MS Figures n Physiques wrote:
An example of why MM needs to be Firm in it's 18+ Policy:

Florida firm’s owners face child porn charges for provocative photos of kids

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15977010

   The operators of dozens of teen and preteen “modeling sites” that critics say are nothing more than eye candy for pedophiles have been indicted by a federal grand jury in Alabama for allegedly trafficking in “visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.”

   See ya, wouldn't want to be ya.......

No.. this is why MM wants to keep tabs on what people of all ages post in their portfolio.

If there is a concern for what models under 18 are posting in their MM portfolio's, perhaps there should be someone whose sole responisibility is to keep their eye on the members under 18. Most high fashion models are starting well under the age of 18, and while I sincerely doubt that matters to many members here who are over the age of 18, those members who are under 18, do care.

However, since I cannot be certain what your meaning is behind your statement, I will go both ways.. (just this once mind you ;o)

1. Just because an image is marked 18+ does not mean it is not pornography.

2. Just because a model is under 18, does not mean she is in pornographic or inappropriate images.

3. Just because a model is over 18, does not mean she isn't in pornographic images.

This is one of those.. thin ice subjects - watch out for the weak spots ;o)

Tracy

A wise person once said.. "Opinions are like *ssholes, we all have one"

James Jackson wrote:
Can't wait till Anne Geddes is sued under all this new child exploitation hoopla.

*salivating*  Just can't wait.

You say it won't happen, but what is a clearer commercial exploitation of nude children than Anne Geddes' work????

Interesting twist.

TXPhotog wrote:
I recall something very much like this happening to a guy in Colorado.  Same kind of bust and circumstances, same kinds of pictures, same kinds of charges.  He spent a year in jail because he couldn't afford to make bail, but the charges against him were eventually dropped.

Then he moved to Florida.

Please read everything behind the story.
His images are a specific violation of current child porn law (and case law) in that at least three of his images show the genital region in a lacivious manner.

The Knox case showed that images that specific target the genital region (in his case video of a dance recital where he constantly focus on the genital region and zoomed in on those where the outline of the girl's genital was clearly visible through the leotards) is Child Pornography.

In the case above, he has at least three images that have the genital area predominately shown (her legs spread) of the the model in swimwear where you can clearly see the outline.

He violated the law.

Ty Simone wrote:
at least three images that have the genital area predominately shown (her legs spread) of the the model in swimwear where you can clearly see the outline.

Outline?

Anne Geddes has done work where you can clearly see the whole genital region!

AND

She sells the pictures!

Child exploitation I say!

James Jackson wrote:
Can't wait till Anne Geddes is sued under all this new child exploitation hoopla.

*salivating*  Just can't wait.

You say it won't happen, but what is a clearer commercial exploitation of nude children than Anne Geddes' work????

Ahhhh, hope you're joking about that

C R Photography wrote:

Ahhhh, hope you're joking about that

Nope... I am dead serious.  I can't wait for that day because that is what it will take to realize we've gone too far.

James Jackson wrote:

Outline?

Anne Geddes has done work where you can clearly see the whole genital region!

AND

She sells the pictures!

Child exploitation I say!

but her images were not focused on the genital region.

One of his images actually has the model in a bikini, bent over and the image is from behind.
O-()()
/  | \   
Like that!

Ty Simone wrote:
O-()()
/  | \   
Like that!

http://bigbeun50.free.fr/Anne%20Geddes.jpg (18+ per MM rules)

Ty Simone wrote:
O-()()
/  | \

Excuse me, I need to uhh...you know...er...well...just don't watch, I'm shy.


omg...this pic is hawt!!!

James Jackson wrote:
Can't wait till Anne Geddes is sued under all this new child exploitation hoopla.

*salivating*  Just can't wait.

You say it won't happen, but what is a clearer commercial exploitation of nude children than Anne Geddes' work????

C R Photography wrote:
Ahhhh, hope you're joking about that

Nope.  I generally don't support censorship, but Anne Geddes should be drawn & quartered in the public square and all her "art" burned as offensive.

DigitalCMH wrote:
James, is that from Anne?  that pic is...well...er...umm...kind of creepy.

Oh yes and how about this one:



Which, much as the article states: "Here lewd has met lucrative, and exploitation of a child’s innocence equals profits." ... the baby here is "placed in sexually suggestive poses which focus the viewer's attention on the genital or pubic area. Some are posed with facial expressions and in positions that suggest a willingness to engage in sexual activity."  I mean... that baby is obviously enjoying the roses on its pubic region!

