Shooting under 18s

[candlestick]

Maybe straying off the subject slightly, but how is this decency law applied to fashion models?? Weren't Kate Moss & Niaomi Campbell both catwalk modelling clothes & underwear before they were 16??

 

[markrichardson]

Even presuming the 'law' is that you 'can't' photograph anyone under 18 nude (and I'm not convinced that it is) why not just go abroad and take them?

Like to see the CPS make a case that you can't take pictures in France/Sweden/Latvia/wherever......

If you took the pictures abroad and did not bring them back into the country, then yes. If they're on your memory card/computer when you return to the UK you fall under the law again since possessing the photos is equally criminal.

 

[markrichardson]

Maybe straying off the subject slightly, but how is this decency law applied to fashion models?? Weren't Kate Moss & Niaomi Campbell both catwalk modelling clothes & underwear before they were 16??

The law was only extended to cover 16 and 17 year olds by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, so photos predating this would probably be ok (although I suppose techinically possession of them could still be prosecuted, but I can't imagine it would ever happen)

 

[Dave Stone]

Well said Marcel. Good sound advice. If you are still considering th shoot contact a solicitor or the Citizens Advice Bureaux first. If you have to pay a few quid for the advice, add it to the bill.

 

[HoppyUK]

Really?? the quite clearly quoted legislation sees a difference between 17 and 1/2 and 18 years old. Thats your difference. Would you want to fall foul of it. Its not about censorship or anything else, but simply not wishing to break the law and the relevant law is quite clearly quoted in a related thread.

Hugh

I see it differently. The law is only concerned with decency in under-18s. It is not illegal to take decent photos, only indecent ones. This debate seem to revolve around the rather vague definition of that, rather than any legal dos and don'ts.

I see it as a moral question, much less to do with the law. But my guess is that the OP knows the difference.

 

[Amp34]

Really?? the quite clearly quoted legislation sees a difference between 17 and 1/2 and 18 years old. Thats your difference. Would you want to fall foul of it. Its not about censorship or anything else, but simply not wishing to break the law and the relevant law is quite clearly quoted in a related thread.

Hugh

The problem is a lot of people seem to read that legislation and see indecent and think OMG topless is a no-no! That is their moral opinion, not the laws, the laws is far more grey, with both topless and fully nude being legal, unless it is sexualising them.

For example I am sure an image of a fully naked 16 year lying on her side with her arm holding up her head and upper knee over her lower leg is perfectly legal, but if she lifted up the leg and showed a bit more that would probably be illegal.

(In a male sense a naked boy full frontal would be legal, but one with an erection would not.)

You also have one or two in here that are chatting rubbish about paedophiles and such, all very well in their opinion, but their opinion isn't law.

 

[boyfalldown]

I see it differently. The law is only concerned with decency in under-18s. It is not illegal to take decent photos, only indecent ones. This debate seem to revolve around the rather vague definition of that, rather than any legal dos and don'ts.

I see it as a moral question, much less to do with the law. But my guess is that the OP knows the difference.

OK - from the OP's original question would you expect the photos if posted here to go in Nudes and Glamour, or People and Portraits? Based on that answer how many people would be happy to see under 18's in whichever forum you think most appropriate?

secondly - if it were your business or future would you be prepared to take that risk?

Whats indecent is a moral question, but as Marcel says that would be decided by a jury. The simple fact is it is a legal question - Chicca's motives are un doubtable highly moral - to protect a young girl from her self, but that won't protect from the law which is what will get you on the SOR and hang over you for the rest of you career

Hugh

 

[pxl8]

Have you all forgotten about the case of the photographer doing the fairy photos not so long ago? He was charged under the same laws - the parents were present during the shoot and it was all perfectly innocent.

 

[Cobra]

On a final note, please don't let this thread descend into a catfight or a sick-joke-athon .

If that were aimed at me then I apologise
Both are expressions I use regularly
and it was only after I posted I realised that
it could be taken the wrong way hence the quick edit
<looks around for a slapped wrist emoticon >

Good post as a whole BTW

 

[HoppyUK]

OK - from the OP's original question would you expect the photos if posted here to go in Nudes and Glamour, or People and Portraits? Based on that answer how many people would be happy to see under 18's in whichever forum you think most appropriate?

secondly - if it were your business or future would you be prepared to take that risk?

