| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/05/2007 06:38:28 AM · #126 |
I don't see that "underage" photographers are a problem. Yes it is possible that the model could be in trouble for exposing themselves to a minor but this presumeably depends entirely on the law of the land where the photograph was taken, and it's not up to DPC to enforce that. In the UK for example it would be perfectly legal for an 18- and 16-year old to have sex, which implies it must be OK for them to see each other nude - and I don't see how it would make a difference if the younger person takes a photo of the older (even if it were pornographic in nature) while they were at it.
If the model is committing an offense by posing then of course the presence of the image on DPC would be rather incriminating evidence, particularly given that entrants are required to certify that they took the photo themselves. But it is not a legal problem for DPC to be hosting the image.
So I would say it's up to the model to consider their legal position before allowing the photographs to be taken just as they should always consider the legal position before taking their clothes off in front of someone else. And of course if the photographer is aware that legal issues may arise due to their age they should make the model aware of that.
splidge
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 09:40:23 AM · #127 |
Off topic a little, but isn't your signature a little bit tongue-in-cheek for how we are countries separated by a common language?
A Kiwi eats roots and leaves
I'm thinkin' you mean for there to be a comma after the words eats, and roots!......8>)
I'm also thinkin' roots is a verb from down under!.....8>)
This is an educated Seppo ya got here!
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 09:45:36 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
I don't believe there is a precedent set for whether a minor could photograph a nude who is over 18.
However the model could potentially run into legal trouble by posing nude for a minor. |
Not can, WILL if caught and generally be prosecuted even if the minor's parents are willing to sign off on it.
It's a law on the books, at least here in the US, corrupting the morals, etc.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 10:01:33 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by Muppet:
i'm going to come right out on this one. i'm 17, so noisemaker, i know where you are coming from. i've grown a lot in maturity this past year, but legally i can't do some of the things i want to. that's why i have no tatoos and the only piercings i have are concieled and done by a friend or myself. fact is though, you and i don't get in as much trouble if we posted our revealing nudes as DPC probably would. if some technicallity came up then everybody would have to suffer by losing freedom in DPC, if not DPC altogether. i say we set up new rules to protect the wellbeing of DPC as a whole.
here we go:
if you join the community between the ages of 13 and 18, you may not enter a nude into the site without permission from the heads(i'm new here so i don't know what they are called). unpermitable pics would reveal a bare chested female, the backside, and or genital/genitalia. all such pics taken by adult (18+) photographer will be banned until you have come of age. if you are caught breaking such rules then (and penalty would go right in here somewhere). |
again here in canada i can go get pierced if i wanted to ( already have one its a vertical labret) piercers and tattoo artists here go by maturity and see if your put together and not just getting it for the hell of it rather than age. they will deny many of age people because there idiots. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 10:06:50 AM · #130 |
Let's see now. Some states allow youth to marry at 14, some 16 with parent permission. This as said in other posts should not be a "feeling" question or answer but a legal one. I'm sure DPC has or is talking with their lawyers to make sure, if not, well might be advisable to do so.
So in perspective, if I gave a 16 year old a cigarette I could be arrested.
So if I gave a 16 year old a beer I could be arrested.
So If I took a 16 year old into a casino to gamble I could get arrested.
So if I took a 16 year old into a portn theater I could get arrested.
So if I gave a 16 year old a naked girl for "art" it's ok?
This should not be a morality check but a legal check. With many just having a nude challenge on DPC breaks the morality codes, especially with youth here (even though you can block it). We all understand the morality issues on both side, so DPC what are the legal issues? |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 10:21:19 AM · #131 |
What constitutes nude?
There are images of nude babies, there are images of 5-9 year olds from the waist up that are show nude and possibly are nude but arent completely shown, there are nudes where you cant really see anything due to position and lighting.
 was entered in Nude II. The model and the photographer are the same and he was under 18.
It's nude, he's underage, but it counts because you cant see anything and it's a self-protrait? |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 10:45:53 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by Gabriel:
To me, what should be avoided first is the possibility for DPC to be in legal trouble. |
First and foremost, regardless of whatever legality is involved, what we should all want is for the owners and management of DPC to NOT have *any* problem on their hands.
This is not a constitutional free speech, legal, or moral issue, it's a matter of common courtesy and consideration for your hosts and fellow photographers.
In my opinion it's up to *us*, as considerate photographers and members of this community to use discretion and common sense so as to not overstep the perception of propriety so that the DPC staff doesn't have to deal with the consequences of actions not of their own doing!
And if that means that a 16/17 year old photographer, or model, needs to wait 'til he/she is 18 to keep the essence of propriety, is that not merely a consideration issue?
It's not like this is censoring or giving someone a distinct disadvantage, I'm suggesting this as a voluntary effort to demonstrate the interest in doing what's best for our community at DPC.
