Coast Represent!!
of course the previous statement was a joke incase you don't have a sense of humor.

LOL,,Tat was a response t someone saying it must me A california thing. Im gonna pop a cap anyway.Im in the mood to ap some azz...werd up dawgs..What my muth phukin name?

Vance wrote:
Boy you better speak up and throw some light on this..I am thinking you beter explain your OP better, or am I barking up the wrong tree...Should I be defending you?

Speak up DAWG!

Simple....There has been considerable talk recently about Congressman Foley sexual conduct with minors.  The crux of the issue and debates has been who knew about Foleys interaction with the minors and why didnt they notify anyone.  There have been calls for resignation and criminal counts because other congressional leaders might have known about the relationships but didnt notify proper authorities.  Many people on this board have posted the same thoughts.  NOW.....when it comes to my thread I clearly stated that I had reason to believe that the model in question, a minor, was engsaging in sexual relations with older guys and/or adults.  However, it now seems that most people on this board think its "none of my business"  and i am a "rat" and a "snitch" for telling her mom.  Why the double standard and change of heart ?

Kinetic Photography wrote:
Simple....There has been considerable talk recently about Congressman Foley sexual conduct with minors.  The crux of the issue and debates has been who knew about Foleys interaction with the minors and why didnt they notify anyone.  There have been calls for resignation and criminal counts because other congressional leaders might have known about the relationships but didnt notify proper authorities.  Many people on this board have posted the same thoughts.  NOW.....when it comes to my thread I clearly stated that I had reason to believe that the model in question, a minor, was engsaging in sexual relations with older guys and/or adults.  However, it now seems that most people on this board think its "none of my business"  and i am a "rat" and a "snitch" for telling her mom.  Why the double standard and change of heart ?

Hmmmmmmm....Me begins to doubt you..

edited to show faith is waining due to lack of response by the OP..

knock knock

Vance wrote:
Yeah, but the  quoted post have nothing to do with this tread...

And nobody has a reason to get pissed unless they do something to get me pissed..

Again, more fear talk than reality. Just like in the escort thread..show me a bunch of cases where a photgrapher has been acused wrongfully... And show me plenty...

And before you ask..NO, one or two or even 50 are not enough...the percentage is too low for me to build a bomb shelter.

I live in Earthquake central, moved from tornado alley...Everything in life has risk..Im too busy to worry about every single one.


my .02

It's interesting to me that you keep trying to make me into a fear-mongerer, when I've repeatedly stated that isn't what I'm advocating.  I've never suggested that you or others can't participate in photo shoots of unaccompanied minors if you want. 

I have said it's not something I would do. 

And I've given as a reason for that the very real possibility that it can get you into trouble that you can't get out of, even when you don't deserve that trouble. 

It's entirely possible that you could conduct an entire photographic career doing nothing but shooting unaccompanied minors and not ever once get into any legal problem because of that whatsoever.  You might even make it your niche to shoot those minors au naturel and still avoid trouble. 

I think it's likely that most photographers are not going to have any problems just because they shoot unattended minors, clothed or not.  Heck, my suspicion is that it's even possible that stupid PWCs might actually engage in sexual behaviors with nude minors and not get into legal trouble. 

That doesn't make it something I want to do.  And it doesn't make you safe if there's a false accusation. 

You've honed in on a few comments I've made in response to other postings, as if I bounced right into this thread and said, "any of you who shoot unattended minors will probably go to prison" or "the risk of going to prison is very, very high if you shoot unattended minors."  Not only did I not say those things, but my responses have been targeted at very specific comments made by you and others. 

I have stated:

1.  Shooting unattended minors is not something I would do.
2.  If there is an accusation made against you, it probably will not matter much if the accusation is false. 
3.  The person posting that you can get into legal trouble in some states just for being alone with a minor is off his rocker. 

I believe I've probably also indicated that because of #2, and because the world is full of all kinds of people, I don't think anyone should take the risk. 

