NSFW: What exactly are the laws regarding shooting teens nude?

[kundalini]

<~~~ That's me!! But here's another a little bigger... With my boyfriend at a wedding

???????

Every post by this person is the exact same and in inappropriate threads.

amdnice0, please stop trolling.

reported

 

[unpopular]

In general, as far as I know (and I am not an attorney or have otherwise any special training in this legal matter) so long as the model isn't engaged in a sexually explicit manner then it is protected. However, what "sexually explicit" entails is so highly variable from person to person, religion to religion, culture to culture, it's almost impossible to know if you've crossed that line. I believe in one case, Mann perhaps, the judge concluded that pornography was something "he knew when he saw it".

Some people who are very conservative would say any form of nudity is sexual by it's nature, and society as a whole has a "better to lock up a person for child porn than risk a pedophile on the street" kind of attitude. It's just not worth even approaching, IMO, unless you are a making specific statement which cannot be done any other way - then you need to ask yourself how dedicated you are to this project, because it is very possible that it will blow up into a huge deal. If you've just found a pretty, 16 year old model whom you want to photograph nude, OTOH, forget it.

 

[slackercruster]

Forget the law. It won't protect you from someone with an agenda.

I agree.. but that doesn't make it right! Between the religionists on one side, and the sicko pervs on the other... it can be a very nasty situation. No matter how pure the intentions of the photographer! (but that doesn't make it wrong.. just a political and social nightmare!)

Sure, if someone has it in for you then you get hauled in for whatever. But I like to know generally where things stand.

 

[xjoewhitex]

Personally I won't shoot anyone under the age of 18, or 19 in my neighboring state just to cover my ass. I shoot nudes and rarely anything else, I have had minors approach me wanting to do a implied type shoot but even with the thought of it I get a little nervous. I see no problem with nudity with minors as long as it is art, because there is a true form of beauty and innocents from it.. but its not for me.

 

[cgipson1]

In general, as far as I know (and I am not an attorney or have otherwise any special training in this legal matter) so long as the model isn't engaged in a sexually explicit manner then it is protected. However, what "sexually explicit" entails is so highly variable from person to person, religion to religion, culture to culture, it's almost impossible to know if you've crossed that line. I believe in one case, Mann perhaps, the judge concluded that pornography was something "he knew when he saw it".

Some people who are very conservative would say any form of nudity is sexual by it's nature, and society as a whole has a "better to lock up a person for child porn than risk a pedophile on the street" kind of attitude. It's just not worth even approaching, IMO, unless you are a making specific statement which cannot be done any other way - then you need to ask yourself how dedicated you are to this project, because it is very possible that it will blow up into a huge deal. If you've just found a pretty, 16 year old model whom you want to photograph nude, OTOH, forget it.

But the publicity could be a major advantage too.... all the avant garde would be up for it... the ACLU could jump in.... it would be a hatefest / lovefest from hell (depending on what side you were on!) It would probably make you famous (and possibly rich) as long as you didn't end up dead or in prison!

 

[MTVision]

Sure, if someone has it in for you then you get hauled in for whatever. But I like to know generally where things stand.

It is, obviously, illegal to post any nude pornographic pictures of people under age 18. But what law enforcement considers pornographic depends solely on their interpretation. To be pornographic they have to be lewd in nature but someone has to determine intent and if the photo is "lewd in nature". Like its been said before - to some nudity would be, in itself, considered lewd in nature. It's a very fine and dangerous line IMO. There are no set standards, ASFAIK, that law enforcements uses to determine if an image with nudity is pornographic or not.

The picture of the teen in the tub - I may not find that lewd/pornographic but someone else may. If that someone else is a cop/prosecutor then you could be in for a huge legal hassle and a possible sex offender label. And that sex offender label is huge - people don't care why or what you were charged with.

There was an incident a few years back where an 18yo got mad at his girlfriend (17yo). He hacked her e-mail and sent a nude picture (that she had texted him) to everyone in her contact list. He is now a sex offender for life and has to register. He had to go to classes with rapists and pedophiles all because he made a rash decision when he was angry and his girlfriend was under 18. Granted, this is a completely different scenario then what the OP is talking about. But....its something I wouldn't risk. I wouldn't want to leave my fate in the hands of people's opinions.....

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer and have no legal background. It's just my opinion based on information I've read and seen.

 

[PlanetStarbucks]

If the supreme court can't even define what is indecent when it comes to capturing nudity, I don't think a thread on a photo website will help too much. Frankly...too much is up in the air for you to get a good answer, so I would just stick to the 18+ crowd.

From Justice Potter Steward in 1964:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that"

 

[MTVision]

In general, as far as I know (and I am not an attorney or have otherwise any special training in this legal matter) so long as the model isn't engaged in a sexually explicit manner then it is protected. However, what "sexually explicit" entails is so highly variable from person to person, religion to religion, culture to culture, it's almost impossible to know if you've crossed that line. I believe in one case, Mann perhaps, the judge concluded that pornography was something "he knew when he saw it".

