Underage Photographers on DPC? - DPChallenge Forums

02/05/2007 03:24:50 PM · #176

Originally posted by Muppet:

Originally posted by noisemaker:

ill need to look into what our good ol' laid back B.C Canadian laws say!

as long as your laws are fine by it, then feel free to do so, but DPC abides under a different set of laws, and unfortunately, that presents a problem for your posting such pics on this site. you'll probably have to wait to do so till later. either way, just find out what Canadian laws say about your photoshoots, and if it's ok by them, then have fun.

for the fact of me taking hte photo i lie under bc law not virigina US law as long as she is 18

02/05/2007 03:25:25 PM · #177

Originally posted by option:

I am quite certain that in Canada, it is very much illegal to create or possess nude images of someone under the age of 18. Age of consent applies to sex, not pornography.

yes i know :P

02/05/2007 03:25:57 PM · #178

Originally posted by noisemaker:

for the fact of me taking hte photo i lie under bc law not virigina US law as long as she is 18

Correct.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

02/05/2007 03:27:38 PM · #179

Originally posted by karmabreeze:

Originally posted by noisemaker:

Originally posted by karmabreeze:

Originally posted by chimericvisions:

Originally posted by karmabreeze:
If a 16 year old can get into an R-rated movie with an 18+ escort, then there's no reason a 16 year old shouldn't be able to shoot an 18+ nude model with parental consent.

Actually, a 16 year old can't get into an R movie without an adult. Not legally, anyway. That, however is specifically due to sexual content, language, and violence.

That's what I said. They have an escort, it's fine. Why should the same not apply to underage photogs?

and plus this is kind of on topic, i get into R movies alll the time and dont get I.D'd.
..i think its my beard :P :)

Off-topic but funny - I was ID'd for an R movie when I was 28.

ouch! yeah i knwo its bad but one time i got into a concert that was 18+ at a bar and never was asked for id

EDIT: to amke what i said make sense

Message edited by author 2007-02-05 15:37:40.

splidge

Canon EOS-40D

02/05/2007 03:27:41 PM · #180

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by noisemaker:

for the fact of me taking hte photo i lie under bc law not virigina US law as long as she is 18

Correct.

Indeed, I think several of us have now said this but people still wade in and say "no nudies of under 18s!" :(.

splidge

02/05/2007 03:29:14 PM · #181

Actually according to this, under Canadian law, as long as no sexual act is depicted or suggested, nude = acceptable.

"Where the accused is charged with an offence under subsection (2), (3), or (4), the court shall find the accused not guilty if the representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child pornography has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose."

Message edited by author 2007-02-05 15:31:59.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

02/05/2007 03:30:02 PM · #182

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Let me state one more time that there is no legal precedence that supports that it is illegal for him (a minor in the US) to post (or for DPC to host) nudes of 18+ y/o models. DPC should have no concern of the photog's age, only that of the model.

as long as DPC can make it absolutly clear to everybody that in no way can they be held liable for the actions of ANY person on this site that in any way relates nude images. even if there are no laws that apply to situations such as this, there is still the possibility of a law suit, and DPC should safegaurd against such a threat.

chimericvisions

Canon EOS-60D

02/05/2007 03:30:45 PM · #183

Originally posted by splidge:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by noisemaker:

for the fact of me taking hte photo i lie under bc law not virigina US law as long as she is 18

Correct.

Indeed, I think several of us have now said this but people still wade in and say "no nudies of under 18s!" :(.

splidge

The laws where you reside aren't the issue (unless you're doing something illegal where you live) - the laws where the servers reside are the ones that will be used to prosecute D&L if it ever happened. The servers reside under US law, therefore anything that resides on them must comply with US law.

02/05/2007 03:34:02 PM · #184

Originally posted by Muppet:

The only responsibility that DPC has legally is what images are hosted on this site. IF the model is 18, DPC is in compliance with US laws. DPC has no concern legally of who produced the image.

Let me explain it another way. Legally, noisemaker has EVERY right to shoot a nude of himself. However, DPC can;t host it, not because of his age as a photographer, but of his age as a model.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/05/2007 03:36:27 PM · #185

I thought I would mention a couple of points.

I agree with a number of people that there it would be odd if young people could not photograph older people nude: I drew male and female nude life models when I was 11 or 12 (though they were not so pretty...!) - I don't believe that drawing can be distinguished from photography for these purposes.

Sexuality and nudity are different things - it is very prudish to assume an automatic connection.

Most laws on the publication os images of young people are concerned with the prevention of publication of sexual material. Biology textbooks contain photographs of teenage girls nude - the issue is not the nudity per se.

02/05/2007 03:37:36 PM · #186

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Legally, noisemaker has EVERY right to shoot a nude of himself.

