THE COVERED NUDE SHOT I SHOULD HAVE USED!

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/05/2007 01:25:34 AM · #1

So i wish i had submitted this shot because i would have actually finished the voting!

so if you want to know what my original was basically picture this almost same pose with no hand!

Blue Moon

Canon EOS-40D

02/05/2007 01:45:07 AM · #2

I don't get it...where did it go? I remember it in the challenge, but I don't see a DQ...?

02/05/2007 01:45:47 AM · #3

Originally posted by Blue Moon:

I don't get it...where did it go? I remember it in the challenge, but I don't see a DQ...?

She is under 18.....removed for legal reasons I suppose.

02/05/2007 01:45:57 AM · #4

Originally posted by Blue Moon:

I don't get it...where did it go? I remember it in the challenge, but I don't see a DQ...?

called a self DQ

02/05/2007 01:46:50 AM · #5

Originally posted by rex:

Originally posted by Blue Moon:
I don't get it...where did it go? I remember it in the challenge, but I don't see a DQ...?

She is under 18.....removed for legal reasons I suppose.

The photographer is 16 but thats not the photographer how would you know how old the person in the photo is?

EDIT - Now that i see the description legal issues... but

Message edited by author 2007-02-05 01:47:42.

02/05/2007 01:47:33 AM · #6

Originally posted by rainmotorsports:

Originally posted by Blue Moon:
I don't get it...where did it go? I remember it in the challenge, but I don't see a DQ...?

called a self DQ

nope
it completly slipped my mind that you have to be 18+

i wish SC would of put a helpful reminder in the challenge description!

02/05/2007 01:48:06 AM · #7

Originally posted by rainmotorsports:

Originally posted by rex:

Originally posted by Blue Moon:
I don't get it...where did it go? I remember it in the challenge, but I don't see a DQ...?

She is under 18.....removed for legal reasons I suppose.

The photographer is 16 but thats not the photographer how would you know how old the person in the photo is?

EDIT - Now that i see the description legal issues... but

SC called me on it from suspicion of others. and i couldnt lie.

02/05/2007 01:48:58 AM · #8

OKay where does it say that you have to be 18 in the nude challange? Ill go look.

But dependign on how congress is going If its not in a sexual nature you can show her topless. But theres alot stirring up in congress right now several sites that claim their work is not porn have been shut down.

SO i gues you shouldnt play with fire.

EDIT - Well SC's ruling is what it is. even if it is legal as art in the US. They dont need to be messing with the art versus porn fight with the government.

Message edited by author 2007-02-05 01:50:23.

02/05/2007 01:50:00 AM · #9

Originally posted by rainmotorsports:

He posted in a thread when he was dq'ed that his model was underage.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/05/2007 01:50:40 AM · #10

I missed that thread

Blue Moon

Canon EOS-40D

02/05/2007 01:50:53 AM · #11

they're just boobs! ...and yes, I'm talking about the government too :)

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/05/2007 01:51:19 AM · #12

Originally posted by rainmotorsports:

If DPC allowed it to stay then legally they could get in trouble and anyone looking at the image could get in trouble as well. So congrats to DPC for catching this.

Citadel

Nikon D7500

02/05/2007 01:53:56 AM · #13

Just out of curiousity, does this count as DQ for noisemaker or was the image simply removed? Just wondering. I hope it doesn't count for a DQ because he's got some really cool shots and hasn't had a DQ yet and to have an honest mistake put a blemish on his record would be bad.

Just for the record I agree with SC on this but I also think that it really was an honest mistake.

Message edited by author 2007-02-05 01:55:24.

super-dave

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

02/05/2007 01:54:32 AM · #14

Originally posted by noisemaker:

SC called me on it from suspicion of others. and i couldnt lie.

you did the right thing.

as i said during your DQ thread, i still think the terms of service should specify that models must be 18+ if nudity is involved. proof if age should be available on request.

this would cover DPC's ass, should some uptight idiot complain about a nude ... and it also makes the rules undoubtedly clear to the members.

i'm going to admit that i know a few photographers who submit for sites like met-art and others. they MUST provide photographic proof of age with every submission, otherwise it never makes print.

DPC needs to ensure the same ...

02/05/2007 01:55:28 AM · #15

REX, The one thign and were not pressing it is. Up until now the US Governments ruling on underage nudity was that it could not be of a sexual nature. Underage nudity of a non sexual nature was considered to be art. There for being legal. Hundreds of cases have been filed and thousands of drafted bills have been written to try to ban all underage nudity and currently theres an ongoing case.

Unless they passed something in the past 6 months that i missed. WOuld this image not fall under art and there for be legal under 18 United States Code 2257 and 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 75? Top half and no genitalia, no actions.. looks like art to me. But then again laws are changing.

Message edited by author 2007-02-05 01:56:21.

02/05/2007 01:57:21 AM · #16

Originally posted by Citadel:

i want to know that aswell. i hope it doenst count as a true DQ

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/05/2007 01:57:23 AM · #17

Originally posted by rainmotorsports:

I understand the art thing but if it was your daughter at the age of 16 would you want it posted?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

02/05/2007 01:57:25 AM · #18

Originally posted by super-dave:

as i said during your DQ thread, i still think the terms of service should specify that models must be 18+ if nudity is involved. proof if age should be available on request.

this would cover DPC's ass, should some uptight idiot complain about a nude ... and it also makes the rules undoubtedly clear to the members.

That would strip a HELL of a lot of nude baby shots out of the collective portfolio, LOL.

R.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/05/2007 01:57:55 AM · #19

Originally posted by rex:

Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
REX, The one thign and were not pressing it is. Up until now the US Governments ruling on underage nudity was that it could not be of a sexual nature. Underage nudity of a non sexual nature was considered to be art. There for being legal. Hundreds of cases have been filed and thousands of drafted bills have been written to try to ban all underage nudity and currently theres an ongoing case.

Unless they passed something in the past 6 months that i missed. WOuld this image not fall under art and there for be legal under 18 United States Code 2257 and 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 75? Top half and no genitalia, no actions.. looks like art to me. But then again laws are changing.

I understand the art thing but if it was your daughter at the age of 16 would you want it posted?

You have a point there.

fotomann_forever

02/05/2007 01:58:07 AM · #20

Let's put it this way... even if DPC were to get a "not guilty" ruling on child porn... the financial burden of fighting it could put DPC on the non-longer online list.

And there are some gungho Prosecutors out there that would jump all over such a case, just for the publicity.

Citadel

Nikon D7500

02/05/2007 01:58:47 AM · #21

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by super-dave:

as i said during your DQ thread, i still think the terms of service should specify that models must be 18+ if nudity is involved. proof if age should be available on request.

this would cover DPC's ass, should some uptight idiot complain about a nude ... and it also makes the rules undoubtedly clear to the members.

That would strip a HELL of a lot of nude baby shots out of the collective portfolio, LOL.

R.

Hmm...interestingly enought there were a number of baby shots in previous Nude challenges. Just an observation and PLEASE do not open up a can of worms on my account.

02/05/2007 01:59:27 AM · #22

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

SHHHHHH.. had someone kept their mouth shut about the age the gungho prosecutor might not have pulle dout his binoculars!

IM KIDDING!

02/05/2007 01:59:52 AM · #23

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

agreed. i posted this shot to get some insight and comments on the photo.

not about hte whole underage nude dealio again