That's not fear-mongering.  It's an expression of my opinion regarding what I think about the risks involved.  I also don't play golf in thunderstorms, even though I know people who've done it many times without getting killed.  I don't swim in shark-infested waters, even though I know people who have and did not get eaten.  I don't try to beat trains by going around guardrails, even though I've seen others do it successfully. 

None of those last three things, to my knowledge, results in much trouble for the average person.  But none of them seem like good ideas to me. 

And that's what I was saying. 

-- rick

So Shoot Me! wrote:

It's interesting to me that you keep trying to make me into a fear-mongerer, when I've repeatedly stated that isn't what I'm advocating.  I've never suggested that you or others can't participate in photo shoots of unaccompanied minors if you want. 

I have said it's not something I would do. 

And I've given as a reason for that the very real possibility that it can get you into trouble that you can't get out of, even when you don't deserve that trouble. 

It's entirely possible that you could conduct an entire photographic career doing nothing but shooting unaccompanied minors and not ever once get into any legal problem because of that whatsoever.  You might even make it your niche to shoot those minors au naturel and still avoid trouble. 

I think it's likely that most photographers are not going to have any problems just because they shoot unattended minors, clothed or not.  Heck, my suspicion is that it's even possible that stupid PWCs might actually engage in sexual behaviors with nude minors and not get into legal trouble. 

That doesn't make it something I want to do.  And it doesn't make you safe if there's a false accusation. 

You've honed in on a few comments I've made in response to other postings, as if I bounced right into this thread and said, "any of you who shoot unattended minors will probably go to prison" or "the risk of going to prison is very, very high if you shoot unattended minors."  Not only did I not say those things, but my responses have been targeted at very specific comments made by you and others. 

I have stated:

1.  Shooting unattended minors is not something I would do.
2.  If there is an accusation made against you, it probably will not matter much if the accusation is false. 
3.  The person posting that you can get into legal trouble in some states just for being alone with a minor is off his rocker. 

I believe I've probably also indicated that because of #2, and because the world is full of all kinds of people, I don't think anyone should take the risk. 

That's not fear-mongering.  It's an expression of my opinion regarding what I think about the risks involved.  I also don't play golf in thunderstorms, even though I know people who've done it many times without getting killed.  I don't swim in shark-infested waters, even though I know people who have and did not get eaten.  I don't try to beat trains by going around guardrails, even though I've seen others do it successfully. 

None of those last three things, to my knowledge, results in much trouble for the average person.  But none of them seem like good ideas to me. 

And that's what I was saying. 

-- rick

thats all fine and dandy..
However..

In the context of the OP..
Nudity should not even be spoken of, because it brings an element and a dynamic that has nothing to do with the OP. It does in fact add te FEAR element and the so called TABOO of WHAT if..

And again..As in the escort threads.. WHAT if is not good enough to promote an atmosphere of fear.

CLOTHED minors are no problem at all. And again as in the escort threads. DO the research...Meet the parents..Get a FEEL OF who and what they and the kid are all about.

RED flag? Move on... No red flag..move forward..

Im in LA.. I get underage clients all the time. This is a town of very independant kids. tat is the nature of this town. There are teens here with parents back in Texas living at art schools and dance and acting schools on scholorships. they have no choice. They must get headshots and crap done with out mommy and daddy..they ahave a leaga guardian, but they dont go everyplace with the kids. Such is the nature of the art world.

Vance wrote:
I am wondering how many parents here would like to know there kids are online, talking about dating and shagging older men? And regardless of how you found out, I bet you would be grateful...If of course you are so blind and out of touch you didnt already know.

Speak to that before you slam the OP..then we have a true debate...

But this isn't a topic about being a parent.  This is a topic more of how a photographer should behave.  I believe the OP behave very poorly and not unlike a craby 15 y.o. that got punk'd by a classmate.

