Shooting under 18s

I realise that the OP is trying to do a nice thing in a less than perfect situation
but look after yourself first!
sounds like trouble anyway...i'd be very upset if a friend/relative wanted these shots doing at 17. Is she a big fan of Jordon by any chance?

p.s anyone posted this yet
always good to have as a sticky
now updated for march 2009
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

pasted from the above PDF said:
It is a criminal offence to take an indecent photograph of a child under the age of 18 or to make a photograph that appears to be such (e.g. by pasting an image of a child's head on an image of a nude adult body).
Click to expand...

the word indecent....well 80 years ago that included showing anything about ankles.
although you might get away with alluring photos, I would steer clear of anything that was lingerie or revealing.
I realise that there are no ulterior motives from the OP here and I'm not criticising the reasoning behind this. but I would steer clear and frankly guide towards counselling
OR agree to a photo shot, have the costumes/kit written down and say you WILL NOT AGREE to anything sexual, but show her what a decent shoot can do for her modelling potential..and frankly ego in this case (because in my limited experience this is what it's about. long story short, a good friend of mine actually was indecently touched up by a 'photographer' during her career when she was convinced glamour was the way to go. thankfully she's now older, wiser (still looks great though) and has a career in sales)
make your case that you will shoot her when she is 18 and not before, however, how many friends can she show off topless photos too without looking a bit dodge. a decent set of her looking great doesn't require her to be naked...(did I just say that?? damn I'm getting old :P)
 
DiddyDave said:
"Sexualising a minor"

That means if you shoot a 16yr old and there's a bit of cleavage showing, just because you don't think it's sexy doesn't mean someone else won't - and if they happen to be their teacher who thinks it could be seen as sexy, the Rossers may well be knocking at your door !!!
Click to expand...
Bob Seidemann and Blind Faith would get into big trouble for this album cover then.

MOD EDIT _ NSFW (Depends where you work. It's fine here. It's the cover from a massive selling album.....)
http://sleevage.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/blind_faith.jpg

What about those that have it in their record collections?
 
I know you making a point but please remove that I'm at work and that could get me in trouble :)
 
well that's the point
I don't find that 'sexy' or alluring at all
if you look at the definition of pornography, it is an image or media that arouses sexual feelings in the viewer....how wide open to interpretation is that.
the above posted image isn't sexual in the slightest for me personally.
I did remember a Top of the Pops album cover with a woman holding a guitar from the 70's though way back when I was in my teens (it was an old cover then :P) that was alluring all those years ago

on the topic, wasn't there a scorpians cover that was banned from the UK internet earlier this year?? which was about 15 years old??
 
Voyager said:
While surfing the internet and posting on forums won't? :nono:
Click to expand...

Yes but I can do that in between what I am doing, however naked photo's on my screen I can't argue away
 
ConfusedChicca said:
It's so frustrating, as has been said, it's legal to have sex at 16, and with the advent of video phones some of this sexual activity is filmed/photographed.. I think I need to speak to my police officer friend to clarify the law exactly, just thought someone on here might know exactly how it works.
Click to expand...

There are big legal implications of the underage images that are being swapped by text message - if the girl is under 18 then the recipient (maybe an equally underage boy) becomes guilty of child pornography.
I think there are some test cases going through the US court at the moment.
 
DiddyDave said:
The phrase you have to be careful off is...

"Sexualising a minor"

That means if you shoot a 16yr old and there's a bit of cleavage showing, just because you don't think it's sexy doesn't mean someone else won't - and if they happen to be their teacher who thinks it could be seen as sexy, the Rossers may well be knocking at your door !!!

DD
Click to expand...

You got one bit right but I think you have misinterpreted it, the important part is "sexualising a minor", as you pointed out, BUT being naked isn't sexual in itself (other wise those photos of your kids playing naked in a pool would get you shut away (hypothetically)). However it is a really grey area, as one persons innocent could be another persons sexual.

For example, taking a picture of an under 18 year old running around topless on a beach, or sunbathing is not sexual (and technically shouldn't get you arrested, but posing like a Jordan in a glamour shoot (especially in lingere) is almost certainly going to be...

That second point is the important part, the shoot is almost certainly going to be glamour, and as such breaking the law.