Whats indecent is a moral question, but as Marcel says that would be decided by a jury. The simple fact is it is a legal question - Chicca's motives are un doubtable highly moral - to protect a young girl from her self, but that won't protect from the law which is what will get you on the SOR and hang over you for the rest of you career

Hugh

So which is it then, a moral question or a legal question?

The law is quite clear: age is immaterial, and the state of dress or undress is irrelevant. What matters from a legal position is whether the images are indecent or not.

That is a highly subjective moral question, that would ultimately be decided by a jury. And the standards that a jury might apply vary a lot over time and are often unpredictable. However, the precedents for what is okay are out there and all around us, and they appear to be quite liberal.

 

[boyfalldown]

So which is it then, a moral question or a legal question?

The law is quite clear: age is immaterial, and the state of dress or undress is irrelevant. What matters from a legal position is whether the images are indecent or not.

both actually - maybe you'd like to answer my other questions as well?

 

[Jo]

The problem is a lot of people seem to read that legislation and see indecent and think OMG topless is a no-no! That is their moral opinion, not the laws, the laws is far more grey, with both topless and fully nude being legal, unless it is sexualising them.

For example I am sure an image of a fully naked 16 year lying on her side with her arm holding up her head and upper knee over her lower leg is perfectly legal, but if she lifted up the leg and showed a bit more that would probably be illegal.

Personally I totally disagree with you there. I can not think of any pose, naked or topless that would be 'decent' with regards to someone under 18.

Edit: But that is only because I know that just the fact the skin is naked, is enough for some to 'use' it successfully for what they want.

You also have one or two in here that are chatting rubbish about paedophiles and such, all very well in their opinion, but their opinion isn't law.

*Presuming that was aimed at me because I used the word paedophile a few times*

I actually take offense to that. It's not rubbish, it does happen, and is one of the reasons it is such a growing problem. I'm not guessing or assuming, I can say with 100% certainty that what I said was the truth. These kind of images are what 'those' people use, and if they are available easily they will use them, and their spiral down a very nasty, repulsive track is a faster one because of it. Obviously it is not solely responsible for it, but I do believe if it wasn't so easy to get hold of naked pics of under 18's the problem would not be as bad.

 

[Marcel]

If that were aimed at me then I apologise

Not at all mate, it was a generalisation
There are a few posts which are unintentially poking the hornets nest so to speak, but nothing that needs a thread clean. I just don't want it to descend to a point where it needs cleaning and closing

 

[Cobra]

Not at all mate, it was a generalisation
There are a few posts which are unintentially poking the hornets nest so to speak, but nothing that needs a thread clean. I just don't want it to descend to a point where it needs cleaning and closing

Thanks


This maybe going off track a little I don't know, but we seem to be getting hung up with the word "Paedophile"
but surely a Paedophile has an unhealthy "liking" for prepubescent children ?
I will be the first to admit that I will "admire" a "decent pair of boobs"
Whether covered or uncovered.

Children ( girls specifically) these days mature so damned quickly
that its unreal!

No one can be certain that the pair of boobs that they are ogling belong to a 15 year old
( especially with all the make up products available)
or a19 year old, with any real certainty.

Its getting so that we can't ( dare) even look without being " labelled"

 

[KIPAX]

This maybe going off track a little I don't know, but we seem to be getting hung up with the word "Paedophile"

Sorry but I dont think this thread has anything to do with pedophiles and i havent even seen the word mentioned until one post on this page and yours.. Its just not the same thing at all IMHO

 

[Amp34]

Personally I totally disagree with you there. I can not think of any pose, naked or topless that would be 'decent' with regards to someone under 18.

Edit: But that is only because I know that just the fact the skin is naked, is enough for some to 'use' it successfully for what they want.

