Extremely delicate question but need an honest answer.

[Bitter Jeweler]

I think there is another part of this...Buyer beware? If you purchase a service, or subscribe to it, and the site claims legal age models, is it your friends fault, or is the sites fault?

If the site was deceptive, is that an entirely seperate case?

I think you pose a good question. Even if it was advertised as a "legal" site, I don't think that would serve as a defense in a criminal case, but perhaps if he does end up in prison he could sue for civil damages for fraud/deception. I dunno.

The key difference between this website and Sally Mann, I think, is the intent of the user. In this case, the fact that he purchased a subscription to a website that displays these types of images is pretty damning evidence. We are not talking about it here, but I think it is probably understood what the purpose was for buying the images.

Very sad indeed.

Yeah, but thats the thing! Even though it's porn, is there no protection for the consumer? I know that sounds odd, but still!
But the flipside is as you said, if he was seeking out "barely legal"...is he crossing the line anyway, and deserving what's coming?

Interesting situation.

Any body familiar with "The Cucumber Incident" or, what was it, "Saving the Friedmans"? (both movies discussing suposedely wrongly accused sex offenders.)

 

[runnah]

I will put it to you this way. I have been looking at porn on the net since forever, and in all my years I've never accidentally come across anything like that. You don't just stumble upon crap like that, you actively have to search it out. Thus I say he knew what he was getting into and guilty as charged.

 

[nycphotography]

I think there is another part of this...Buyer beware? If you purchase a service, or subscribe to it, and the site claims legal age models, is it your friends fault, or is the sites fault?

If the site was deceptive, is that an entirely seperate case?

If I sell you a "legal stolen car"... do you think either of us could claim innocence?

 

[rexbobcat]

I will put it to you this way. I have been looking at porn on the net since forever, and in all my years I've never accidentally come across anything like that. You don't just stumble upon crap like that, you actively have to search it out. Thus I say he knew what he was getting into and guilty as charged.

Not necessarily. There was a video game a few years back called The Guy Game that featured a naked underage girl. And the game was mass produced an then later recalled. So basically anyone who owns the video game owns illegal underage pornography. It's censored pornography but still...

You'd think that this kind of stuff is hidden in some sort of dirty Internet back room but not always...

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

WTF is a legal stolen car?

 

[rexbobcat]

WTF is a legal stolen car?

I was about to ask the same thing. XD

 

[jaomul]

There is also the fact that different countries have different laws about age. I can stand to be corrected but I believe age of consent in spain is 14. Does that mean an image of a 15 year old from spain is considered legal, I dont know, but the only proper solution may be to select an age internationally and no image of a person below this age unclothed can be legally shown on the net. Proper secure channels to be set up for medical or educational purposes

 

[nycphotography]

I will put it to you this way. I have been looking at porn on the net since forever, and in all my years I've never accidentally come across anything like that. You don't just stumble upon crap like that, you actively have to search it out. Thus I say he knew what he was getting into and guilty as charged.

To the extent that it was delivered via the paid subscription, yes.

But EVERYONE should be aware that there are trojan horse exploits SPECIFICALLY intended for storing illegal files on other people's computers. Just because a file is on someone's computer does not guaranteed mean they put it there. More information is required before any reasonable guess can be made as to ownership / intent.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I think I get what he's asking. I can relate it to pawning stolen jewelery. Pawn shops have to be careful of that.
I believe they keep in touch with the police for stolen jewelery. So I think I get his point.

 

[nycphotography]

WTF is a legal stolen car?

I would hazard to guess it's about the same thing as legal images of a certain nature.

In other words, it's not just a lie, but a lie that even the buyer doesn't believe.

 

[SCraig]

There is also the fact that different countries have different laws about age. I can stand to be corrected but I believe age of consent in spain is 14. Does that mean an image of a 15 year old from spain is considered legal, I dont know, but the only proper solution may be to select an age internationally and no image of a person below this age unclothed can be legally shown on the net. Proper secure channels to be set up for medical or educational purposes

Won't work. The internet is truly world-wide and there are a lot of countries that don't subscribe to some international laws. North Korea, for example, doesn't really give a damn what the laws in the rest of the world are. That's how spammers circumvent the spam laws, they bounce their spam messages off of servers in countries that don't subscribe to to the CAN-SPAM act.

 

[Ilovemycam]

OP...it is all bull****. In the old days none of this was an issue. (Non sexual nudes of teens / kids.) Now if your talking kids and teens having sex in the photo. Then that is a different story.

Once the legal system says its porn, it is up to you to prove otherwise. If the legal system has a hard-on for you, your screwed unless you got deep pockets and a good lawyer...oh and happen to be in the right or at least close to it.

I got nothing against nudes of teens. Natural as nudes of an old ancient man or woman and a damn site prettier. But I don't run the legal system. Some parents have been hauled in for taking nude pix of their kids in the bathtub. Lots of crazy stuff in this area to catch you on.

The whole pitfall of this topic is; there IS no black or white. Every state is different with the laws. Bottom line is, it is subjective and subject to the doctrine of 'might makes right' of the judge that is looking down his or her nose at you. I say it is art...judge says it is porn...who wins?

You know, there are many people that classify Playboy as porn. If they were the judge, your SOL.

Best advice is to stay legal and not screw around in that direction at all. As I said...if 'they' (TPTB) have a hard-on for you...your screwed.

 

[Ilovemycam]

I think the photographer I am referring to is Sally Mann. You can Google her work to see what I am talking about.

Sally made her name with shooting her nude kids. She wants to think otherwise. But whenever her name comes up most people think of her nude kiddie pix.

 

[EIngerson]

I don't think I'd do any photos of naked children. Tasteful or otherwise. My personal thought is, it doesn't fall into any art category. My biggest concern is that no matter what intent it was photographed under, it can be viewed with perverse and inappropriate intent. It's different when it's a consenting adult in front of the lens. Just my opinion.

 

[Ilovemycam]

I don't think I'd do any photos of naked children. Tasteful or otherwise. My personal thought is, it doesn't fall into any art category. My biggest concern is that no matter what intent it was photographed under, it can be viewed with perverse and inappropriate intent. It's different when it's a consenting adult in front of the lens. Just my opinion.

Good safe stance. You wont have any worries.