the photographer's corner... fictional facts and factual fictions

09/14/06  Over the last several months various media types from around the country have questioned the legal issues surrounding this publication. This happens all the time -- almost monthly. The laws on such things are often confusing for some, unclear for others, misinterpreted by law enforcement and media and public alike. Its confusing. In the fall of 2005 I participated in an online forum where it was being discussed. Below is the text of my reply in that forum. It has been edited and updated just a bit to reply directly to the most recent media attacks.

Photographers / Producers have profited from the attractiveness of minors -- both male and female -- since the camera was first invented. WalMart, KMart, Spencers and many other places sell posters -- including these of shirtless young men (under 18) from TV shows. They, and the producers creating the product, profit from the sex appeal of that young man towards the females fans.. In 2002, with the Olsen Twins at age 15 or 16, their manager was interviewed by a major magazine. The article including photos of them in white panties, unbuttoned extra large shirts and white socks posing next to a bed in a very soft image. The article also included a quote from him calling the girls "Fodder for the sexual fantasies of teenage skateboarders and college boys alike" (or something very close to that).... The girls are worth over 100 million dollars today.

The one thing that stands out to me is how many people act as if because the content is online it is automatically illegal or just plain bad.

In my 2003 legal case we showed the jury magazines, books and videos all bought at the local mall. The content of those items was much more revealing or sexual than the images of mine the prosecution was charging me with.

All along the prosecution kept reminding the jury "its out on the Internet for all to see". Somebody explain that to me. Paper magazines are also out there for all to see. They can be bought easier than a site membership -- no credit card needed. They can be ordered online, or purchased by persons of all ages at the local mall.

I go back 20 years in the pretty girl picture business and under 18 content has always been common.

Pre-Internet under 18 examples....

Brooke Shields, one of the most popular models of all time who went on the star in and win awards for the TV show "Suddenly Susan" and also to marry Andre Agassi, started her modeling career fully nude with genitals showing (which happens to be 100% legal to this day) when she was 10 years old.

The photos were shot by Garry Gross, a very popular shooter at the time, in New York. She was sent to the project by her agents at The Ford Agency (one of the largest) and the project was financed by a division of Playboy Enterprises and was titled back in the 70s as "Sugar and Spice". Brooke later sued twice to stop use of the images. Both the state and Federal courts held for the photographer -- including very clearly stating the nudity with minors is not illegal. You can buy collector prints of those images, framed and signed by the photographer, online and they are shipped directly from his New York office. Another artist photographed one of the original photos and that photo hangs in the Whitney Museum's centennial show and has just been sold by Christie's for $151,000, a record for the artist. Yes, $151,000 for a photo of the photo!

Brooke Sheilds a few years later appears fully nude again, at age 12, portraying a child protitute in a movie called "Pretty Baby". Fully nude, including a simulated sex scene. The movie is available right now at Media Play, Amazon.com, and dozens of other places.

Two years later she appeared in the movie "The Blue Lagoon" which also includes sexual references. She becomes pregnant, thus the movie portrays under age sex. In many parts of the movie she is topless with just her long hair covering her nipples. Reading the behind the scenes notes from that production we know she walked around the set comfortably topless and that they used glue and / or gum to hold her hair in place during filming. If you stand back and compare what is shown within the 4 corners of that imagery, and what is shown within the 4 corners of the stuff they wrongly charged me with, it is strickingly similar.

Related Links:
Brooke Shields at EOnline
Brooke Nudes discussed in New York Metro Magazine
Brooke Nude at Artnet.com
Brooke Shields Nude Movie at Amazon.com

Artdesy.com - An Art Directory

In 1977 Hustler magazine published FULL NUDE images of minors. Yes, I said Hustler and I said fully nude. The images had been produced in San Francisco, CA and had originally been used in a book. LFP, Inc bought the rights to the images and published them. The mother of the kids sued saying that when she signed the release she didn't mean for them to be in Hustler. A quote... "It's okay for 70,000 people to look at the pictures of the children in The Sex Atlas. It's not okay for one person to look at one picture of my children in Hustler." The court decided in that suit that Hustler did nothing wrong.... The court's statement was "when a picture does not constitute child pornography, even though it portrays nudity, it does not become child pornography because it is placed in a forum where pedophiles might enjoy it" .... Bring that forward to the Internet age and we know that non-porn images of minors are not suddenly CP because they are on the Internet.

The Internet and Porn are not that same thing. The media seems to want to tie them together, roughly equating an image online as porn and an image on paper as art. The courts have long held otherwise.

When I first started in photography in late 1982 I bought a book at the local mall called "Successful Glamor Photography" (yes, glamour was spelled glamor on the book). I bought my copy at "The Aurora Mall" on the east side of Denver at a Walden Books store. It is often considered the bible of such things. In it they show all sorts of photography things related to pretty girls, including camera and film selection, model hiring, etc. In one chapter they follow a world famous photographer on a calendar shoot for a tire company. All the models pose topless and nude. That trip included 6 models, one was just 16 and another was 17. The book shows the photos -- including fully nude shots of the minors. You can buy it today at Barnes and Noble in Tampa and Clearwater and ST Petersburg, or online at Amazon.com or B&N.

Two Playboy Playmates have been photographed before their 18th birthday to appear in centerfolds. It may be more, but there are two that I know about from my friends that worked there in the 80s. I forgot the name of the one in the 60s, but Penny Baker from 1983 is the other. It wasn't an accident, it was legally done in the normal course of advanced production.