That is your moral opinion, not law, which is what I was trying to point out. I on the other hand can see nudity and not instantly think of sex. I guess it is in part how you are brought up, my family are fine walking around partly naked, and I have been to may beaches where topless and fully naked men and women of all ages walk, play and sunbathe, with no sexual connotations at all. Is that not decent? Do you see people sunbathing topless as disgusting and immoral? From your posts so far I would venture at a "yes" to that.

*Presuming that was aimed at me because I used the word paedophile a few times*

I actually take offense to that. It's not rubbish, it does happen, and is one of the reasons it is such a growing problem. I'm not guessing or assuming, I can say with 100% certainty that what I said was the truth. These kind of images are what 'those' people use, and if they are available easily they will use them, and their spiral down a very nasty, repulsive track is a faster one because of it. Obviously it is not solely responsible for it, but I do believe if it wasn't so easy to get hold of naked pics of under 18's the problem would not be as bad.

These Paedophiles have also been known to use fully clothed images too, so how should we go about it? Ban any image of anyone under 18 on the internet, and have any body with images of children not their own arrested on sex crime charges? Just because a tiny minority (and lets be fair, it is a tiny minority, and almost certainly no more (proportionally) than there was 50 years ago). I assume by your 100% certainty that you work in child safety and regularly come across and work with people (this is not an accusation, just a question as I seem to remember you doing something like this), if so do you have any evidence that all people that look at a 17 year old and get aroused become child predators at a later date? It's a bit far fetched TBH, yes a tiny minority again may do that, but the vast majority of people who find 8 year olds attractive i'm pretty certain started off with 8 year olds, as they wouldn't find a 17 year old attractive, as they would be to old...

EDIT: As Cobra pointed out, that is as such, the definition of a paedophile.

 

[HoppyUK]

both actually - maybe you'd like to answer my other questions as well?

You mean, where would I expect to see the OP's (hyopthetical) photos posted, Glamour or Portraits, and would I do the shoot?

I can't really speak for the OP, but guessing I would hope that most would go into Portraits quite happily, but maybe one or two in Glamour. Glamour does NOT mean indecent.

I've photographed loads of under-18 girls, and none of them remotely indecently. I would happily do a portrait shoot, maybe a soft-focus skimpy top type thing, but not overt glamour.

However, that's because I hate glamour photography and whenever I look in those forums my conviction that it is an utterly naff subject is stongly reinforced. That's a judgement based on personal photographic taste, not a moral one and certainly nothing to trouble the law.

 

[Toothie]

She's already contacted some male photographers who are less than trustworthy, so she was referred to me as she's determined to get them done and if it's not me, it'll be someone extremely dodgy.

there is a very simple answer to this and one i strongly recomend.

Call social services and give them the details of this girl.

there are 4 reasons for this:
1. Her parents are encouraging her to take part in child pornography (glammor shots nude or not are sexualised) which requires investigation.

2. Is it actually her thats whats this done or is she getting pressure from outside influnces (older b/f, parents, some grommer on facebook)? again needs invesigating.

3. a visit from social services should be eenough to make her wait a couple of months thus reducing the risk of her being taken advantage of.

4. inapporiate sexual behaviour can be a sign of previous sexual abuse.

as i say i strongly recommend a call to socail services.

also you can bet anymoney you liek the day after you give her a disk she has the pics on facebook, as a result your easly traceable and giving her a disk could be distrubing child porn.

 

[boyfalldown]

You mean, where would I expect to see the OP's (hyopthetical) photos posted, Glamour or Portraits, and would I do the shoot?

I can't really speak for the OP, but guessing I would hope that most would go into Portraits quite happily, but maybe one or two in Glamour. Glamour does NOT mean indecent.

no - and I agree with you 100% there

I've photographed loads of under-18 girls, and none of them remotely indecently. I would happily do a portrait shoot, maybe a soft-focus skimpy top type thing, but not overt glamour.

However, that's because I hate glamour photography and whenever I look in those forums my conviction that it is an utterly naff subject is stongly reinforced. That's a judgement based on personal photographic taste, not a moral one and certainly nothing to trouble the law.

so have I - but the original post implies they would be overt glamour shoots - underwear or topless.

