The case of Jeff Pierson's photography...

[johnastovall]

I have not seen this posted but I think it raises an issue which we as photographers both pro and amature who use the net need to be aware of.

"In a federal indictment announced this week, the U.S. Department of Justice accused Pierson, 43, of being a child pornographer--even though even prosecutors acknowledge there's no evidence he has ever taken a single photograph of an unclothed minor."

Full story at Cnet.

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

Heck the way the law is being interpreted that you would need to be careful in shooting any of the following:
Your teenage child and friends at your backyard pool in their swimsuits.
A High School Cheerleading Group
Female Gymnasts in a State Competition
and a number of other cases.

Now I did click on the google link that has cached some of the example photos and one to me is defenitely pushing things (girl with shorts approaching a french cut underware on what looks to be about a 10 year old-rear shot) while the other 30-40 shots are at most slightly suggestive- Hell hasn't anyone ever heard of Lolitta? Sometimes the shooting positions may be totally thought of by the model and the guy shooting afterwards goes that is an interesting shot and he thinks nothing more about it until the FEDS knock on his door.

[johnastovall]

Here's MSNBC's report, a bit different than CNET's.

[Rick Waldroup]

Don't the Feds have anything better to do. We all know what child porn is. Now they want to come after what they think are "suggestive poses".

I do know this, I am damn tired of the tax dollars spent on these witch hunts.

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

Yeah I've heard of these and actually have come across some of the front pages in the past and the intent was not innocent, now the crazy thing is what will the law do and how grey will the grey area become.

The instance with the Mom and daughter at the shoot sounds like the women should have turned tail with her daughter whenever he said you can't see your daughter during the shoot but you can see me. Total BS! But I bet Mommy saw a chance to get her daughter into modeling and making the $$$$$$$$$$ so she became stupid and greedy and this guy took full advantage of this.

Just hope common sense comes into play!

[johnastovall]

I fear in the 21st Century Common Sense has become an Uncommon Commodity.

[jeffkohn]

Reading the MSN article it sure sounds like these sites are hiding behind a description of "modeling" sites knowing full well that they're catering to pedophiles. I mean come on, how many modeling agencies are going to pay for "memberships" allowing them to see more pictures? I don't know if this actually rises to the level of child porn, but it sure seems like exploitation to me. Knowing that "modeling" sites full of pictures like this are getting shut down sure isn't going to cause me to lose any sleep at night worrying about First Amendment rights.

I realize there's a risk of a "slippery slope" here, but I think intent and how the images are used has to be taken into account. These site are not "art".

[Rick Waldroup]

Yep, Jeff you're right. After reading the MSN article, it seems these guys were definately over the top. The only problem I have, is of course, the precedent the Feds will set with this if they are succesful.

[jeffkohn]

Yeah it would be better if there was legislation to more specifically address this while being clear enough to avoid 1st amendment issues, rather than using child-porn laws that were written a long time ago and may not be clear enough; but I guess there's nothing on the books yet (at least not at the federal level).

[Stephen H]

It sounds to me like the people involved have read the child porn laws and then tried to work things so they are as close to the edge as they can get. I don't think that issue will go away, though. If they redefine the laws to cover the work in question, it'll just shift the practice around to match.