The Photographer's Legal Tidbits, Facts and Fictions...
08/21/12 TrueTeenBabes has been published online for over 10 years. 190 models have been featured here. Yet we still get questioned or even attacked by various media types from all over the country. They always seem to question the legal issues surrounding this publication and seem to think that models under age 18 being on the Internet is illegal. This happens all the time - almost monthly. The laws on such things are often confusing for some, unclear for others, and misinterpreted by law enforcement, the media and public alike. Its confusing.
Over the years I've written dozens of columns, blogs and briefs on the subject. Below are three that seem to address the most frequently stated concerns.
Anybody But Me...
Photographers and 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 and bikini clad girls (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, or the young female towards the local boys. 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 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. Yet, weekly somebody emails me and says models under age 18 shouldn't be seen in anything but dresses.
The one thing that stands out to me is how many people act as if because the content is online it is automatically illegal.
In 2002 state police in Colorado raided our studio and we had a full trial (read about it here). 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 from this site they deamed illegal.
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. Books are out there in stores for all to see. The DVDs we showed the jury are out there for all to see. They can be bought easier than a site membership - no credit card or debit 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 to marry tennis great 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. It was titled back in the 70s as "Sugar and Spice". Brooke, after hitting age 18, 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 a 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 Blockbuster (see for yourself here), Amazon.com (see for yourself here) and dozens of other places.
Don't just read it here, see for yourself at these links: Brooke's underage nudes discussed in New York Metro Magazine or Brooke, age 11, Nude at Artnet.com
Two years later she appeared in the movie "The Blue Lagoon" which also includes sexual references. She becomes pregnant, thus the movie portrays underage 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 imagery here, it is strickingly similar.
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. To quote from her "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 that Hustler did nothing wrong. The court stated "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 "child porn" 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 titled "Successful Glamor Photography". I bought my copy at The Aurora Mall on the east side of Denver at a Walden Books store. In it they show all sorts of photography things related to pretty girls, including camera and film selection, model hiring and more. 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 & Noble stores nationwide, as well as online at Amazon.com or Barnes & Noble (see for yourself here). The 2005 updated and revised edition continues to display those images (see for yourself here).
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 the 80s 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 along with 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 various books and calendars and asked what the difference is between the shots of the busty teen models in them 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 Internet. No other reason. No school official in '89 / '90 ever questioned a model in those swimwear calendar pictures - male or female - or acted as if it was strange, yet from 2001 to now at least 3 have school officials have called parents because the girl's photo is "on the Internet". Read more about this "On the Internet" topic in the Myspace article below.
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. 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 15, right on magazine covers, or in magazines, or being sold on calendars at the next event. Not one person ever questioned that use of under 18 models. Not one. But, the same style of shots online and it suddenly becomes something devious, 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 & 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 & 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. Like many paper magazines it is no longer being published, but at the time was available at grocery stores, 7-11, and other newsstands.
Jessica Beil at age 17 in Gear Magazine. More sexual or revealing than 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 materials being delivered in a more modern way.
If you disagree with under 18 content you need to stop buying from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, 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 150+ models featured on TrueTeenBabes why we can't do the same things, or less revealing things than what 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 150+ 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?
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 and more. Why can't the models of TrueTeenBabes do the same images without being raided, arrested, cussed at and threatened?
Paper or Pixels?…
The title of this column is "Paper or Pixels?" but it could just as easily be "Nude or Not?" They are both rather simple questions with complicated answers.
Paper -… We all know that paper is made from soft wood trees like pine. Its ground into pulp, certain materials are subtracted by processing, the whiteness is made by bleaching and by the time its all done we have a nice canvas we can write, paint or color on. We use it to express our thoughts, our feelings, our creativity, our disgust or discord, and most importantly of all, our freedom.
Pixels -… Pixels are dots used to display an image on a screen. The word pixel is a blend of the words picture and element. A computer monitor is made up of many millions of pixels arranged in a grid which are lit up by an electron gun to create an image we can see. While pixels are the smallest complete element of an image, they are comprised of even smaller elements. In a standard monitor each pixel has three dots within it: a red, blue, and green dot. In theory these dots all converge at the same point, making them visibly seamless, by the time its all done we have a nice canvas we can write, paint or color on. We use it to express our thoughts, our feelings, our creativity, our disgust or discord, and most importantly of all, our freedom.
Paper has been around in general public use for many hundreds of years. Pixels, in the form of computer monitors, have been around in general public use for something like 25 or 30 years.
Paper is reliable and doesn't call for outside purchases to use (no computer or net service needed), but it is also slow and very expensive. The newspaper publisher trying to distribute his content this way must print millions of copies and ship them at great expense all over the world to reach the same audience as the publisher using pixels.