For fuck sakes... where are the brakes to this bus?  When can we run it off the highway?

James Jackson wrote:


Which, much as the article states: "Here lewd has met lucrative, and exploitation of a child’s innocence equals profits." ... the baby here is "placed in sexually suggestive poses which focus the viewer's attention on the genital or pubic area. Some are posed with facial expressions and in positions that suggest a willingness to engage in sexual activity."  I mean... that baby is obviously enjoying the roses on its pubic region!

For fuck sakes... where are the brakes to this bus?  When can we run it off the highway?

I disagree on that photo.  Thought I think you are being tongue in cheek...I hope.

James Jackson wrote:

Oh yes and how about this one:



Which, much as the article states: "Here lewd has met lucrative, and exploitation of a child’s innocence equals profits." ... the baby here is "placed in sexually suggestive poses which focus the viewer's attention on the genital or pubic area. Some are posed with facial expressions and in positions that suggest a willingness to engage in sexual activity."  I mean... that baby is obviously enjoying the roses on its pubic region!

For fuck sakes... where are the brakes to this bus?  When can we run it off the highway?

I hate to say this, but my first impression was that the baby was crapping out roses!!!

MS Figures n Physiques wrote:
An example of why MM needs to be Firm in it's 18+ Policy:

Florida firm’s owners face child porn charges for provocative photos of kids

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15977010

   The operators of dozens of teen and preteen “modeling sites” that critics say are nothing more than eye candy for pedophiles have been indicted by a federal grand jury in Alabama for allegedly trafficking in “visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.”

   See ya, wouldn't want to be ya.......

I have encountered the "Little Amber" web site and was appalled at the graphicly sexual content. These people deserve whatever they get.
  I do not agree on Anne Geddes, however. Her work is artistic and entirely asexual in my view.
  The environment of rampant political correctness is out of control in the US and Canada, and too many laws are being interpreted by people who only undress in the dark.

Ty Simone wrote:
James, Where exactly is a lewd or lacivious display of the genitals in that image?

It could be interpreted that way... the rose is clearly covering the genital region, but it is clearly drawing more attention to that area... and the facial expression is indicating the child is enjoying the act immensely...  What more do you want!?

DigitalCMH wrote:
I disagree on that photo.  Thought I think you are being tongue in cheek...I hope.

I am of course...  I just think that this kind of witch hunt has to end somewhere, but I hope it doesn't end before child exploiters like Anne get their due.

James Jackson wrote:

It could be interpreted that way... the rose is clearly covering the genital region, but it is clearly drawing more attention to that area... and the facial expression is indicating the child is enjoying the act immensely...  What more do you want!?

I meant the first one image (you posted the second while I was responding to the first)

But as far as your interpretation of that, you are right, it can be interpretted that way, However, because there is not really a sexual connotation, and the genitals are not visible, there is a rose in the way, it is not child porn.

James Jackson wrote:

It could be interpreted that way... the rose is clearly covering the genital region, but it is clearly drawing more attention to that area... and the facial expression is indicating the child is enjoying the act immensely...  What more do you want!?

That facial expression is obviously due to the baby wanting to push out some doody and the idea of it ruining the photo is making the baby want to laugh but trying not to so that Anne doesn't figure it out before she takes the pic.

James Jackson wrote:
I am of course...  I just think that this kind of witch hunt has to end somewhere, but I hope it doesn't end before child exploiters like Anne get their due.

Can't we just punish her for inflicting tasteless "couch art" hack work on the people of the world?  And that jackass Thomas Kincaid while we're at it?

The sites also attracted the attention of Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla.

James Jackson wrote:

It could be interpreted that way... the rose is clearly covering the genital region, but it is clearly drawing more attention to that area... and the facial expression is indicating the child is enjoying the act immensely...  What more do you want!?

I can’t tell the difference from the smell of sarcasm or an extreme right-winged off base interpretation of Anne’s work.

The sites also attracted the attention of Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla.

Ched wrote:
lol

Yeah, he wanted to protect the kids from people like himself, he knows EXACTLY how dangerous they are.
That's why I'm suspicious of photographers who insist models have escorts.  What're they afraid they'll DO if the model doesn't have one?

And as for the Geddes pic, yeah a rose is covering the baby's crotch.  But in the pics talked about in the news story the kids aren't nude either.  The point is that the law says they don't HAVE to be naked, just "lasciviously displayed."