I have different reasons for not shooting glamour, again nothing to trouble the law, but in this case you could end up at least having to defend your actions in a very robust manner to the law, and without drawing any moral conclusions, I'd want to avoid that situatution. That's the whole reason I think you'd (or I'd) want to run away from this situation. My moral compass on this occasdsion doesn't need to twitch, just common sense, in this situation does

 

[HoppyUK]

there is a very simple answer to this and one i strongly recomend.

Call social services and give them the details of this girl.

there are 4 reasons for this:
1. Her parents are encouraging her to take part in child pornography (glammor shots nude or not are sexualised) which requires investigation.

2. Is it actually her thats whats this done or is she getting pressure from outside influnces (older b/f, parents, some grommer on facebook)? again needs invesigating.

3. a visit from social services should be eenough to make her wait a couple of months thus reducing the risk of her being taken advantage of.

4. inapporiate sexual behaviour can be a sign of previous sexual abuse.

as i say i strongly recommend a call to socail services.

also you can bet anymoney you liek the day after you give her a disk she has the pics on facebook, as a result your easly traceable and giving her a disk could be distrubing child porn.

Good grief. We're all guilty until proved innocent

 

[Andyvalver]

Why do we need the thread stopping.. its a healthy debate about photography... Why do some people see an argument where I see a debate ?

It shouldnt be a debate or argument. Try to debate it in court and see how far you get lol.

She is under 18, its illeagal and thats it really, Its the law.

 

[Toothie]

Good grief. We're all guilty until proved innocent

i am not saying any one is quilty of anything i am saying this is possibly a child at risk and that should be investigated.

 

[Amp34]

It shouldnt be a debate or argument. Try to debate it in court and see how far you get lol.

She is under 18, its illeagal and thats it really, Its the law.

"The law" is not quite that simple...

 

[who?]

(I've never had the chance to use that one before)


I think that people are at best misguided if they are even thinking of taking 'glamour' (aka soft porn) shots of someone under 18.

 

[Jayst84]

Topless shots, nudes, glamour, art, whatever. Not illegal.

Go through all this every time Bill Henson takes a photograph.

 

[swanseamale47]

Originally Posted by ConfusedChicca
She's already contacted some male photographers who are less than trustworthy, so she was referred to me as she's determined to get them done and if it's not me, it'll be someone extremely dodgy.

With respect thats not really your problem, thats for her parents to worry about, if they are not bothered walk away, otherwise you could end up in trouble for trying to do the right thing. Besides she will probably still end up going to the other togs as well, either for more pics or for money for a shoot, if your really concerned about her wellfair maybe you should pass it to the police/social services as somebody else suggested.

 

[david1701]

I think the issue is with the definition of indecent. You would have to prove that your topless photo's were in fact decent, and if she wants topless pictures this badly odds are she will do her dammedest to make them indecent as she will want to appear sexy - rightly or wrongly.

Also the moral angle is interesting as it's not just you that has to be happy with the pictures as anyone seeing them will judge you and her.

 

[MarkWoodhall22]

I think the issue is with the definition of indecent. You would have to prove that your topless photo's were in fact decent, and if she wants topless pictures this badly odds are she will do her dammedest to make them indecent as she will want to appear sexy - rightly or wrongly.

Also the moral angle is interesting as it's not just you that has to be happy with the pictures as anyone seeing them will judge you and her.

Don't they have to prove they are indecent? Rather than you proving they are decent?

 

[Cobra]

Sorry but I dont think this thread has anything to do with pedophiles and i havent even seen the word mentioned until one post on this page and yours.. Its just not the same thing at all IMHO

After a quick skim
Posts # 62 91 92 132 and mine 134
I will concede that this is not what the thread is about
but its "there" by inference and the (many) uses of the word "perv"

 

[david1701]

Don't they have to prove they are indecent? Rather than you proving they are decent?

spose they do yeah, but in a situation where an accusation was levelled I think if your gonna take the pics you should have proof that they are ok

 

[Jo]

That is your moral opinion, not law, which is what I was trying to point out. I on the other hand can see nudity and not instantly think of sex. I guess it is in part how you are brought up, my family are fine walking around partly naked, and I have been to may beaches where topless and fully naked men and women of all ages walk, play and sunbathe, with no sexual connotations at all. Is that not decent? Do you see people sunbathing topless as disgusting and immoral? From your posts so far I would venture at a "yes" to that.

