Touchy issue: video shot at 17 but released at 18.

[The Last Laugh]

Hello everyone,

In the past I've found myself dealing with a touchy situation, one that hasn't lead to anything because I prefered not take any chances, but I'm still kinda curious to know what people think about it.

We all know all models in videos must be 18 years old. That's perfectly reasonable. However, what if a model who's, say, 17 1/2, posed for a video but the vid weren't released until she was 18?

On the one hand, if a vendor waits until a model is 18 before releasing a video for which she posed a bit earlier (with parental approval), the model is then of legal age to approve of the distribution of said video. On the other hand, the person in the actual video is the same model but a slightly younger version, one that's not of legal age. Almost, but not quite.

Someone who studied law told me it would be a legally acceptable situation, but I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with it. Thing is, it's not just a question of law. Law is important, but things like morals and ethics, as well as people's opinions, also count quite a bit.

I mean, technically speaking I'm under the impression it wouldn't be illegal to sell videos featuring minors, as long as there's no indecent content (please correct me if I'm wrong). But I would never do such a thing because I know it would still offend a good number of people, and my company's reputation would be shot, with good reason. Well, the same may apply to the situation I described above. Even if it's legal (at least according to some), what would people think about it? Does the fact that a model has the right age to authorize the release a video compensate for her age in the video, or is the video age the only important factor?

It's kind of a borderline situation. I mean, if the model were, say, 15 at the time the video was made, then it would be quite hard to justify selling it, even if one waited until she turned 18. But it doesn't seem quite the same if the girl was 17 and a few months. But does it make it any more acceptable? I don't know.

Anyway, I'd like to get some feedback on this issue, because I can't figure it out by myself. Not that I intend to do something like that, but since I found myself in such a position some time ago (a girl of 17 called about the projet) I'm kinda curious to know what people think. Thank you.

 

[Texas_Tickle]

Hello everyone,

In the past I've found myself dealing with a touchy situation, one that hasn't lead to anything because I prefered not take any chances, but I'm still kinda curious to know what people think about it.

We all know all models in videos must be 18 years old. That's perfectly reasonable. However, what if a model who's, say, 17 1/2, posed for a video but the vid weren't released until she was 18?

On the one hand, if a vendor waits until a model is 18 before releasing a video for which she posed a bit earlier (with parental approval), the model is then of legal age to approve of the distribution of said video. On the other hand, the person in the actual video is the same model but a slightly younger version, one that's not of legal age. Almost, but not quite.

Someone who studied law told me it would be a legally acceptable situation, but I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with it. Thing is, it's not just a question of law. Law is important, but things like morals and ethics, as well as people's opinions, also count quite a bit.

I mean, technically speaking I'm under the impression it wouldn't be illegal to sell videos featuring minors, as long as there's no indecent content (please correct me if I'm wrong). But I would never do such a thing because I know it would still offend a good number of people, and my company's reputation would be shot, with good reason. Well, the same may apply to the situation I described above. Even if it's legal (at least according to some), what would people think about it? Does the fact that a model has the right age to authorize the release a video compensate for her age in the video, or is the video age the only important factor?

It's kind of a borderline situation. I mean, if the model were, say, 15 at the time the video was made, then it would be quite hard to justify selling it, even if one waited until she turned 18. But it doesn't seem quite the same if the girl was 17 and a few months. But does it make it any more acceptable? I don't know.

Anyway, I'd like to get some feedback on this issue, because I can't figure it out by myself. Not that I intend to do something like that, but since I found myself in such a position some time ago (a girl of 17 called about the projet) I'm kinda curious to know what people think. Thank you.

It does not matter how old you are when the video was released. it matters how old the person is when the video is being made.

By that logic, a person could make a video of a 10 yr old, and wait 8 years to sell.

It's so very wrong on a legal, ethical, and moral standpoint.

 

[TicklingDuo]

Francois, you may be okay legally as long as there's parental permission. However, I personally consider it to be a potentially dangerous precedent to set. While most companies may follow the rules and act respectfully, others will not. Faking parental permission is fairly easy to do. This makes it easy for creeps to take advantage of younger models/actresses. I think the best bet is to wait until they actually turn 18. In the case you mention, it's simply a matter of a few months. The only reason I can see for someone wanting to rush it would be to avoid a change of mind. That's not a respectable way to do things in my book. It's 18+ or nothing as far as I'm concerned.