Ty Simone wrote:

I meant the first one image (you posted the second while I was responding to the first)

But as far as your interpretation of that, you are right, it can be interpretted that way, However, because there is not really a sexual connotation, and the genitals are not visible, there is a rose in the way, it is not child porn.

I'm sorry Ty  I'm having trouble not upchucking enough... I've seen enough babies in stuff that I don't want to look any more, but I'm quite sure while I was at the book store I saw a photo anne did that had baby genitalia on display.

Scott Meyer wrote:
So when will the charges be brought against all the parents of these children for child abuse?

ding ding ding!

exactly.  + neglect.

C R Photography wrote:

I can’t tell the difference from the smell of sarcasm or an extreme right-winged off base interpretation of Anne’s work.

It's sooo hard to get sarcasm across on the internet.

I'm still serious about wanting Anne Geddes prosecuted for child exploitation.

ebarb wrote:
Have any of you actually seen any of these pre-teen modeling sites?  Awhile ago a friend of a friend asked me to check out the work of some hack photographer here locally...his website was linked to a whole bunch of these types of sites and he shot for them...the stuff was absolutely eye candy for pedophiles, there was no grey area here, it was little girls in underwear, with there legs spread.....

It just kills me that the "I'm an artist crowd" here an MM immediately take a positive action by law enforcement and somehow try and change it to some insidious plot to take away there right to shoot what is in most cases crap anyways....

get a clue...

eric

Eric,

Whether there was a grey area to you or not, I will never agree with laws that try to draw some arbitrary line in the sand... particularly laws predicated on two completely arbitrary and non-objective concepts such as 18 years constituting the end of of being a "minor" and what is and is not lewd or pornographic.

When someone can come up with a clear, objective, legal determination for pornographic, and someone can argue successfully and objectively a cut off age between child and adult, I will gladly use those definitions in a new law against child porn.

Until then I'll just have to be happy that I have never seen an image of a child where the image *made* me think dirty thoughts.

I'll also have to be content with the fact that the world can not read my mind.

ebarb wrote:
Have any of you actually seen any of these pre-teen modeling sites?  Awhile ago a friend of a friend asked me to check out the work of some hack photographer here locally...his website was linked to a whole bunch of these types of sites and he shot for them...the stuff was absolutely eye candy for pedophiles, there was no grey area here, it was little girls in underwear, with there legs spread.....

It just kills me that the "I'm an artist crowd" here an MM immediately take a positive action by law enforcement and somehow try and change it to some insidious plot to take away there right to shoot what is in most cases crap anyways....

get a clue...

eric

in the last week there have been a couple of guys who have been busted for these types of sites..

when their names are published mm members rail against the photographer/webmaster/pedo....

most people like to think that they are 'thinking outside the box'

a lot of mm members associate being outside the box with being anti-social, maybe they feel alienated and are justifying their loneliness by 'being an artist that no-one understands' so they position themselves to be anti-everything that is a norm..


then everything is a kneejerk reaction to normalicy.. which standardises alternate thinking..

oddly karl marx considered this a bit, he predicted that the dictatorship of the prolitariot would exist until there was a popular artist which distracted people from collectivism..

James Jackson wrote:

I grew up with this picture on my bedroom wall because my mom has an obsession with her work... I have always found her work to be extremely creepy & disturbing. You don't? Hey, you didn't have to look at that everyday! haha

James Jackson wrote:

Outline?

Anne Geddes has done work where you can clearly see the whole genital region!

AND

She sells the pictures!

Child exploitation I say!

You missed the requirement for sexual intent, otherwise it is protected 1st Admendment material...

TXPhotog wrote:
I recall something very much like this happening to a guy in Colorado.  Same kind of bust and circumstances, same kinds of pictures, same kinds of charges.  He spent a year in jail because he couldn't afford to make bail, but the charges against him were eventually dropped.

Then he moved to Florida.

Ty Simone wrote:
Please read everything behind the story.
His images are a specific violation of current child porn law (and case law) in that at least three of his images show the genital region in a lacivious manner.

The Knox case showed that images that specific target the genital region (in his case video of a dance recital where he constantly focus on the genital region and zoomed in on those where the outline of the girl's genital was clearly visible through the leotards) is Child Pornography.

In the case above, he has at least three images that have the genital area predominately shown (her legs spread) of the the model in swimwear where you can clearly see the outline.

He violated the law.

I did read everything behind the story.  I also read everything behind the Colorado story.  What I said stands.

Despite your self-assured notion that you know what constitutes an illegal act long before a jury does, in the almost identical Colorado case the DA said the same things you did, and he was wrong.

But of course, you know best.