Hey, I'm 51, at 17, you have the distinct advantage over me in that your eye is sharper and your hand is steadier......DAMMIT!.....8>)
Seriously, I have no interest, nor right, to meddle in your affairs and this opinion and $1.00 will get you a cup of coffee some places.
But in the interest of the challemge tomorrow, and the ones next year, would you consider maybe waiting to submit nudes 'til next year?
After all, there will always be a challenge here and there that someone else does have very real advantages, like those darn people in Iceland with Auroras and skyscapes in general.
As it is, if people only submit photographs of people over 18 taken by people over 18, someone may question them anyway, and if we are all pretty much in agreement that this consideration is reasonable, then that's one less worry for Site Council because we initiated it and abide by it on our own.
Is that a bad thing on any level?
If we are all working together to keep it on the up-and-up and establish amongst ourselves a high standard of ethics and behavior, there are no losers, AND.....you young and talented people have a chance once again to establish your interest in what's best for all involved and your ability to set examples for those yet to come.
My 12 year old should be joining the DPC ranks in late spring, and I'm counting on you that are our younger up-and-coming stars now to set the examples in skill, behavior, and graciousness so that she may be led by example.
Will you all consider that?
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 10:56:41 AM · #133 |
DPC is hosted in virginia, USA, so we looked to virginian law to define "nude" here:
//leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-390
§ 18.2-390. Definitions.
As used in this article:
(1) "Juvenile" means a person less than 18 years of age.
(2) "Nudity" means a state of undress so as to expose the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple, or the depiction of covered or uncovered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 11:35:30 AM · #134 |
I think Muckpond's posted definition of what is considered an underage nude is pretty clear. So that covers the model aspect.
Is there a law that states a required age for a photographer to be engaged in shooting nudes?
If there is no legal precedent for underage photographers and nudes then the issue becomes one of morals. Since most laws are created to govern society's morals either 1) the subject hasnt come up, or 2) society doesnt really care that much.
DPC has a difficult enough issue with nudes in general with as many against them as for them.
What would be the reasoning to not allow underage photographers to photograph legal age nudes?
Is the underage photographer being abused, harmed, or exploited? Is the underage photographer participating in anything illegal?
I think it also then falls into the whole Art or Pornograhy debate. Is the underage photographer shooting the human body as an art form or to produce porn?
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 11:43:30 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
DPC is hosted in virginia, USA, so we looked to virginian law to define "nude" here:
//leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-390
§ 18.2-390. Definitions.
As used in this article:
(1) "Juvenile" means a person less than 18 years of age.
(2) "Nudity" means a state of undress so as to expose the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple, or the depiction of covered or uncovered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state. |
Stirring the pot here, what about nude baby photos?
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 01:21:52 PM · #136 |
everyone just wait until July 26th. that time will be my debute legal nude entry! (thats when my one and only model turns legal!)
no matter the challenge i will enter a nude(fitting the description of course)
and i will be guilt free and probably get burnt to the ground because people dont like nudes in non nude challenges. but i want to be able to say i entered a nude that was legal! |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 01:35:21 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by noisemaker:
everyone just wait until July 26th. that time will be my debute legal nude entry! (thats when my one and only model turns legal!) |
You must be very careful about this. If you shoot the model at 12:01am your time then they may be legal in your timezone, but in other timezones they are still underage. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 01:38:51 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
You must be very careful about this. If you shoot the model at 12:01am your time then they may be legal in your timezone, but in other timezones they are still underage. |
s/he will be of legal age at that time. THe body cells will be of a certain age, and it does not matter whether you look at it from UTC+11 or UTC-11 :-) Or if you go back in time a couple of years and look at it. It is the age of the model, not the year in which you are looking at it.
If you have the power to travel back in time, it is still OK. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 01:47:36 PM · #139 |
.
Message edited by author 2007-02-05 14:36:47.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 01:59:32 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
DPC is hosted in virginia, USA, so we looked to virginian law to define "nude" here:
//leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-390
§ 18.2-390. Definitions.
As used in this article:
(1) "Juvenile" means a person less than 18 years of age.
(2) "Nudity" means a state of undress so as to expose the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple, or the depiction of covered or uncovered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state. |
I'm honestly not sure what the definitions have to do with anything without the context of a relevant statute. The statute that I believe you were thinking about is, as usual, very specific to "sexually explicit" content.
Originally posted by Virginia Statutes:
§ 18.2-374.1. Production, publication, sale, possession with intent to distribute, financing, etc., of sexually explicit items involving children; presumption as to age; severability.