Pixels are modern, efficient and economical. As an example a newspaper publisher can create his content and distribute it online in minutes to millions of people around the world. It can be done at the expense of a simple web site server costing just $200 a month.
A modern pixel based publisher can reach a million readers / viewers in minutes for $200.00. An old style paper publisher can reach those same million readers / viewers in months for $1,000,000.00.
Over the last several months multiple media types - from national entertainment shows like Inside Edition to local TV stations in at least 3 states - have repeatedly used the contrast between paper publishing and pixels publishing (digital) to present the TrueTeenBabes publication in a bad light. Let me explain…
In August, knowing a local media type was coming to interview me at the Florida studio I drove just under 4 miles to the nearest Barnes & Noble bookstore and purchased these 3 books:
"See Me, Feel Me" by Chicago's Richard Murrian and his previous book "Reanna's Diaries" each feature over 200 photographs of beautiful females, most of which are under age 18, including popular web models Reanna Taylor and Jen Hilton. Every model in those books is photographed with her breasts fully exposed, including when some of the models were not yet old enough to drive a car. "Reanna's Diaries" was sold out, but they told me there was several on backorder. Reanna is just 15 in the topless cover photo. (see it for yourself here)
"Age of Innocence" by Englishman David Hamilton also contains hundreds of photos of fully nude female minors. The text of that book starts with this quote "Virginity is paradoxically erotic. Young girls, reaching the Age of Innocence, are not only physically attractive and beautiful human beings but are also emotionally challenging; they embody the promise of life at its fullest, of excitements taking shape, and the essence of sexual allure". (see it for yourself here)
"Radiant Images" by San Francisco's Jock Sturgis. Much like the two mentioned above, this book includes nude minors - but both males and females, in hundreds of quality photographs. (see it for yourself here)
Other books by those photographers, as well as Sally Mann, John Kelly and others that work with topless or nude minors were sold out.
As the TV, radio and print media guys try to tell me how bad the TrueTeenBabes publication is, how they feel it should be illegal, and how the small outfits selected by TrueTeenBabes models are too revealing, I pull out those books and ask them to explain to me why the models in the books from a local bookstore can be fully nude, but the models on TrueTeenBabes shouldn't be in daring outfits, when they are the same age.
The answer I get every single time is something along the lines of; "But that's a book" or more commonly, the weird answer of "But your photos are on the Internet and you don't know who is seeing them"
Read that again. "But your photos are on the Internet and you don't know who is seeing them". So, I'm guessing that somehow the Internet is the dirty illegal thing not the pictures. Interestingly, every single one of the media types we have talked with in the last 8 years has an Internet site or two. So, are they illegal? They can deliver content by pixel, but I shouldn't?
That brings us back to the "Paper or Pixels" question. Somehow each of these media types seemed to think that the nude minors in the paper publishing world of books are worthy, justified, just fine and not controversial. But, at the same time, my less revealing photos of minors are bad, dirty or should be outlawed because they are delivered by pixel on the Internet and not on paper at the local bookstore.
"Paper or Pixels?"
Read between the lines. Think about the pressure they apply. Look at the direction they are pushing and approving of - nude minors in books. It is very clear that to get the media off my ass, to get their approval and for them to allow the girls to do as they please, I simply need to change the way I produce images and publish the result.
They seem to be suggesting that if want their approval I should let the girls go fully nude and put it on paper in book form.
One media type jumped my case about girls covering their breasts with their hands. He went to local law enforcement and tried to convince them it was "fondling" and I should be arrested (with his cameras along him to exploit the girls as "victims"). He went to the top First Amendment attorney in the area and tried to convince him of the same thing and more. Not once did he ask the law enforcement people or attorney to state that the fully nude minors were illegal or go after the operators of Barnes & Noble, just the minors with breasts covered by hands.
Listening to the way these media types justify the books mentioned above, the nude Brooke Shields pictures and movies (done at age 10 and 12), and all the other items out there, it seems that I need to let the models get fully nude and put it on paper. The media types approve of it. They don't hide in bushes outside Barnes & Noble video taping, but they did sit across the street and tape me mopping the floor for 30 minutes. They don't track down models, studio renters or staff and stalk them like some prey in the African bush, but they did that here all summer long in 2006.
"Paper or Pixels?" "Nude or Not?" The answer seems to be a combination. If I select paper and nudity it appears I'll be left alone, get lots of media approval, and be distributed worldwide by major corporations like Barnes & Noble and Amazon.com.
Think about it. Fully nude minors get approval where lightly covered don't - simple because its paper and not pixels.
I can't for the life of me figure out what the difference is in our modern connected world. "Paper or Pixels?" If I did a book it would be the same models, studios, locations, cameras, make-up, staff, lighting gear, outfits (or no outfits) and personalities. There are only three differences (1) The models are topless or fully nude in some shots, (2) after the models go home the images are retouched and prepared differently for print as compared to pixel publishing and (3) paper publishing takes a long time and is very damn expensive.