Unless hes depicting himself (or someone else under the age of 18) in a sexual act.

Message edited by author 2007-02-05 15:38:12.

02/05/2007 03:37:52 PM · #187

Originally posted by option:

once again, the topic isn't an underaged model, but an underaged photographer, but i'm sure that can help noisemaker with taking photos of his g/f for the time being. (not saying he should post under 18 model pics on DPC)

02/05/2007 03:39:59 PM · #188

Originally posted by Muppet:

Yes, as far as I know, DPC cant be hosting photos of underage models due to US law.

As for what he does on his own up here in Canada... well, as long as it isnt dirty or posted on a US server, he should be fine.

02/05/2007 03:40:44 PM · #189

Originally posted by option:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Legally, noisemaker has EVERY right to shoot a nude of himself.

Unless hes depicting himself in a sexual act.

You are correct. That would be a great court case to watch, seeing someone prosecuted for taking pornographic self-portraits of a minor. Either way, would result in instant fame... LOL

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

02/05/2007 03:40:49 PM · #190

Originally posted by chimericvisions:

Originally posted by splidge:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by noisemaker:

for the fact of me taking hte photo i lie under bc law not virigina US law as long as she is 18

Correct.

Indeed, I think several of us have now said this but people still wade in and say "no nudies of under 18s!" :(.

splidge

The laws where you reside aren't the issue (unless you're doing something illegal where you live) - the laws where the servers reside are the ones that will be used to prosecute D&L if it ever happened. The servers reside under US law, therefore anything that resides on them must comply with US law.

i do NOT reside under virginia law for my age of photographing nudes. only the model does reside under Virginia law.

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

02/05/2007 03:41:03 PM · #191

Originally posted by option:

Originally posted by Muppet:
once again, the topic isn't an underaged model, but an underaged photographer, but i'm sure that can help noisemaker with taking photos of his g/f for the time being. (not saying he should post under 18 model pics on DPC)

Yes, as far as I know, DPC cant be hosting photos of underage models due to US law.

As for what he does on his own up here in Canada... well, as long as it isnt dirty or posted on a US server, he should be fine.

Heres the thing were talking about LEGAL images shot bot an underage photographer. His Self/SC DQ'd image has nothing todo with it.

02/05/2007 03:46:10 PM · #192

Originally posted by rainmotorsports:

Heres the thing were talking about LEGAL images shot bot an underage photographer. His Self/SC DQ'd image has nothing todo with it.

hoorah, full circle time!!!

what about the "Lewd and Lascivious" laws. if the model is an adult, and the photographer a model, then someone could try claiming sexual assault, or something of the sort. at least for the sake of the model, this should all be taken into consideration.

02/05/2007 03:49:26 PM · #193

Originally posted by Muppet:

what about the "Lewd and Lascivious" laws. if the model is an adult, and the photographer a model, then someone could try claiming sexual assault, or something of the sort. at least for the sake of the model, this should all be taken into consideration.

That is entirely between the underage photographer and the 18+ model and (in this case) B.C Canada law. And is of absolutely no concern to DPC.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

02/05/2007 03:50:23 PM · #194

Originally posted by rainmotorsports:

Heres the thing were talking about LEGAL images shot bot an underage photographer. His Self/SC DQ'd image has nothing todo with it.

Well, I can't find the answer to that one on wikipedia, which means there IS no answer!

chimericvisions

Canon EOS-60D

02/05/2007 03:51:59 PM · #195

Originally posted by Muppet:

Originally posted by rainmotorsports:

Heres the thing were talking about LEGAL images shot bot an underage photographer. His Self/SC DQ'd image has nothing todo with it.

hoorah, full circle time!!!

what about the "Lewd and Lascivious" laws. if the model is an adult, and the photographer a model, then someone could try claiming sexual assault, or something of the sort. at least for the sake of the model, this should all be taken into consideration.

No, there's no basis for that at all. As someone else said, nude models are common in art classes. Maybe not in high schools, but in colleges where minors are allowed. I myself was in one, my wife was in one, etc.

ETA: We were in them while minors.

Message edited by author 2007-02-05 15:54:32.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

02/05/2007 03:53:55 PM · #196

Originally posted by option:

There is an answer, the answer is that there is no precedence. :-)

Message edited by author 2007-02-05 15:54:19.

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

02/05/2007 03:58:19 PM · #197

Originally posted by Muppet:

Okay let me put it to you this way.

1 - DOesnt affect the photog in his coutnry.

2 - Were talking about DPC's allowance not his countrys prosecution of the model.

02/05/2007 04:02:39 PM · #198

so then, to the heart of the manner, should DPC allow photographers under the age of 18 to submit nudes, make a fullproof statement stating that it is not liable for the actions of any members as far as nudes are concerned, or ignore the topic altogether? why?