Sly_Fry
New member
It's about the presentation and form. Technically, They could legally switch to full nude sets with her, and so long as they edited/shot them right...get away with it.how do thery get away with so much pube shots?
-18 nudity is NOT illegal. -18 pornography IS illegal. Sometimes the distinction is hard to tell between the two...but so long as the nudity falls under the "artistic" category, it is not illegal.
You could go to the video store now (if you can still find one) and rent Blue Lagoon, or Pretty Baby...both legal movies featuring a young and nude Brooke Shields. They're considered to be artistic films, so although some people obviously object to them...they are legal.
Now, the difference can be "fuzzy" at times, but the main point is not to show any poses that would be deemed "explicit or graphic". Meaning she could legally stand still nude, and he could shoot her from a bit of a distance and it would be within the laws. If he shot her from below...or had her lay down and spread her legs, those poses would be deemed graphic because they "focus on the genitalia"...and now you're in a very dangerous place legally.
That's not to say that some crusader couldn't make life difficult for the photographer, but many photograhpers have been targeted by law enforcement and won cases because the poses were deemed to fall into the "artistic" category, not "exploitative" or "pornographic".
Hope that helps.