Random legal question...

[Metalhead]

...I have a friend who said she may be doing some implied nude work a friend of hers who is also an aspiring photographer. A sheet would be involved to conceal anything. However, I think the model is 17.

I figure you guys in the business threads probably know the law better than others and I don't fully understand legal jargon all the time. I'm just a little curious how this works. Would implied nudes with an underage model (assuming that nothing is visible (i.e. a sheet is covering or it's a silhouette or something)) be legal?

What's the legal breakdown in a situation like this?

[bigjon0107]

Honestly, i have no idea about the law on this. But do you remember the Miley Cirius photos? I am almost positive she is only 16.

[Metalhead]

Originally Posted by bigjon0107

Honestly, i have no idea about the law about this. But do you remember the Miley Cirius photos? I am almost positive she is only 16.

yeah, that's what made me wonder...just further evidence that it's legal

[ShaneKislack]

The law is that you can take nude photos of anyone any age. Check out Jock Sturges or Salley Mann. The problem is that it's against the law if it's sexually suggestive...which is way to subjective for me to touch with a ten foot pole.

Can your 'friend' afford to defend legal prosecution? Not worth it to me.

[Metalhead]

Originally Posted by ShaneKislack

The law is that you can take nude photos of anyone any age. Check out Jock Sturges or Salley Mann. The problem is that it's against the law if it's sexually suggestive...which is way to subjective for me to touch with a ten foot pole.

Can your 'friend' afford to defend legal prosecution? Not worth it to me.

ah hah!...that what I originally thought, but then I figured there was no way the law could left to THAT much interpretation.

Oh well...yeah, I was gonna say something to her about it, but I don't think they'll be posting the images anywhere, so it won't matter.

[ShaneKislack]

Originally Posted by Metalhead

ah hah!...that what I originally thought, but then I figured there was no way the law could left to THAT much interpretation.

Oh well...yeah, I was gonna say something to her about it, but I don't think they'll be posting the images anywhere, so it won't matter.

Unfortunately, their interpretation may be to their convenience.

[park]

Originally Posted by Metalhead

...I have a friend who said she may be doing some implied nude work a friend of hers who is also an aspiring photographer. A sheet would be involved to conceal anything. However, I think the model is 17.

I figure you guys in the business threads probably know the law better than others and I don't fully understand legal jargon all the time. I'm just a little curious how this works. Would implied nudes with an underage model (assuming that nothing is visible (i.e. a sheet is covering or it's a silhouette or something)) be legal?

What's the legal breakdown in a situation like this?

I am not an attorney but I would not do the shoot without having the parent sign a release and grant approval. There is just too much of a chance of this turning into something costly and time consuming for you. Either that or wait until she turns 18.

[ShutteredEye]

Beyond a shadow of a doubt make sure your 'friend' AND the model have chaperones present during the shoot.

Seems like a huge risk that would simply evaporate just by waiting less than 12 months...

[CobyPhoto]

I wouldn't touch this with a 100 Foot pole. One of the parents might not like one of the photos and can bring suit against you! EVEN if they were there and signed a release! I am extremely careful with Seniors, to avoid sexually suggestive and provocative poses. It just isn't worth the risk.

CJ

[CaptainTom]

This is one of those "It's legal" but is it "practical" questions.

The legality is the least of the worries I would have with this type of shoot.
You can sign all the forms and releases you want to make it "legal" but since the model is underage it leaves you wide open to interpretation of what is moral/immoral.
I don't have a personal problem with a seventeen year old wanting implied nude photos. I wouldn't touch it until she was 18, and then I would make sure all the legal loopholes were sealed.

This is a PHOTGRAPHERS forum, and there is a wide range of ideas about what is OK to shoot from a moral stand point. The GENERAL population has an even wider viewpoint, i.e. you'd be screwed.

[Jeff Lane]

As a lawyer, this whole question makes me sqirm.