I may be 47 years old but I'm fairly modern. I know that digital publishing is much less expensive and the workflow is more efficient. I selected to go that way with TrueTeenBabes. It simply makes sense from a purely business point of view. Dozens of newspapers (paper publishers) nationwide have failed due to rising costs in the last few years.
But, I'm having second thoughts.
A one hundred page, full color, hardback book with fully nude images of models like Lana, Ashley Nicole, Tina and Kaylynne can be done for about $25,000.00 for the first press run of 2000. "Age of Innocence" sells for $55.00 at Barnes & Noble, and I bought the last copy when I was there in July, so it must sell well. Figure they pay about 60% or more for it, meaning about $33.00 each or more, it seems I could triple my investment and get the media off my butt - just by letting the models go fully nude!
Think about how stupid that really is. With the media's push I'm actually thinking about letting the models go fully nude, and making a better return on my investment, and getting the major corporations to do the distribution.
I'm already dizzy thinking about how the lack of common sense and utter stupidity by these media types recently. There was a time when you could read serious news and a journalist was true to his craft. Its not like that any longer. They don't report news but rather try to create it.
Just a few months ago I read in an online forum about how Dateline NBC hired "Muslim looking" people and sent them down to a NASCAR race in the deep south and had them start chanting and praying and kneeling in other people's way to see if they could get "rednecks" to react and start a fight. Of course NBC would use it as "Breaking News" on Dateline and pat themselves on the back for their journalistic discovery. The NASCAR fans didn't do a darn thing and NBC went home with no "news" to broadcast.
Inside Edition actually used this headline "Scantily Clad Young Girls Found on Teen Modeling Websites". That was 4 months after I had communicated by email with them and explained that TrueTeenBabes is 5 years old, its old news, and huge national shows like CBS 48 Hours had already covered it.
They still promoted it as if they had just discovered something the rest of the world had never seen. Reminds me of Geraldo going in Al Capone's vaults live on TV 20 years ago to find nothing.
One section from the Inside Edition story truly shows the total lack of journalistic style, education and skill. It reads:
"So how do these sites get away with it? In most instances, they skirt the law by putting just enough clothing on the girls, and by not having them engage in, any blatant sexual activity."
Read that again. Get away with what? Being fully legal?
Their story is about exotic looking girls on TrueTeenBabes. We know that these girls could do illegal things on there, but they don't. Their bodies are fully capable, but we don't break the law.
Lets change it to exotic cars. We all know that a new Ferrari can break any speed limit in the country and drive illegally. These types of cars are fully capable of breaking lots of laws, but that doesn't mean they do.
"Speedy Exotic Cars Found on American Highways"
"So how do these drivers get away with it? In most instances, they skirt the law by driving just enough under the speed limit, and by not driving them in, any blatantly dangerous way"
Read that again. Get away with what? Driving legally in a fancy car?
Posing legally in an exotic outfit, or driving legally in an exotic car, when did that become the subject of such poor journalistic work?
Paper or Pixels? Nude or Not?
Update 05/25/11 -- In the years since this item about Myspace was written that site has fallen from the limelight and been replaced by Facebook.com as the most popular social network. The theory I explaine below is the same. Facebook is full of teen girls showing cute photos of themselves to boys and men all over the world. Facebook.com makes millions a month posting those tiny ads on the right side of the page. Without the girls and photos the site would be less popular and they would not be able to charge as much as they do for each time an ad is displayed.
Every now and then some media dude will mention that ""its just doesn't feel right for you to be making money putting teen girls photos on the Internet". My reply is "But what about Myspace.com?". The media guy will always come back and say "But Myspace is free".
Yes, for the general public Myspace.com is free. But, it is also a huge money making machine worth 500 times what TrueTeenBabes is worth. It makes millions of dollars each year by having cute, sexy, interesting, provocative and daring photos of teenage girls posted on their servers and within their site.
Read carefully, take a few notes, think clearly and you'll understand that the main difference between TrueTeenBabes and Myspace is how the money is collected.
TrueTeenBabes makes money by subscription fees and the sale of DVDs. That is our only source of income. The models don't pay us (we pay them), we don't have advertisers that pay to be shown in the site. Our only income source is charging subscription fees and selling DVDs. That is a very simple, very basic, business model.
Myspace.com uses a different business model and produces great income by selling advertising. They charge advertisers a fee for placing ads on the site and that fee goes up based on the total number of visitors to the site. The more visitors they have the more they charge the advertisers. This is the same business model as your local TV station. They show you American Idol for free (their "content"), but you see advertisements too, and those advertisers are who pay the TV stations and networks.