Kinetic Photography wrote:

Hmm, interesting.....a minor is having sexual relations with adults and a 3rd person who knows about it is NOT required or even allowed to notify anyone about it.  I guess Foley would love you guys as friends

Oh get off that high horse dude.  You're now trying to make it sound like you're a hero.  But you're not.  You didn't CARE!  you didn't give a rats ass about her behavior.  The ONLY reason you told the mom was because she said something that offended you so you lashed out.  Had she never done that, you'd have happily continued shooting her daughter and not given a shit about how many older men she's banging.  Don't act like you were trying to do them a favor.

DigitalCMH wrote:

But this isn't a topic about being a parent.  This is a topic more of how a photographer should behave.  I believe the OP behave very poorly and not unlike a craby 15 y.o. that got punk'd by a classmate.

DIGI..

again I will say again...show me one person who hasnt EVER spouted off when they felt attacked..righ tor wrong show me? This isnt so over the top as to warret some of the attacks and misrepresentations. Not to mention the blatent off topic responses for the sake of inflation.

I say they were both wrong...In saying that..Mom started it and got it back ten fold. Right or wrong..such is life..

As to how a photgrapher should behave? Well, I dont subscribe to that magazine..I roll my own way and call it as it comes.

:-)

Vance wrote:
thats all fine and dandy..
However..

In the context of the OP..
Nudity should not even be spoken of, because it brings an element and a dynamic that has nothing to do with the OP. It does in fact add te FEAR element and the so called TABOO of WHAT if..

Ah...my mistake.  I didn't realize that we were limited to responding to the OP.  So when you made the comment that you dared someone to prove you did something wrong, I was not...what is it? "supposed to"? "allowed"? "permitted"?...to respond to that? 

Fact is you and a few others appeared to indicate there's nothing to worry about in these situations.  I responded to those kinds of comments. 

I would imagine that photographers, doctors, social workers, teachers and all kinds of people are in the presence of minors daily without getting into trouble.  I don't think the majority of them should be afraid of anything, as I've indicated.  At the same time, people who think there are no risks involved and that all they'll have to do is stand up and "tell what really happened" or just deny anything and make others prove they did something wrong are fooling themselves.

You said "Go ahead and try to prove something I didnt do..I dare ya....."  Prior to that, someone else mentioned the issue of proof. 

Apparently, you're telling me about another rule I was unaware of:  You can't comment on those things that someone else said about the issue of proof, because it wasn't in the OP. 

I'm sorry; I missed that one in the FAQ. 

-- rick

DigitalCMH wrote:

Oh get off that high horse dude.  You're now trying to make it sound like you're a hero.  But you're not.  You didn't CARE!  you didn't give a rats ass about her behavior.  The ONLY reason you told the mom was because she said something that offended you so you lashed out.  Had she never done that, you'd have happily continued shooting her daughter and not given a shit about how many older men she's banging.  Don't act like you were trying to do them a favor.

Kinetic..
I am arguing your point better than you..that concerns me.

I am begining to wonder....

?????????

So Shoot Me! wrote:

Ah...my mistake.  I didn't realize that we were limited to responding to the OP.  So when you made the comment that you dared someone to prove you did something wrong, I was not...what is it? "supposed to"? "allowed"? "permitted"?...to respond to that? 

Fact is you and a few others appeared to indicate there's nothing to worry about in these situations.  I responded to those kinds of comments. 

I would imagine that photographers, doctors, social workers, teachers and all kinds of people are in the presence of minors daily without getting into trouble.  I don't think the majority of them should be afraid of anything, as I've indicated.  At the same time, people who think there are no risks involved and that all they'll have to do is stand up and "tell what really happened" or just deny anything and make others prove they did something wrong are fooling themselves.

You said "Go ahead and try to prove something I didnt do..I dare ya....."  Prior to that, someone else mentioned the issue of proof. 

Apparently, you're telling me about another rule I was unaware of:  You can't comment on those things that someone else said about the issue of proof, because it wasn't in the OP. 