Ann

 

[The Last Laugh]

Hi Ann,

Yeah, I have to agree with your opinion. It's too easy to take advantage of such a situation.

I'm actually surprised that a couple of people in law have told me it would even be legal. The fact that such a video would be legal seems rather hypocritical to me. As Ticklemaster750 points out, one could use such a law to go to extremes (although I'm under the impression that such a law would only apply to models of 17, maybe 16, and certainly not 10). Besides, legal or not, there are other, potentially more important reasons not to do something like that. Public opinion, my company's reputation, my own feelings about it (my conscience), things like that.

As I said, I'm rather uncomfortable with this issue, which is why I told that caller I mentioned that it wouldn't work. The fact that people tend to get disinterested when things takes a few months to work out is regrettable, but you're right, it's no reason to pressure a candidate into doing a session under less than ideal circumstances. It's a pointless risk, and it's just not right.

 

[Darkknight]

I respect you even more as a tickle vid maker Francois.

I'm no law expert but remember what happened with the teen porn gal, they pulled all her videos even though it was years later they released that she was under 18. An extreme example but still, it matters on how old they are on film.

Hopefully she calls back when she turns 18. You made the wise decision. And yup, I want that new vid! I will write you soon.

DK

 

[gig1965]

You will have troubles beyond belief.
Only shoot 18 yo models.
Imagine a watchdog group pressuring the FBI to go after you on kiddie porn charges.
Your life would be ruined....and they do not have to be right to ruin it.

 

[drew70]

The issue of age would only be a factor if

a) there is nudity involved (full or partial).

b) there is bondage involved

c) there is contact with private areas, i.e. breasts and/or crotch.

If any of these three are present, then she's got to be eighteen at the time of filming.

 

[Oddjob0226]

I mean, technically speaking I'm under the impression it wouldn't be illegal to sell videos featuring minors, as long as there's no indecent content (please correct me if I'm wrong).

You are right on this point. Long ago I took a media law class and if things are the way you say they are, then this tape wouldn't be illegal. In fact, if you had parental permission, there would be no problem at all. But even if you don't, by and large, it would not be against the law. And consider that a lot of people here post about tickling their family members or tickling when they were younger, it just kind of makes the case more that tickling & sexuality don't always go hand in hand.

In fact, this type of thing has been done before. In the mid 80's there was a guy, I think he went by the name Edwards, who used to sell videos of fully clothed black teen girls painting their nails and tickling each other. That's it. So there is some precident.

Since you are located in Canada, though, I don't know if the laws are different.

The girl's parents could try to cause legal trouble for you, however. It doesn't mean they'd succeede, but if they wanted to they could claim that their daughter was a minor and therefore wasn't legally responsible for the model release that she signed, and they could stop you from selling the video or take you into civil court if you didn't (As I remember though, since it isn't considered obscenity, I don't think they could stop you from GIVING it away - a legal loophole since you aren't making any profit from the shoot. I thought I'd throw that in just to make things cloudier!). Or, they could try really hard to find a lesser charge to pin on you in criminal court, like harrassment, exploitation..... something like that. But then, depending on the interpretation of the law, 17 and a half could be close enough to be considered an adult, since 15 & 16 year olds are being tried as adults now.

The bottom line is, the video should be legal to release; however, if you feel uncomfortable with it, then don't do something you can't live with. Personally, if it isn't sexual, I'm not sure what diffderence 6 months would make - she sounds pretty wise for her years to be involved with this - but it's your decision. In fact, to put another bizarre twist on the situation, you might have a case to sue her parents because she perpetrated fraud on you, a man engaged in a legal business, by misrepresenting her age! My, the things you get exposed to in the tickling world......

 

[The Last Laugh]

It appears opinions about the legal side of this issue vary a lot. Some say it's legal (though not necessarily right), while others claim it's a sure way to ruin one's life. I can't honestly say I know who's right, but it sure makes for an intriguing discussion.

