Legal?

[MarcFromTheDark]

Curious, is it illegal or legal to do implied nudes of a 17 year old? I understand in Texas, 17 is considered the "legal age", so this is a curiousity. Anyone have a definate yes/no answer, or are there legalities involved, like a signed parental document?

Thanks.

[Gordon]

It's the 'legal age' in Texas, if you are 19. Otherwise it's probably still contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

[thelegend1472]

[Murph]

Not that I am aware of. 17 is still a minor for most things, although Texas considers them an adult for Penal Code purposes. But I am not a lawyer, so I suggest a quickie consultation with an experienced attorney, or a call to your local County Attorney's office for clarification.

Originally Posted by MarcFromTheDark

Curious, is it illegal or legal to do implied nudes of a 17 year old? I understand in Texas, 17 is considered the "legal age", so this is a curiousity. Anyone have a definate yes/no answer, or are there legalities involved, like a signed parental document?

Thanks.

[Dsheree]

Why would you even want to chance it? With all the stories out there????

[Mike G]

Haven't we already gone over this one with you before Marc?

[MarcFromTheDark]

Dunno, have we? I have a bad memory. I'm not going to chance it, I just want the facts, if possible.

[Mike G]

It's likely to land you in trouble, even with Mom or Dad signing, and them in trouble also if they do sign, stay far away.

[TxManx]

Age of consent in Texas is 17, if the partner is less than two years older (ie, 19). Otherwise, the age of consent is 18.

Marc, you specifically asked if 'implied' is an issue. Implied would mean something is covered, and if it can be covered, then cover it and take the picture.

I wouldn't be in this situation without someone else there though - preferably an added person from both sides of the shoot.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by TxManx

I wouldn't be in this situation without someone else there though - preferably an added person from both sides of the shoot.

Doesn't that just spread the guilt around though ? Aren't all of the people then liable for a deliquency charge ? I don't think for example, being the parents bars you from prosocution on those sorts of charges. But then I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet.

[AndrewCCM]

Yes.. we had this conversation before...

THREAD

[TxManx]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Doesn't that just spread the guilt around though ? Aren't all of the people then liable for a deliquency charge ? I don't think for example, being the parents bars you from prosocution on those sorts of charges. But then I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet.

No- because as my post stated, it's *implied* nudity, so the model should be clothed - making it no different than taking any other picture of a minor model in any way, shape or form...

[Roadrnr]

I think Raymond said it best in the other thread that was linked

Originally Posted by shutterflypro

Here is a rule of thumb concerning the minors. If a district attourney can look at the photographs and believe that it will cause arrousal then you could possible have charges filed against you for indecency with a minor, even if her parents are present.

This law is in force in many of our counties throughout texas and a lot of the united states. While certain counties may have taken action to better define this most have chosen to leave it up to the D.A.

Me personally I don't trust a D.A. that much. They want convictions and it is easy to tug on a juries Heartstrings.

Be careful and keep it extremely professional, not saying you will cross the line but it is really close.

Hope this helps.

I say why risk it on a 17 year old? Wait till she's 18 and shoot whatever she wants you to shoot.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by TxManx

No- because as my post stated, it's *implied* nudity, so the model should be clothed - making it no different than taking any other picture of a minor model in any way, shape or form...

I guess if you feel like arguing with a judge over the definition of pornography and if 'implied nudity' vs nudity is enough of a line, then it makes a difference. Otherwise, I don't see any difference at all. You may push it more in to a grey area, but then if you are grey area, you'll probably be in court, regardless. Shot in the style that Marc typically employs, clothed or not, they'd be likely to be consider child pornography (which is quite a different legal standard than adult pornography, for example)

[MarcFromTheDark]

I think "they" need to learn the difference between child porn and implied nude. Yes, she wants implied, and if nothing shows, what's the difference? Clothing, or using a prop/her arm, etc? Damn I wish we could get some legal counsel on this. I'm going to delve further and try to uncover some info. I agree, nude wouldn't be a smart idea for a 17 y/o, but implied? Hmm.

And yet another grey question, if the 17 y/0 model is clothed, but scantilly clad? Is that okay? What if she's clothed, but insinuating a sexual manner? And I don't mean "bent over" but, I mean... a sexy style. Like how these younger girls do it on myspace pics etc.

This is a serious topic, and it needs to be discussed, and facts need to become of it. Some people may even be afraid to ask this, or associate with it, but knowledge is power. I really don't want to see a war of bickering and "I wouldn't do that if I were you" kinda stuff, I want some answers, not warnings.

Thanks to those of you who are assisting in an answer to this!