Glamour 1™ is loaded with great photographers and models portfolios, forums, photography tips, workshop info and much more than a typical portfolio site. These valuable services increases traffic and operating costs and those that support our community of models and photographers by upgrading their accounts as a Lifetime Member (pay only once, never pay again) enjoy practically no advertising--upgrade now to increase your viewing pleasure while supporting this community and family of glamour photographers and models.
Don't want to see this message or large ads, register, then upgrade now!
I don't post cause I have nothing to post. Unless there are those interested in lighting practice shots with manikin heads and wooden dolls. I came across something that I wanted to ask though. I purchased a book (I read ALOT to build my base on) that is called Successful Glamour Photography put out by AMPHOTO BOOKS. Since I'm seriously interested in all that you folks do, I read every book I buy cover to cover, every word. In this edition, I am seeing on page 134 a photographer, I'll not mention, listing his models on a shoot in Haiti. 5 really great looking models too. One of them is listed as being 16 years old. As I turn the pages and read on, I see the 16 year old on page 138 with frontal nudity. At least it looks like her anyway, distinquished by her hair and face. Since there has been previous posts out here on the ill's of underage models, I was wondering what some thoughts on this would be. Where is the line at, could this be some parent that signed off on this? If so, is it then legal? Understand that I'm not trying to get into a discussion on the rights of others, or the damage this could cause. I'm just curious as to where the line is and if it's possibly a fupah, or if there is a legal loophole on this. I'm NOT looking, fishing, or trying to find a legal loophole either so please don't think that. It's just something that I found in a book I bought that I wanted some input on.
let me start out by saying I'm not a lawyer and I had the very book you are referring to for many years, while it's quite dated as far as style, I really like his attitude towards shooting so I have read it cover to cover many times. Two thoughts...
1- He's from England, they have different rules there
2- It's not illegal to phtograph a 16 year old girl nude, what makes it illegal is the intent of the photos.
That being said, the original intent (sexy nude calendar) would make them a problem here in the Land of the Free. But as you see them, the intent is educational, thus the "loophole" if you will.
I appreciate the input Daniel. As I was saying, it was just something that kinda had a 'HMMM?' factor to it. Not that I endorse Victorian Principle's but I thought it was odd to see. As for the book, I find something in everything I read and that's why I read a lot here. THNX AGAIN!
Hmmm, the title does this thread justice. A perdicament, at least in my mind. While I'm not sure about the exact laws of photographing a 16 year old nude, I can only give you my opinion. If I were in your position, I'd be very, very cautions of this to the point that I wouldn't want to be further associated with this orginazation (if I were involved before) just due to the opportunity of scandal and me not wanting to go through something like that. I'm not trying to pass judgement here, just my opinion on this.
THNX for the response. I assure you that I'm not associated with the publisher or photgrapher by no means, and not intending to unless they want to put me under their wing and let me learn more. <heh!> I was just asking for unbiased/biased opinions on this. As I said before, I thought it odd to be able to purchase this in a local bookstore. Then again, I guess my odd side is coming out because I thoroughly review everything I read on Photgraphy. It's just my nature to do this since I'm learning the craft. I'll probably never be great at it because it does take talent, but at least I can say I'm learned on the subject. HEH!
I think you need to update yor understanding of legal and illegal in regard to photographing minors. At one time, you were right - the intent of the photographer mattered. However, with the rise of concern over child pornography I believe that any nude image of a minor is illegal. And many states make nudes of minors illegal. It becomes not only pornograhic, but child abuse, child sexual misconduct, etc.
It sounds like 1) the book was shot a few years ago and 2) the photographer is from England - where the age is 16.
And as an admin I have to remind everyone that GG does not permit images of minors to be posted on GG - with the exception of family snap shots.
Even posting a comment on this subject makes me nervous in todays political climate in the United States.
It makes me paranoid enough that if I found an image like that I would return the book to the book store or at the very least destroy and dispose of the book. Sorry but the moral majority wackos that currently have such a large control on the good ol' US of A don't need much of an excuse to ruin your life if they can.
I'm paranoid enough that I don't photograph woman under 18 without mom or dad their and then we're talking warm and fuzzy Crest Toothpaste crystal clean images.
With woman over 18 then it is a picture of them with their photo ID and model relaese...along with a good photo copy of two forms of ID. One I keep filed close and another copy filed off site. The good part is I don't photograph that many woman anywhere near 18 but they all get the same treatment.
I'm also paranoid enough that I wonder about someone that mostly lurks, has never posted a photo in his 11 or 12 post and starts asking leading questions about nude photos of underage models...that really makes me go HMMMM.
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that any nude image of a minor is illegal. And many states make nudes of minors illegal. It becomes not only pornograhic, but child abuse, child sexual misconduct, etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think this is correct. But if it is, then GG is currently displaying child pornography in another thread., because (if I'm not mistaken) that is:
A.) a child
B.) as naked as you can get.
There must be some language in the law about the intent/depiction of the image.
[ QUOTE ]
And as an admin I have to remind everyone that GG does not permit images of minors to be posted on GG - with the exception of family snap shots.
Gotta say I don't agree, if what you are saying is true, Sally Mann, Jock Sturges and a few others would be behind bars...
I, of course, agree that it would be totally inappropriate to post a minor on this or any other glamour related forum.
BTW being a fashion shooter myself, not glamour I can tell you many mags run nude and partial nude shots of fashion girls many of whom are younger than 18.
All that being said, nothing can stop some conservative thinker from hassling you and possibly bringing you to court over such things even if you will probably win in the end.
Lat time I checked, even with W in the white house, this is still America [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
IP: 70.187.21.12
Linear Mode