The threshold question is whether the photos expose the photographers to child pornography laws. In a nutshell, here it is:
http://www.asacp.org/18_USC_2256.pdf...5507366e1b72dd

At a deeper level, however, even images that do not amount to a criminal child porno violation could still cause real problems. As tasteful as the final image may be, does the setup requuire you to be in the room with a nude or semi-nude minor? Are you absolutely sure the parents are going to be okay with it? Even if they and the young lady have all signed well-drafted releases and the guardians are in the room with their little angel the entire time, will they later have second thoughts when nosy old holier-than-thou Aunt Polly later finds out about the pix?

Every time you click the shutter, you'll be taking some risks, and without knowing a lot more facts than what you can convey in this forum, it's impossible for anyone here (especially me) to know what you're ultimately in for. All that risk could be alleviated almost completely by waiting a few months. Factor that in to your risk analysis to decide whether you're in a big hurry to capture those images.

Jeff

[SCone]

The State could step-in regardless of the parents signature. CPS could see the parents as un-fit and cause all kinds of trouble. Not good for business.

[Howard Barlow]

Texas Penal Code

TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY

CHAPTER 43. PUBLIC INDECENCY

§ 43.25. SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD. (a) In this
section:
(1) "Sexual performance" means any performance or part
thereof that includes sexual conduct by a child younger than 18
years of age.
(2) "Sexual conduct" means sexual contact, actual or
simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual
bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd
exhibition of the genitals, the anus, or any portion of the female
breast below the top of the areola.
(3) "Performance" means any play, motion picture,
photograph, dance, or other visual representation that can be
exhibited before an audience of one or more persons.
(4) "Produce" with respect to a sexual performance
includes any conduct that directly contributes to the creation or
manufacture of the sexual performance.
(5) "Promote" means to procure, manufacture, issue,
sell, give, provide, lend, mail, deliver, transfer, transmit,
publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, or
advertise or to offer or agree to do any of the above.
(6) "Simulated" means the explicit depiction of sexual
conduct that creates the appearance of actual sexual conduct and
during which a person engaging in the conduct exhibits any
uncovered portion of the breasts, genitals, or buttocks.
(7) "Deviate sexual intercourse" and "sexual contact"
have the meanings assigned by Section 43.01.
(b) A person commits an offense if, knowing the character
and content thereof, he employs, authorizes, or induces a child
younger than 18 years of age to engage in sexual conduct or a sexual
performance. A parent or legal guardian or custodian of a child
younger than 18 years of age commits an offense if he consents to
the participation by the child in a sexual performance.
(c) An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the
second degree, except that the offense is a felony of the first
degree if the victim is younger than 14 years of age at the time the
offense is committed.
(d) A person commits an offense if, knowing the character
and content of the material, he produces, directs, or promotes a
performance that includes sexual conduct by a child younger than 18
years of age.
(e) An offense under Subsection (d) is a felony of the third
degree, except that the offense is a felony of the second degree if
the victim is younger than 14 years of age at the time the offense is
committed.
(f) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this
section that:
(1) the defendant was the spouse of the child at the
time of the offense;
(2) the conduct was for a bona fide educational,
medical, psychological, psychiatric, judicial, law enforcement, or
legislative purpose; or
(3) the defendant is not more than two years older than
the child.
(g) When it becomes necessary for the purposes of this
section or Section 43.26 to determine whether a child who
participated in sexual conduct was younger than 18 years of age, the
court or jury may make this determination by any of the following
methods:
(1) personal inspection of the child;
(2) inspection of the photograph or motion picture
that shows the child engaging in the sexual performance;
(3) oral testimony by a witness to the sexual
performance as to the age of the child based on the child's
appearance at the time;
(4) expert medical testimony based on the appearance
of the child engaging in the sexual performance; or
(5) any other method authorized by law or by the rules
of evidence at common law.

[CaptainTom]

That certainly clarifies it for me....

[Howard Barlow]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

That certainly clarifies it for me....

It should, Tom. If the person is under 18, the ice is thin, very thin. One might ought to ask the atty general for a legal opinion as to where the line is. Is implied nudity of a 17 y.o. in a photograph or visual representation a violation of the statute? If not, perhaps there is no problem. If it is, there is, most likely, a serious problem of the felony grade.

(3) "Performance" means any play, motion picture,
photograph, dance, or other visual representation that can be
exhibited before an audience of one or more persons.