Frankly, whether it's legal or not is of little importance to me. It's a moot point. It doesn't matter that I could pull it off legally, because it could still be a very painful experience, for me and other people, and there are many reasons besides legal not to do something like this. I certainly wouldn't want to get into a conflict with a model, her parents, ticklephiles or anybody else, even if I could win my cause in court. I'd hate to do that to people, and why would I want to go to court? It's definitely not the kind of image I wish to project. It's not like the purpose of my little home enterprise is to make money no matter what. I want everyone to be happy, including the participants and the people close to them. Let's face it, even if it were legal, many people wouldn't approve at all, and that wouldn't be very advantageous for me and my little company, now would it?

Nah, I have no intention of taking such a crazy risk. I couldn't live with myself knowing full well that doing something like that would upset people, be it legal or not. And while it's kind of a grey area, I still basically think that it would be wrong. It's simply not worth it, from a legal, ethical and moral point of view.

By the way, Darkknight, thank you very much for the compliment. It means a lot to me. Also, I agree that it makes perfect sense that the age that counts is the age the girl was when she actually posed for a video. After all, when someone watches a video, he/she's seeing the girl as she was when she posed, not the girl as she is at the moment of the viewing.

 

[TickledToDeath]

Pretty cut and dry case here.

What counts simply is the age at the time of the shoot. No gray area no loop holes.
The vid would be considered illegal and in violation inviting a world of shit for the producer.

TTD

 

[TicklingDuo]

The issue of age would only be a factor if

a) there is nudity involved (full or partial).
b) there is bondage involved
c) there is contact with private areas, i.e. breasts and/or crotch.

If any of these three are present, then she's got to be eighteen at the time of filming.

Drew...While this may be the case for personal opinion about shooting the video, I don't think it is so with the law. As I recall, anyone under 18 MUST have parental permission to even appear in an innocent commercial, film or tv show. Unless people have suddenly accepted that tickling CAN be non-sexual (something that is continually argued to not be the case) it is still a video of an adult nature. For (my) Drew and I, and those we play with, tickling CAN be non-sexual. We don't play with anyone who we know to see it only as sexual. But, it seems that the vast majority of those who buy videos do it because they like the sexual side and see it in the videos. This is hardly a place for someone under age.

Ann

 

[drew70]

Originally posted by TicklingDuo
Drew...While this may be the case for personal opinion about shooting the video, I don't think it is so with the law. As I recall, anyone under 18 MUST have parental permission to even appear in an innocent commercial, film or tv show. Unless people have suddenly accepted that tickling CAN be non-sexual (something that is continually argued to not be the case) it is still a video of an adult nature. For (my) Drew and I, and those we play with, tickling CAN be non-sexual. We don't play with anyone who we know to see it only as sexual. But, it seems that the vast majority of those who buy videos do it because they like the sexual side and see it in the videos. This is hardly a place for someone under age.

You're right, Ann. For a minor to appear in any video or TV commerical, he/she must have parental consent. I guess I kind of understood that to be a given, but it's a good point to reinforce. If there's no nudity, bondage, or touching of private parts, and there is parental consent, then I don't see any problems making or distributing such videos.

 

[The Last Laugh]

You're right, Ann. For a minor to appear in any video or TV commerical, he/she must have parental consent. I guess I kind of understood that to be a given, but it's a good point to reinforce. If there's no nudity, bondage, or touching of private parts, and there is parental consent, then I don't see any problems making or distributing such videos.

The problem with this is that even if it is legal (which, based on some of the comments on this thread, seems to be very debatable), it would be quite hard, if not impossible, to convince a significant percentage of people that it's alright. "Legal" doesn't necessarily equal "right" in people's minds, as it's true that some laws are poorly thought out, outdated, or go against the values of many people. Opinions vary, but everyone is entitled to theirs, including those who oppose something like this. Even if it were legal, people's disapproval would be a major obstacle. After all, we're not talking about a soda commercial here. This is a type of video that appeals to most buyers for "adult" reasons, and that's actually what the videos are made for. It may not be considered sexual by the population as a whole, but many would disagree, especially ticklephiles. It would lead to discontent, flames, loss of reputation and sales, possibly even attempts at legal action. Offending people definitely isn't a good strategy for a vendor. So I think there would indeed be a big problem with distributing such videos.

Please note that my original question was not meant to determine if such videos should be made by anybody (they shouldn't, in my opinion), but rather how people feel about such a situation from a legal, but mostly moral and ethical point of view. I find it a very intriguing debate.