Some people who are very conservative would say any form of nudity is sexual by it's nature, and society as a whole has a "better to lock up a person for child porn than risk a pedophile on the street" kind of attitude. It's just not worth even approaching, IMO, unless you are a making specific statement which cannot be done any other way - then you need to ask yourself how dedicated you are to this project, because it is very possible that it will blow up into a huge deal. If you've just found a pretty, 16 year old model whom you want to photograph nude, OTOH, forget it.

"he knew when he saw it"

^ that right there would make me think twice about every doing any type of nude photography with someone underage. What that one person considers pornography may differ completely from someone else.

I posted a picture of my daughter on my private FB account - she was naked but you couldn't see anything below the waist. She was flipping me off in the picture and it was funny IMO - especially since she doesn't know what she was doing. I didn't find it inappropriate in any way, shape or form but I got PM's from people and comments about the picture. She's 2! It's not like I took a nude shot of a 17yo girl or something. But that just goes to show that what people consider appropriate/inappropriate varies so much.

 

[vtf]

:shock:. Anything under the legal age of consent will bring serious attention to your intent not work. Serious attention! Be prepared to be compared to Sandusky or others, regardless of right or wrong, legal or illegal.

 

[unpopular]

that right there would make me think twice about every doing any type of nude photography with someone underage. What that one person considers pornography may differ completely from someone else.

Well, fortunately in this case that statement was in favor of the defendant. I don't think such an unprecedented, outrageous and subjective justification would hold up in an appeals court should the photographer been convicted. I also don't know the veracity of this, nor what case it comes from.

 

[ann]

Just an fyi about the photo of the young lady in the bath tub, I believe that comes from a book called Ward 81 published in 1979. That book was very responsible for shutting down a mental hospital.

In fact I am showing a video about Mary Ellen Mark this week to one of my photo classes, and will be bringing along the book so that can view first hand.

 

[MTVision]

Well, fortunately in this case that statement was in favor of the defendant. I don't think such an unprecedented, outrageous and subjective justification would hold up in an appeals court should the photographer been convicted. I also don't know the veracity of this, nor what case it comes from.

No I know. But the whole idea that that is basically how law enforcement determines whether an image is pornographic or not is scary. I mean you could get charged an have to deal with all the legal hassle based on someone's opinions/views. Granted, you might not get convicted but still......my point I guess is that I, personally, wouldn't want to risk it.

 

[pixmedic]

I think the real answer is this...if you have ANY questions or doubts as to the legality of photographing someone or something for any reason, DON'T DO IT!
better safe than...in jail and becoming the new girlfriend for a hardcore felon nicknamed "Anaconda", with no snake tattoos... just sayin.

 

[slackercruster]

Sure, if someone has it in for you then you get hauled in for whatever. But I like to know generally where things stand.

It is, obviously, illegal to post any nude pornographic pictures of people under age 18. But what law enforcement considers pornographic depends solely on their interpretation. To be pornographic they have to be lewd in nature but someone has to determine intent and if the photo is "lewd in nature". Like its been said before - to some nudity would be, in itself, considered lewd in nature. It's a very fine and dangerous line IMO. There are no set standards, ASFAIK, that law enforcements uses to determine if an image with nudity is pornographic or not.

The picture of the teen in the tub - I may not find that lewd/pornographic but someone else may. If that someone else is a cop/prosecutor then you could be in for a huge legal hassle and a possible sex offender label. And that sex offender label is huge - people don't care why or what you were charged with.

There was an incident a few years back where an 18yo got mad at his girlfriend (17yo). He hacked her e-mail and sent a nude picture (that she had texted him) to everyone in her contact list. He is now a sex offender for life and has to register. He had to go to classes with rapists and pedophiles all because he made a rash decision when he was angry and his girlfriend was under 18. Granted, this is a completely different scenario then what the OP is talking about. But....its something I wouldn't risk. I wouldn't want to leave my fate in the hands of people's opinions.....

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer and have no legal background. It's just my opinion based on information I've read and seen.

Someone said that the punishment for murdering a boy was only half that of the punishment for photographing him nude with an erection. If true, crazy isn't it?

I'm all for laws protecting children from sex predators. But some of these laws and paranoia they spread are pretty nuts. It would be interesting going to court, albeit not a pleasant one, and tell the judge 'I got the book from the public library...don't blame me...go arrest them!' But ignorance of the law is a excuse they usually won't accept.

In my own case, I bought some Aperture books blind, not knowing what the photographers work was even about. If it was cheap, I bought it for my collection. And only after looking at the books did these questions pop up.

 

[slackercruster]

Just an fyi about the photo of the young lady in the bath tub, I believe that comes from a book called Ward 81 published in 1979. That book was very responsible for shutting down a mental hospital.

In fact I am showing a video about Mary Ellen Mark this week to one of my photo classes, and will be bringing along the book so that can view first hand.

Yes, originally that was were it was from. Later repub in other books.