A. For the purposes of this article and Article 4 (§ 18.2-362 et seq.) of this chapter, the term "sexually explicit visual material" means a picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film, digital image or similar visual representation which depicts sexual bestiality, a lewd exhibition of nudity, as nudity is defined in § 18.2-390, or sexual excitement, sexual conduct or sadomasochistic abuse, as also defined in § 18.2-390, or a book, magazine or pamphlet which contains such a visual representation. An undeveloped photograph or similar visual material may be sexually explicit material notwithstanding that processing or other acts may be required to make its sexually explicit content apparent.
B. A person shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony who:
1. [struck]
2. Produces or makes or attempts or prepares to produce or make sexually explicit visual material which utilizes or has as a subject a person less than eighteen 18 years of age; or
3. Knowingly takes part in or participates in the filming, photographing or other reproduction of sexually explicit visual material by any means, including but not limited to computer-generated reproduction, which utilizes or has as a subject a person less than 18 years of age; or
4. Sells, gives away, distributes, electronically transmits, displays with lascivious intent, purchases, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, distribute, transmit or display with lascivious intent sexually explicit visual material which utilizes or has as a subject a person less than 18 years of age.
5. [Repealed.]
B1. [Repealed.]
C. A person shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony who knowingly finances or attempts or prepares to finance sexually explicit visual material which utilizes or has as a subject a person less than 18 years of age.
D. For the purposes of this section a person who is depicted as or presents the appearance of being less than eighteen 18 years of age in sexually explicit visual material is prima facie presumed to be less than 18 years of age.
E. The provisions of this section shall be severable and, if any of its provisions shall be held unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions.
2. That the provisions of this act may result in a net increase in periods of imprisonment or commitment. Pursuant to § 30-19.1:4, the estimated amount of the necessary appropriation cannot be determined for periods of imprisonment in state adult correctional facilities and is $0 for periods of commitment to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice.
|
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 02:04:48 PM · #141 |
chimericvisions, you are trying to turn the minor posing nude into a porn vs. art case. A word of caution is that this is always shaky ground. Yes, DPC COULD defend it, but a "not guilty" is not guaranteed and in any case would be VERY expensive to defend. The legal costs alone could shut down DPC for good.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 02:10:15 PM · #142 |
I can't be bothered to read through the whole thread, but could someone please explain to me why, legally or morally, a 16 year old shouldn't photograph somebody nude?
Message edited by author 2007-02-05 14:13:05.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 02:16:28 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
chimericvisions, you are trying to turn the minor posing nude into a porn vs. art case. A word of caution is that this is always shaky ground. Yes, DPC COULD defend it, but a "not guilty" is not guaranteed and in any case would be VERY expensive to defend. The legal costs alone could shut down DPC for good. |
No, I'm really not. It just comes back time and time again that people are using the child-porn laws as an excuse to not let underage photographers shoot nudes, which is invalid.
I fully understand why DPC wouldn't want underage models - a lawsuit is expensive whether you win or not. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 02:19:58 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by Ben:
I can't be bothered to read through the whole thread, but could someone please explain to me why, legally or morally, a 16 year old shouldn't photograph somebody nude? |
Legally, no reason whatsoever. Morally... well, that's up to the individual morals. I think there's no moral reason against it - minors are allowed to view nudity (grade school kids are taken to see Michaelangelo's David, fer chrissake) |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 02:20:15 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by Ben:
I can't be bothered to read through the whole thread, but could someone please explain to me why, legally or morally, a 16 year old shouldn't photograph somebody nude? |
Ben, I think it is an American thing! |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 02:21:36 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
No, I'm really not. It just comes back time and time again that people are using the child-porn laws as an excuse to not let underage photographers shoot nudes, which is invalid.
|
OK, on that point I agree with you. There is no legal precedence (see my long post above) to support that an underage photog can not take nude photos.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 02:26:59 PM · #147 |
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.
There's a movie scene from "As Good As It Gets", where Greg Kinnear's character is talking about how his mother used to pose nude for him to sketch when he was just a child. Hollywood isn't real life by any stretch, but the debate calls this scene to mind.
Message edited by author 2007-02-05 14:27:35.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 02:28:03 PM · #148 |
So we're clear there are no legal reasons as to why somebody of 16 years old cannot take a photograph of a nude subject.
Personally, (i'm sure different people have different views, as always), i see absolutely no reason whatsoever as to morally why a 16 year old shouldn't take nude shots, and if both the photographer and the subject have no objections then how can say anything against?
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 02:29:43 PM · #149 |
This is an international site. The concept of nudity is quite diverse from culture to culture.
So what do we exclude photography wise? should all women be required to have a burka? what about how in India bear feet was considered to be sensual. And how about in many cultures where everyone goes topless and they don't realize that's considered nudity?
Tough one....I will say that. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 02:31:01 PM · #150 |
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. |
|