 

[Oddjob0226]

I think the easiest thing to do is just wait until she turns 18. Then you can tie her, tickler her, touch her privates, touch her majors, her generals, her commander-in-chief, whatever you want. It won't be that long, she wants to do it, and you will be legally in the clear.

Why, looking back, I myself never tickled anyone or got tickled until the night of my 18th birthday becasue I knew it was wrong. Man, THAT was a party!

 

[The Last Laugh]

I think the easiest thing to do is just wait until she turns 18. Then you can tie her, tickler her, touch her privates, touch her majors, her generals, her commander-in-chief, whatever you want. It won't be that long, she wants to do it, and you will be legally in the clear.

Well, you know, it's not like I'm still in contact with the girl. I didn't get the chance to give her all the info, so I've no idea if she'd be interested now. Not long into our phone conversation I simply told her that since she was 17 and wouldn't turn 18 for several months, it was best to drop it altogether, though she was free to call back later (which of course she didn't).

I guess that if she had been, say, 17 and 10 months, I could have waited a couple of months and called her back. But I know from experience that people tend to lose interest after too long, and I didn't want to bother her with my project several months after our initial conversation. I only mentioned her in my first post as one reason why I was bringing up this controversial issue. I have no idea how to contact her now, and don't really care.

Btw, even if it had worked out (at 18, I mean), I would have no interest in, uh, commanding her army, heheh. That's way beyond what I'm comfortable with, and it would be quite inappropriate within the context of my little enterprise.

 

[CDFGA]

(Quote): " Imagine a watchdog group pressuring the FBI to go after you on kiddie porn charges. "


.....I thought he was in Canada?

 

[The Last Laugh]

Well, yeah, I suppose the fact that I live in Canada would provide some protection against an FBI investigation (or maybe not). And I would be very surprised if someone managed to dump "kiddie porn charges" on a guy for making down to earth tickling videos with fully dressed 17-year-olds. Maybe some other kind of trouble, but probably not that extreme.

However, this isn't what matters most to me. Just because one lives in another country and the laws are somewhat different doesn't make it right. What good does it do a vendor to be safe from a legal point of view (assuming he is) if he knows he's upsetting a lot of people with his controversial material? Bad for business and not so good for the vendor's conscience either (at least I hope he'd feel bad about it). I would hate to feel that way myself. I don't want people to be upset. I want people to enjoy my videos. And selling videos with models under 18, even if they're very close to that age, is no way to make a good impression. People are very passionate about this issue, which is perfectly understandable.

 

[UnclStevel]

Here's the law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch110.html

Uncle Steve

 

[The Last Laugh]

Here's the law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch110.html

I didn't expect this thread to go that far, but this makes for very interesting and informative reading. Thanks, Uncle Steve, I think people should take the time to take a look, whatever their feelings about this issue may be. Note that my reasons for not doing such a video are not so much legal as they are ethical/moral (though I wouldn't want to go again the law either), but it's still good to know more about this.

Hmm, based on the information on that web page, "sexually explicit" acts don't include the kind of material found in the more down to earth videos (like mine). And the laws on that web page assumes "sexually explicit" content. However, I'm sure most people would agree that even if it's not technically illegal (or so it would seem), it doesn't necessarily make it right, especially considering the type of clientele the videos are made for. After all, a tickling video might be devoid of any legally (or socially) recognized sexual activity, but the reality is that most (not all) people who buy such videos do so for some sort of sexual gratification. Which is fine, but it's an excellent reason not to get teens involved, even if they're almost 18.

By the way, if my original post has upset anyone for any reason, I sincerely apologize. It certainly wasn't my intention. And I never intended to produce a controversial video. That would be suicide. I was just interested in knowing how people felt about it and, more imortantly, for what reasons. Actually, I think I should thank everyone who's contributed. So, thank you.

Still, I'd rather not see this thread become an argument for or against using minors in videos (though it goes without saying the answer is a big "NO"). I'm sure it's been beaten to death in the past. It's not really the point of the thread, it's an issue that obviously bothers many people, and if it's to go too far in that direction I'd rather see the thread die. Frankly, I'm not too thrilled about reading posts talking about "kiddie porn" and radical legal action, especially considering I'm the one who started the thread, and I was referring to a very specific scenario.

 

[TickledToDeath]

Well, yeah, I suppose the fact that I live in Canada would provide some protection against an FBI investigation (or maybe not).

