Case Dismissed Against Photographer Who Took "X-Rated" Pic Of 15-Yr-Old Model

The shirt

Last year Urban Outfitters and photographer Jason Lee Parry got into some trouble after a 15-year-old model named Hailey Clauson was featured in an "X-rated" print on a t-shirt sold in the store. Parry was the photographer, and the model's parent's filed a lawsuit against him and the retailer in Manhattan Federal Court. Yesterday, about six months after filing, a Manhattan federal judge dismissed the $28 million suit, at least against Parry, who the judge said “is not subject to jurisdiction under New York law." According to the NY Post, this is because the photo was shot in California. Urban Outfitters, however, remains a defendant in the case. At the time, Blood is the New Black (who made the shirt in question), told us:

The images were delivered to us by Jason Lee Parry with the sole purpose of producing tee shirts and marketing them to our network of stores worldwide. One image, depicting a woman on a motorcycle, was printed on men’s and women’s tee shirts and sold to a number of stores, including Urban Outfitters. Neither Urban Outfitters nor Blood is the New Black were aware that the photographer had failed to obtain a model release from the Teen Model or her parents, who were present at the shoot.

This week there was some outrage over designers using models on the runway during Fashion Week that are under 16. Some believe models "are more likely to have the maturity to deal with being rejected by designers or treated disrespectfully by photographers" by that age. While others feel that photographers like Terry Richardson (who likes "girls who appear underage, abused, look like heroin addicts") will turn out over-sexualized photos of teens.

As for Clauson, she's certainly been sexualized in other photoshoots (ahem, Gucci), so it's not just Richardson, but also high-end designers. In fact, recently photos came out showing the 10-year-old daughter of Cindy Crawford looking much older in this Versace ad campaign.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Carlson in Arts & Entertainment on February 10, 2012 11:32 AM

Comments [rss]

PicoPhreako69

Mr. Bear says....

D.B

*Shakes head i disgust*

JenChungsBaby

That's more like V or W rated.

iceberg

So if she killed somebody, she would have been tried as an adult, but when it comes to a little promiscuity, she's suddenly a child? http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/20...

I thought the Gothamist crowd prides themselves as non-prudes.

A

THIS. The youth of America can consent to murder (tried as an adult) but can't consent to sex (omg child-abuse!) You can join the army and shoot people but you cant get a beer or a smoke. It's bizarre.

JAB84

I agree that it's not exactly "x-rated," but it is still disgusting on so many levels. It borders on child pornography, as it features a minor in a lewd, albeit clothed, position. When will the fashion industry stop trying to convince us women that we should look like fifteen year old children? And where are this girl's parents?

Jake Riley

at the bank

coolmikeperry

The girl's parents were at the photo shoot when this picture was taken.

delicats

How is this X-rated?

Violette Retancourt

Anyone who calls this x-rated is watching some seriously shitty porn.

CityFace

"18 USC § 2256
(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person; "

Somewhere in the code it states that nudity isn't necessary for "lascivious exhibition of the genitals," the model can be fully clothed but the picture better not call attention to the naughty bits. But I don't have enough time or interest to find the reference just now.

"X-rated" doesn't really mean anything. Under Federal law though, this could be defined as child porn and everybody involved prosecuted for 1) not having the records required under Section 2257 to prove she wasn't underage, and then 2) for producing, distributing, and possessing child pornography.

I'm not saying it is or isn't. But the Dept. of Justice might. Luckily for the photographer, this case was brought at the state level. But, the DOJ could easily come after him if they've run out of medical marijuana dispensaries to bust in California.

Detex

the church probably said it was.

splicernyc

X-rated? Hardly.

ElvisShalit

whats your definition of x-rated? it seems it was a minor that changed the rating, otherwise it'd be like all the mind-numbing bullshit plastered all around us.

TheRealCannibal

How about just NOT taking X-rated pictures of 15 year old models to begin with? Avoid all this trouble.

Red Ryder

The photo would actually have to be x-rated for this to be a thing at all. Camel toe ain't porn.

TheRealCannibal

Listen, I know you and your Juggalo friends think kiddie porn is ok, but this is a family discussion area. Keep that shit in the trailer with your cousins.