Visitors to the Myspace.com do so for just a few reasons - musical content, picture content, video content and text content. Take away the content and Myspace.com has less visitors. The fewer visitors they have, the less money they can charge the advertisers and the less money they make. Myspace.com is owned by a division of News Corp -- the same people that own the FOX TV Networks. The Fox Interactive unit, which largely consists of MySpace, turned a profit of $10 million on revenue of $550 million for the fiscal year ending June 30.
Revenue of $550 millions, and a profit of $10 million! That is a bunch of money folks, a bunch of money.
Why do so many people visit Myspace that they can generate revenue (income from advertisers) of $550 million?
Its the "content" silly, just the content - musical content, picture content, video content and text content. Do not kid yourself, its 80% to 90% for the girls. If all female profiles on Myspace.com somehow got deleted today the site would die. Without the pretty girls, the guys don't visit, and they have no visitors and they can't charge anybody for advertising. Think about your local nightclub. Why do they have "Ladie's Night" -- because the more girls they have there, the more males will visit.
Myspace.com has over 60 million user profiles. The second largest age group there is those between age 13 and 17 (the same age range as the models on TrueTeenBabes). That means there are more than 10 million teen females posting pictures of themselves on Myspace.com. Many of these photos are more sexual or provocative than those here on TrueTeenBabes. More on that below.
We've all heard in the media about the heat Myspace.com has taken due to allowing underage surfers to create profiles and post images, videos, blogs and more. Dozens of times underage girls with profiles and photos on Myspace have been solicited by older guys. Girls have been murdered in such cases. Last year, Missouri mother Lori Drew stalked and eventually convinced her daughter's13-year-old rival to commit suicide by "friending" her on MySpace in the guise of a teenage boy. Drew now faces up to three years in prison when she is sentenced May 18th for "cyber-bullying" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Attorneys General in several states have even threatened to sue Myspace.com to protect children.
With all those crazy stories, stalkings, deaths, threats, suicides and other events, why doesn't Myspace.com just change the rules and prevent profiles for users under age 18? Why doesn't Myspace.com just ditch all the under age 18 users / profiles / visitors / photos and stay with content / profiles of those 18 and above?
The answer is; Money. The largest percentage of visitors to Myspace.com, and thus those viewing the advertisements, are males of all ages looking at the pretty girls. Ditching the pretty girls under age 18 would drastically cut into their site visitors and that of course means they would not be able to charge as much for advertisements.
The revenue directly attributed to having pretty girls under age 18 on Myspace.com must be substantial. Myspace has spent millions defending its policies and arguing with those Attorneys General. Myspace.com is owned by News Corp, the same people that own the Fox Networks, The New York Post and more. They paid close to $500 million for it back in 2005.
When it comes right down to it they make a heck of a lot more cash from underage content then I ever will.
You might be thinking that is acceptable because the photos of teenage girls on Myspace.com are not cute or daring like those here at TrueTeenBabes. That simply is not true. In many, many cases, the photos are more sexual or daring then my work here.
Around 50 new girls apply to be a TrueTeenBabes model each month. All applicants are required to send photos for my review or a link to a site where they have photos posted. Many send a link to their Myspace.com page. Below I have included just a small sample of what I they send me from their Myspace.com pages. This is a very mellow selection of what I see on Myspace.com pages (posted with permission).
When it comes right down to the most basic level, both TrueTeenBabes and Myspace produce income by having pictures (content) featuring girls under age 18 on our websites. The main diference is that they make millions and I don't.
There is one other difference -- Myspace.com pays zero for that content - its all visitor contributed, including the photos shown above and thousands more images like them, and thousands that are more sexual or revealing. None of the girls in those photos or the thousands of others displayed on Myspace.com make a single penny for contributing to the revenue of Myspace.com
TrueTeenBabes pays all of our own production costs. We pay for our two studios, we pay the make-up girls to prepare the models, we pay all the costs associated with taking models to fun locations like Hawaii, we pay all the travel costs for models and their mothers to travel to our studios from all over the country. We also, unlike Myspace, pay the girls themselves. It might be just $100 per hour, but thats a lot more than Myspace pays them to be in pretty pictures.
One last thought -- All the girls that appear on TrueTeenBabes do so with the full knowledge and consent of their parent(s). There is no law that says I need permission to produce or publish my photos - I get permission because its the right thing to do. Its the professional way I do things. Myspace.com doesn't seek permission from the parent(s) to publish their daughter's cute or sexy photos, or to generate revenue from the viewers of those images.
Opinion Only - I'm not picking on Myspace.com, and don't want them picking on me, but if readers of this item or the ratings hungry media guys are honest with themselves, they would clearly see these facts.
Littleton, Colorado. USA.