Actually you're wrong on the last count. I agree it is my moral opinion, but what I said is also fact, there is no escaping it unfortunatly Believe me I wish there was ... wait! Maybe that is what these laws are for? to try and cut the amount of material available to 'them' :shrug: (sorry that was a little sarcastic).

These Paedophiles have also been known to use fully clothed images too, so how should we go about it? Ban any image of anyone under 18 on the internet, and have any body with images of children not their own arrested on sex crime charges? Just because a tiny minority (and lets be fair, it is a tiny minority, and almost certainly no more (proportionally) than there was 50 years ago).

I know they use clothed pictures, but that is if they can't get hold of the other kind, and it isn't as a attractive to them as nakedness. Sometimes I think if the naked pics weren't quite so available maybe there would fewer of 'them' about :shrug:

I assume by your 100% certainty that you work in child safety and regularly come across and work with people (this is not an accusation, just a question as I seem to remember you doing something like this), if so do you have any evidence that all people that look at a 17 year old and get aroused become child predators at a later date? It's a bit far fetched TBH, yes a tiny minority again may do that, but the vast majority of people who find 8 year olds attractive i'm pretty certain started off with 8 year olds, as they wouldn't find a 17 year old attractive, as they would be to old...

EDIT: As Cobra pointed out, that is as such, the definition of a paedophile.

Actually no I don't work in child safety/protection or anything that end of the problem. I actually deal with a lot of these people, both ends of the problem daily during my work. I suppose you could say I do counselling, but it's not as glamorous as that, and some would have moral issue with what I do too. Which is why I want to get across that mine is not so much a moral opinion, but one of fact. I can't and don't want to discuss my work any more than that on a public forum, but I think most can work it out from what I have said. If that's not enough for you, I'm happy to answer any other questions about it via PM

there is a very simple answer to this and one i strongly recomend.

Call social services and give them the details of this girl.

there are 4 reasons for this:
1. Her parents are encouraging her to take part in child pornography (glamour shots nude or not are sexualised) which requires investigation.

2. Is it actually her thats whats this done or is she getting pressure from outside influnces (older b/f, parents, some grommer on facebook)? again needs invesigating.

3. a visit from social services should be eenough to make her wait a couple of months thus reducing the risk of her being taken advantage of.

4. inapporiate sexual behaviour can be a sign of previous sexual abuse.

as i say i strongly recommend a call to socail services.

also you can bet anymoney you liek the day after you give her a disk she has the pics on facebook, as a result your easly traceable and giving her a disk could be distrubing child porn.

+

i am not saying any one is quilty of anything i am saying this is possibly a child at risk and that should be investigated.

100% agree.

 

[POAH]

Maybe straying off the subject slightly, but how is this decency law applied to fashion models?? Weren't Kate Moss & Niaomi Campbell both catwalk modelling clothes & underwear before they were 16??

catwalk is not the same as studio work though

 

[fracster]

How disappointing,I was expecting a thread about shooting "yoofs" with a rifle.......

 

[KIPAX]

How disappointing,I was expecting a thread about shooting "yoofs" with a rifle.......

Not wishing to thread wander but it would have to be a proper rifle.. air rifle would be no good ... An old army 303 would do the trick..

 

[Marc]

Can I just point out one thing here. In the OP the shoot has been described as "Glamour" which has the sole purpose of sexual titillation (unless I'm missing something ) which can only be achieved by the sexualisation of the subject of the photograph and as she is under 18, it is definitely illegal.

Right, now that's sorted. Who's for a pint!

 

[inaneredstripe]

How disappointing,I was expecting a thread about shooting "yoofs" with a rifle.......

me too.
personaly, i dont see topless bathing enough.
not in mansfield.
to be serious, wether its legal or not, we wouldnt shoot under 18's in any form of disrobement.
and if we do shoot under 18's , we insist on an adult being present.
its a moral thing.


and apparently cobra likes boobs.
odd that, so do i.
must be a male thing.

