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

[Tee]

I'm a world traveler and I don't mean to hotels and resorts either. 67 countries. I spent last summer in Europe. Same issues, same problems, just presented in a different way (The Brits are amazing at belittling you while making it sound like a compliment).

 

[usayit]

The Brits are amazing at belittling you while making it sound like a compliment).

I had to laugh (in a good way) at this post... I live in the north east heavily influenced by NYC. We don't even bother trying to make it sound like a compliment.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

under 18.. parental / guardian consent... with a strong contract? For art... almost anything appears to be permissible.

I would consult an attorney, personally...

this thread is proof everyone on the 'net is an attorney

 

[Solarflare]

Well I dont want to start a political discussion about this in a forum about photography, so lets just note that to me, comparing the USA with third world countries doesnt make much sense.

 

[KmH]

In Europe and other countries I have traveled, seeing a topless baby, girl, woman is no cause for alarm or even draw attention from other men in the area, it's 'normal'. Obviously one's cultural conditioning dictate's what is and isn't sexually explicit. Surely the American gov't has a legally concise definition of what is considered porn...

No. The US gov't doesn't have anything close to being a legally concise definition of what is considered pornography.

The US has long been and remains one of the more uptight countries on the planet when it comes to issues related to sexuality.

For the OP, an online photography forum is the wrong place to be seeking legal advice, of any kind.

If you want to get a better sense of the legal pitfalls - visit expertlaw.com.

 

[unpopular]

The issue here is that people expect better from the US given the wealth, resources, and influence. Unfortunately... its not. Furthermore, we like to air it on national news which isn't filtered nor controlled by the state.

Don't think for a moment that the media isn't controlled by the same interests that control the government. While perhaps not directly filtered or controlled, it makes little difference when both the government and the media have the same controller and censor: corporate interests.

 

[usayit]

Um... the media is corporate... that's pretty obvious.

 

[unpopular]

That's kind of my point.

 

[Garbz]

That is what this thread is all about...'trying' to learn what we can about a blind subject.

You know, I really have NO interest in learning how to photograph underage models. Why would anyone want to learn about this so-called "blind" subject?

This sentence is a textbook example of not having an open mind. Going from "I have no interest" to "why would anyone" is probably the saddest thing I could think of a human saying.

Exploring a field unexplored?
Trying to raise awareness of the obsession with if someone grows hair but no boobs it must be illegal for them to be in a photo?
Artistic impression?

You treat the subject as if there couldn't ever be any photographers who have investigated it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Henson

 

[Forkie]

Shouldn't even be a thought if they're under 18.

No more newborn shoots then?

There's a bizarre culture of people thinking that anyone between the ages of 1 and 18 years should be locked up in airtight body suits and never be revealed until their 18th birthday, which is completely ridiculous.

Seriously, if the young person being photographed and the parents/guardians give constent and are comfortable with the type of images being shot, I don't see any issues whatsoever.

 

[slackercruster]

As to why?

I hear one thing on TV and see another thing in the photo books. Would like to find out the bottom line. It is always good to know where one stands. The philosopher finds his joy in discovering truth...as best we can obtain it.

 

[unpopular]

This kind of goes back to what I was saying about the media. The media's role isn't to inform us. What do you think is more conducive to selling the most amount of advertising: the world is an ambiguous place where even the legal system doesn't have the answers, ot the world is a consistent, comfortable place with absolute right and wrong which always correlates with the law? There is a reason why when you watch "To Catch a Predator" you don't hear about how many people they "catch" but do not convict. There is no debate on Dateline if what they are doing is actually ethical, if there is any way you can actually prove what these guys "believed" or their "motives" as if there is any evidence which can peer inside the heads of others. Comfort sells; we're comforted by some outrage, provided that we know that there is some hope for order, some moral code which we all can rely on. Outrage is comfortable because of this.

But what we can't deal with is that under some circumstances that moral code breaks down, that the very things we morally value conflict with other moral values - freedom of speech with speech we cannot get behind, the mere thought that someone's getting off on Sally Mann is pretty revolting. Suddenly outrage becomes fear, we loose that sense of empowerment of being right in our outrage - it's no longer something positive, but rather the realization of the limits of society, and that society cannot protect us from that which makes us uncomfortable, that we have no right to being cozy and coddled.

This realization doesn't sell advertising, so you're not going to see documentaries on the ambiguity of child pornography on Dateline, for the same reasons you're not going to see a serious discussion on if "To Catch a Predator" is ethical. It's better for advertisers to feel right than wonder if we're wrong.

 

[Tee]

This sentence is a textbook example of not having an open mind. Going from "I have no interest" to "why would anyone" is probably the saddest thing I could think of a human saying.

I keep a very open mind. My mind has also been shaped by personal experiences, observations and the like. But I'm happy you shared your thoughts about me to me. I'm sure if we were having a cup of joe, our explanations would be better understood and you wouldn't be calling me a sad human being. As for your thought that anyone prefacing a statement with "why would anyone" is saddest thing a human could say, I'd ask you to consider the multitude of statements that would complete the statement. I mean, really, that's the saddest thing a human being can say?!