In 2004 Playboy published a picture of the bare breast of a popular singer. They wanted to show her nipple ring. She was 17 at the time the picture was taken.

In 1989 my old partners and I produced a series of calendars called "High School Sweethearts". One had 16 good looking high school age boys posing like GQ guys -- flexing muscles and the whole deal. The other was high school age cheerleaders and other 15 to 17 year old females. We sold them nationwide, including to girls and guys at the high school I graduated from. This was 3 miles from the courthouse they had my trial in. One shot in there was a very busty 16 year old in a small swimsuit top taken just 1 mile from the DA's office. In my case they charged a photo of a 16 year old busty model in a small swimsuit. No nudity, just a tiny bikini like they wear at the beach. In my 2002 case they said too much bust was showing (no nipples, just cleavage -- they called it a "substantial portion of the breasts, so the same as topless").

During the trial we showed the 1990 calendar (cover date, but produced in spring / summer 1989) and asked what the difference is between the 1989 shot of the busty model and the 2001 shot of the busty model. The reply was "This one (holding the 2001 shot) was on the Internet". Correct, one was deemed illegal in their minds because it was on the net -- no other reason. No school official in '89 / '90 ever questioned a model in those pictures -- male or female -- or acted as if it was strange, yet from 2001 to now at least 3 have called parents because the girls photo is "on the Internet".

In the 80s I sponsored bikini contests at big car shows. The winner would get some cash, and be photographed with the show winning cars, etc. I would then sell images to magazines covering the event, and often make a calendar to be sold at shows later in the year. Skimpy top / thong style bikinies, with super attractive contest winners -- often as young as 16, right on magazine covers, or in magazines, or being sold at the next event. Not one person ever questioned that use of under 18 content. Not one. But, the same style of shots online and it suddenly becomes something devious and illegal and immoral.

In my case we showed the jury the photography book by David Hamilton titled "The Age of Innocence" which was purchased off the shelf at a Barnes & Noble and which features dozens of photographs of nude adolescents, including prepubescent females, some of which openly purport to show the beginnings of the girls awareness of their sexuality. This book can be purchased right now at Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble and 100s of other places.

In my case we showed the jury the photography book by Jock Sturgis titled "Last Day of Summer", which was purchased off the shelf at a Barnes & Noble and which features dozens of photographs of nude females under age 18, some much younger. This book can be purchased right now at Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble and 100s of other places.

In my case we showed the jury "Gear" magazine, March 2000 issue, which features a 17 year old Jessica Beil from the TV show Seventh Heaven in costumes and poses strikingly similar to those in my pictures, including less than opaque covering of the breasts. Yes, again, a sheer top showing her breasts. Gear magazine was a Maxim clone and is no longer being published.

Jessica Beil in Gear Magazine at age 17, strickingly similar to TrueTeenBabes pictures.
  

In my case we showed the jury "Jane" magazine, September 2002, purchased at King Soopers (Colorado's biggest grocery store chain) in Arapahoe County, and which features a 17 year old model in costumes and poses strikingly similar to those in my pictures, including less than opaque covering of the breasts. Yes, she is in a sheer top and anybody of any age can buy it at the grocery store. See samples below.

In my case we showed the jury "Maxim" magazine, February 2000 issue, which features a 17 year old model in costumes and poses strikingly similar to those in my pictures, including less than opaque covering of the breasts. Yes, again, a sheer top showing her breasts. See samples below.

In my case we showed the jury "Maxim" magazine, November 2000 issue, which features a 17 year old model in costumes and poses strikingly similar to those in my pictures, including less than opaque covering of the breasts.

In one of the magazines listed above the model was 100% topless but sitting just enough sideways to where you see areola, but not full nipple.

I could go on forever about under 18 content, with both males and females, but I think you get the point.

Under 18 content has been around way before the websites of today, and way before most of us even dreamed of such things. Only the way it is distributed has changed. It is now more commonly on the Internet and not on paper. Its the same stuff, just being delivered in a more modern way.

If you disagree with under 18 content you need to stop buying from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Maxim, CVS, Walgreens, WalMart, KMart and most stores that sell common magazines like Maxim.

Overall I am most confused about why the media attacks. I have never, ever, no matter how hard I try, been able to get even one media person or law enforcement person to explain to me and the 120+ models featured on TrueTeenBabes why we can't do the same things, or less revealing things, as Brooke Shields, Jessica Beil, Kim Smith, Megan Ewing, Penny Baker, David Hamilton, Jock Sturgis, Sally Mann, John Kelly, Richard Murrian and many others have done to be distributed by Playboy, Barnes & Noble, Amazon, CVS, Walgreens, WalMart, KMart and thousands of others.

Why can they excercise their rights freely and without attack, but Jimmy and the 120+ models of TrueTeenBabes can't? The models of TrueTeenBabes, and myself, have exactly the same rights under the First Amendment, as each of those persons. Why does the media -- which is also protected by the First Amendment -- want to take it away from these young ladies?

Jimmy Stephans
Littleton, Colorado. USA
November 2005 (edited September 2006)


Each of the images below is a model under age 18 and came from one of the magazines mentioned above -- magazines available at your local grocery store, Walgreens, Publix, CVS, etc.