I'm sorry; I missed that one in the FAQ. 

-- rick

Dude,
Sorry..I just realized you are newbie chipper fodder..

Get in line..

Cspine wrote:
This thread smells like donkey balls.

how do you know how donkey balls smell?

Vance wrote:
Dude,
Sorry..I just realized you are newbie chipper fodder..

Get in line..

It's good to know you recognize now that you've no other response to my comment than this.

-- rick

So Shoot Me! wrote:

It's good to know you recognize now that you've no other response to my comment than this.

-- rick

LOL, ypou dont kow me very well do you?..LMAO..

Thats funny...

dude, really...Take five..I'l get the chipper warmed up in a few..

lotusphoto wrote:
how do you know how donkey balls smell?

He told me he loved me.... =tear=

Vance wrote:

Dude,
Sorry..I just realized you are newbie chipper fodder..

Get in line..

Vance wrote:
DIGI..

again I will say again...show me one person who hasnt EVER spouted off when they felt attacked..righ tor wrong show me? This isnt so over the top as to warret some of the attacks and misrepresentations. Not to mention the blatent off topic responses for the sake of inflation.

I say they were both wrong...In saying that..Mom started it and got it back ten fold. Right or wrong..such is life..

Kinetic Photography wrote:
However, it now seems that most people on this board think its "none of my business"  and i am a "rat" and a "snitch" for telling her mom.  Why the double standard and change of heart ?

Is she in public office?  Is she's telling the public one thing (such as writing bills protecting children) while doing something that seems to conflict with such actions (preying on children)?

There is no double-standard here.

I bet there is one on your behalf though.

If your model was a male 17 y.o. having sex with older women, would you have used that to lash out against his mom?  I doubt it.

Vance wrote:
again I will say again...show me one person who hasnt EVER spouted off when they felt attacked..righ tor wrong show me? This isnt so over the top as to warret some of the attacks and misrepresentations. Not to mention the blatent off topic responses for the sake of inflation.

Umm, I think Dawn already did that is described quite clearly the situation she was involved in.

It is a natural behavior to lash back at those that attack us.  We have lots of instincts that we resist in order to be civilized.

Cspine wrote:
He told me he loved me.... =tear=

sorry, i wish i'd known before you got involved.. i might have been able to warn you..


my cousin was in a similar situation, he's a photographer, he has a myspace page and everything -just like the pros.. one day he wanted to shoot a shetland pony, the jockey said,

'is this a bridal shoot or are you just looking for a hoofer'

my cousin said,

"listen everyone knows it only takes a cube of sugar to mount your colt, which by the way is already a swayback, er..by the way your husband isn't home is he? it's one thing to yell at a woman, but if i'm going to yell at a guy it has to be over the internet... i'm a pro"


after that whenever someone said bite my ass he'd get this glazed look over his eyes and try to talk like a lawyer

you came out of it okay..

Vance wrote:

LOL, ypou dont kow me very well do you?..LMAO..

Thats funny...

dude, really...Take five..I'l get the chipper warmed up in a few..

Now I'm not only not supposed to comment on posts people make here other than the OP, but I'm also supposed to know you better before sarcastically pointing out that your comment was non-responsive, and implying that it was because you had no intelligent response available? 

You have some odd rules.

-- rick

Cspine wrote:

He told me he loved me.... =tear=

ROFL!

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Vance, thats part of the problem in much of the world.  People react without
thought.  I'm not saying the OP was wrong or right but just because someone
calls you a MOFO means they get it back.  We have to be more in control of ourselves.  I have a Pitt bull if a dog tries to bite her I fully expect to bite back
but she's a dog not able to ask why, not able to really think about her actions.
Mom bit first the OP bit back.  I want to hope that unlike my Pitt bull I can think
and control myself.  Not to go all Zen on you but the essence of martial arts isn't
being able to fight but knowing when to fight.