Actually instead of the FBI, you would have a team of Dudley Do-Rights
showing up at your home. Imagine yourself being arrested, hand-cuffed and taken to jail aback a Horse?😉


TTD

 

[buggs]

The fact is that if she is under 18 it is just wrong, legally, morally, and ethically.

 

[The Last Laugh]

Actually instead of the FBI, you would have a team of Dudley Do-Rights showing up at your home. Imagine yourself being arrested, hand-cuffed and taken to jail aback a Horse?😉
TTD

Heheheh! Oh my, that would be rather embarrassing, wouldn't it. All the most reason never do to something like that. Though I could ask them to sing the Lumberjack Song while they're there.

 

[NYCity]

I wouldn't buy the video for the reasons stated. If it's legal at 17 1/2, then the same arguement could be made at 7 1/2. If you compromise your principles, they cease to be principles.

Even if it gets around the letter of the law (and I'm not sure it does), it's just strikes me as icky. Icky may not be an official legal term (perhaps it should be), but I think it applies here. Each of us is born with an internal "icky-meter" and, for me, the needle is in the red. Deep down I wouldn't feel right about it.

 

[LEB]

I don't know much about the law, but I think the thing about it being "legal at 17 1/2" might be something like this:

You shoot the vid when she's 17.5 years old. You wait more than half a year to release it. The model is now 18, and you unless she makes a complaint about when you did it, how would anyone know that she *wasn't* 18 when you made it? You could have done it last week for all anyone knows.

Therefore it wouldn't be strictly legal to do it, but you wouldn't get in trouble for it cause once she's 18 how would they prove you'd done it when she wasn't? That doesn't make it the same as legal though.

In that situation it couldn't therefore be used with someone 10 years old, because the video would show an underage girl, whereas this video would show what appears to be an 18 year old (presumably she wouldn't change much in 6 months).

I'm not passing judgement when it's ok, I'm just saying that's what they might have meant.

LEB

 

[The Last Laugh]

I don't know much about the law, but I think the thing about it being "legal at 17 1/2" might be something like this:

You shoot the vid when she's 17.5 years old. You wait more than half a year to release it. The model is now 18, and unless she makes a complaint about when you did it, how would anyone know that she *wasn't* 18 when you made it? You could have done it last week for all anyone knows.

Therefore it wouldn't be strictly legal to do it, but you wouldn't get in trouble for it cause once she's 18 how would they prove you'd done it when she wasn't? That doesn't make it the same as legal though.

In that situation it couldn't therefore be used with someone 10 years old, because the video would show an underage girl, whereas this video would show what appears to be an 18 year old (presumably she wouldn't change much in 6 months).

I'm not passing judgement when it's ok, I'm just saying that's what they might have meant.

That makes sense. The people who told me it would be legal seemed to think it would actually be legal, but maybe there was indeed an element of "not telling the whole truth" to it. Meaning that the idea would be to get a model who looks old enough to be 18 (usually one that's actually almost 18), get her written approval (and her parents', I guess) and claim that she's 18.

But that doesn't seem right, does it? In fact, I think it would be very dishonest and wrong. It doesn't matter that the model or even her parents are fine with it, the customers would still be mislead about the material they're buying. Not right at all. I don't see how it can actually be legal. I mean, one could argue that such a video might be technically legal due to its basically decent content (though that's far from sure), but I don't see how it can be legal to provide people, especially customers, with false information, especially when it involves such a controversial issue.

In any case, if there is some legal basis to this, I'm pretty sure it couldn't apply to models under 16. I know little about law, but I understand that some laws about photography and such are a tad different for people of 16-17, as opposed to 15 or less, like a model of that "transition age" is allowed some level of decision about what he or she can do. Besides, as LEB suggests, it would be hard to convince people that a younger model is 18 years old. Same for many 16 or 17 year olds, for that matter. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would attempt to pull off such a risky and reprehensible stunt.

For the reasons explained above, I don't think the argument saying that a law allowing older minors to do something could be stretched to the point that a 10-year-old could do it is a valid one.

However, even if there is a legal difference between a 16-17-year old and a younger person (I'm still unsure about that), I still don't think it's acceptable to make and sell fetish-related videos featuring minors, even if they're fully dressed and almost 18, or even if one waits until the models are 18 to sell them.