 

[david1701]

I approve of boobs and rifles (against youths) in general but can we wander back on topic as it really is an interesting thread

 

[leon1p]

The true answers to these questions should really make you think whether this is right or not..

1. If someone approached her and asked her to take topless photos how would you interpret that?

2. If she was at a photo shoot which you were at to get tips from a photographer and they asked this 17 year old to start losing her clothes would you consider it okay?

3. Which headline are you most likely to read in a newspaper a."Photographer takes tasteful portraits to protect a young woman from rouge photographers" or b."Sick perv takes snaps of 17 year old."

4. You have pics of a 17 year old on your computer and the police arrive at your door. Do you care or do you panic?

It doesn't really matter what reason you might think could justify doing this, the fact is you would be putting yourself potentially in the firing line for a really tough time. People don't listen to reasons why or explanations.. People like the juicy stories, and to brand someone who takes pictures of under 18's as paedophiles is far easier than understanding any sort of reasoning behind it. The world currently has, as someone put it, "pitch forks at the ready" and are overly active in making anything that could even remotely be classed indecent into into full blown sexual abuse and sex offender charges.

The laws etc might be a grey area... How people will perceive you is not.

To the OP directly.. You must consider if doing this for her instead of her going to a cowboy who is more than happy to get her to take her kit off is helping her at all. If it's ok for you to bend the rules to help her you can only wonder what message that will send to her. You should maybe try to convince her that any time she is at a shoot she takes someone responsible.. (possibly not her parents).

My personal opinion if i was in your position would be not to even consider it for a minute.. whether or not it might be ok if you read between the lines of the law.. And I wouldn't feel guilty about the route she chose to follow after a refusal. Her parents have the responsibility not you. You would be comfortable in the fact you have not done anything that is going to come back and ruin your day somewhere further down the line.

 

[mrgas]

The true answers to these questions should really make you think whether this is right or not..

1. If someone approached her and asked her to take topless photos how would you interpret that?

2. If she was at a photo shoot which you were at to get tips from a photographer and they asked this 17 year old to start losing her clothes would you consider it okay?

3. Which headline are you most likely to read in a newspaper a."Photographer takes tasteful portraits to protect a young woman from rouge photographers" or b."Sick perv takes snaps of 17 year old."

4. You have pics of a 17 year old on your computer and the police arrive at your door. Do you care or do you panic?

It doesn't really matter what reason you might think could justify doing this, the fact is you would be putting yourself potentially in the firing line for a really tough time. People don't listen to reasons why or explanations.. People like the juicy stories, and to brand someone who takes pictures of under 18's as paedophiles is far easier than understanding any sort of reasoning behind it. The world currently has, as someone put it, "pitch forks at the ready" and are overly active in making anything that could even remotely be classed indecent into into full blown sexual abuse and sex offender charges.

The laws etc might be a grey area... How people will perceive you is not.

To the OP directly.. You must consider if doing this for her instead of her going to a cowboy who is more than happy to get her to take her kit off is helping her at all. If it's ok for you to bend the rules to help her you can only wonder what message that will send to her. You should maybe try to convince her that any time she is at a shoot she takes someone responsible.. (possibly not her parents).

My personal opinion if i was in your position would be not to even consider it for a minute.. whether or not it might be ok if you read between the lines of the law.. And I wouldn't feel guilty about the route she chose to follow after a refusal. Her parents have the responsibility not you. You would be comfortable in the fact you have not done anything that is going to come back and ruin your day somewhere further down the line.

very well put !

 

[Richard King]

Dont put yourself in a position where the law has to be interpreted. End of

New catchphrase "we shoot anything with clothes on"

Just as a side observation.. why is the interest allways in "barley legal" teen girls. There are plenty of 20,30,40,50,60,70,80 somethings to shoot too, in both the male and female gender. Sexuallity isnt mutually exclusive to youth, or the female sex. sometimes personality is a whole lot more interesting than sexuality as a subject