Lawrence.. HOWEVER..

I took martial arts and I cant argue that..BUT..when I did fight ..I fought to win.
Look, we can get zen and I have my zen moments..BUt on this issue..I got this..


Thanks for the two shoots, Iam glad you like the pictures.

MOM_Great we would like to book again.

Great, and thanks..Look..I'd like to shoot with Barbie one on one this time. I think she may be a bit more projective if we shoot one on one.

Well, You will probally make advances towards my daughter...You are a photgrapher and that is simply inappropriate.

Me, Oh OK...well better to protect her from me, the big bad photgapher who has shown you I know what I am doing and I am making a suggestion in order to give even better images. (insert escort argument here) than all the other guys she is shagging....thanks so much and good bye.


Now catch any of us on a bad day or moment and tell me this situation would not repeat itself. Never mind...dont even try it..It's an illogical assumption to make.

We can judge it all day long..I choose to defend it.KNOWING it was over the top.. I believe in over the top responces at times. SUCH IS the reality of life.

For thosa who beleive in the Bible..GOD GOT PISSED and killed everyone... in his image and all that? Right? We get pissed too..

Simple...And if I am going to throw mud, well at least let me throw it at a worthy target.  FYI.. I have been in MOMS shoes..(they fit rather nice and the slip was to die for_..sorry....LOL

Anyway...I've had my ass handed to me with some strong ammo..over the top..But I opened the door and I cant complain if the enemy hits me with overwhelming force.

I just cant...

vance

Kinetic Photography wrote:

I pointed out that she hangs out with older guys because I think its odd that her mother would be so afraid of me, a photographer, but not other guys.  This is the double standard that photographers have to deal with.  Her mother lets her be alone with other guys, why not a photographer.  For the record, I have never hooked up with a single model, EVER !!

Sorry, but it sounds like you're jealous of the " other guys," and want your turn. 

I'm not a prude by any standards, but you do sound creepy in this one.  Her sex life is none of your business and you had no right or reason in saying what you did to the mother.

So Shoot Me! wrote:

Now I'm not only not supposed to comment on posts people make here other than the OP, but I'm also supposed to know you better before sarcastically pointing out that your comment was non-responsive, and implying that it was because you had no intelligent response available? 

You have some odd rules.

-- rick

Definitins to learn

OFF TOPIC

Thread Hijacking

there will be a test...ask around...

CHIPPER..is ready..

Vance wrote:

Definitins to learn

OFF TOPIC

Thread Hijacking

there will be a test...ask around...

CHIPPER..is ready..

lol... thread hijacking... like where somebody other than the OP ends up answering everybodys posts, making rules, and dominating half of the content?  oh... that would be Vance.

Vance wrote:
Kinetic..
I am arguing your point better than you..that concerns me.

I am begining to wonder....

?????????

You are actually.  Thanks.  I just dont have the energy to respond to so many stupid posts and I dont always explain myself perfectly. 
I am a little upset though that this thread drifted so far away from what I wanted it to be.  My whole point was....why do photographers, to the exclusion of so many other professions, warrant so much fear and aprehension in the publics mind ?  What did photographer do throughout history to deserve it ?

Legend Images wrote:

lol... thread hijacking... like where somebody other than the OP ends up answering everybodys posts, making rules, and dominating half of the content?  oh... that would be Vance.

Look ..just because I am arguing a lame thread...Dont even try it buddy...

Ive been here long enough..dont make me get the day crew on that ass.

get in line ...YOU made the chipper list..

go post and learn the ropes....

Vance wrote:

Look ..just because I am arguing a lame thread...Dont even try it buddy...

Ive been here long enough..dont make me get the day crew on that ass.

get in line ...YOU made the chipper list..

go post and learn the ropes....

bummer... and all I really wanted was to be friends.

Legend Images wrote:

bummer... and all I really wanted was to be friends.

Stop fibbin...
It looks bad on you..