EDIT: You might POSSIBLY (and it would probably be for the jury to decide if they got out) be able to take a picture of her topless, with say a pair of jeans on, and just smiling for the camera, something like these (but topless) http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?i...iling+studio&ndsp=21&hl=en&sa=N&start=42&um=1
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?i.../images?q=girl+smiling+studio&hl=en&sa=N&um=1 ... But would you really want to chance it?
 
Wasn't there some shots of Miley Cyrus at under 16? - Annie Leibowitz took some thank you wikipedia.
 
markrichardson said:
The Protection of Children Act 1978 (as ammended)

Section 1. Indecent photographs of children.

(1) It is an offence for a person—
(a) to take, or permit to be taken or to make, any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or
Click to expand...

Surely the girls parents would fall into this catagory...
 
i'd walk away from this one ........

also her parents consenting to this alarms me ,
 
Chaz Photos said:
I find this age thing a bit hard to follow
You can get married; have sex, children and go to war all at 16
It is no wonder we not sure of the law
Click to expand...

Very true. I've always found it odd that you can have sex at 16 but yet have to be 18 to watch a sex film.
 
hasn't a similar question been asked before :thinking: or was that on a different forum.

It's the same answer as last time though - Don't do it

Due to the whole "legal to have sex at 16" thing I'm pretty sure the only legal way the 17 year old could get these photos taken is that if they were taken by her boyfriend / girlfriend.
 
I recently took topless shots of a 17 year old girl. I'm sorry but if the law says I'm legally allowed to do anything I want with her in the bedroom then in my opinion I should be allowed to photograph her if that's what she's prepared to pay for. It's only 3 months until she's 18 and she wanted the shots so she can apply as a model as soon as she hits 18 (on her birthday).

If it was a random girl then I'd tell her about the laws and explain I cannot do it.

A 17 year old contacted me today actually, and I explained the laws and she said she'll just have normal shots done and get the naked shots taken next year. She asked if I can still take underwear shots but I didn't know what to say. Would that be legally allowed or not?
 
It is not illegal to photograph someone under 18 either topless or naked. Or under 16 for that matter. It is the nature of the photographs that could get you into trouble, and that it not easy to define.

Whether or not it is a good idea, for all sorts of very real if not strictly legal reasons, is another question altogether. But pictures of under-18 girls topless are all over the place.

A model release form, signed by a parent if under 18, is only a permission from them to publish. It does not mean that you won't get into trouble for other reasons.

The problems you might get with a shoot like this are moral and more a question of taste rather than strictly legal or illegal.
 
Chicca ~ Don't even waste another minute considering it. It's likely to be illegal or questionably so. If you do, you may as well wave bye bye to any sort of career in working with kids, whether it be with photography or anything else. No one will give you any sort of job working near kids after you have been added to the sex offenders register. I'm not sure if it works like this (it should do!) but you could also be signing up for monitoring by social services automatically if you should become a mother as well.

So many ramifications, that it just would not be worth it. Though I'm not sure why you need to even ask :shrug: Does your gut not tell you it's just plain wrong? I would however contact the police still, ask the advice and then take down a telephone number ... give it to her parents, tell them why it is illegal, and tell them that is the number of the police officer who you discussed the matter with, and they would be more than happy to repeat what they told you. Hopefully that should stop them from trying to find some other mug to do it.



Kryptix said:
I recently took topless shots of a 17 year old girl. I'm sorry but if the law says I'm legally allowed to do anything I want with her in the bedroom then in my opinion I should be allowed to photograph her if that's what she's prepared to pay for. It's only 3 months until she's 18 and she wanted the shots so she can apply as a model as soon as she hits 18 (on her birthday).
Click to expand...

IMO that is a very ignorant thing to say, and you should be reported for doing that. I can, with 100% certainty tell you that by providing that girl with those shots, you will have likely have also (if it were posted online or available somewhere else easily accessible) provided some perv with under aged and illegal masturbation material. They start with the 'just' underage, and spiral down to much more sickening ages. I know this for a fact.

Anyone who makes any kind of naked (doesn't have to even be of a sexual nature) imagery of someone under 18 easily available to the general public is also guilty of this. This includes posting innocent shots of your children frolicking around the garden in the nudy, splashing around in a paddling pool. Yes these images are very cute, and very innocent to you and the majority of the population. But there are thousands and thousands of paedophiles out there that are looking for just that kid of image to satisfy their needs. Do you really want to be responsible for providing them with that material?

Kryptix said:
If it was a random girl then I'd tell her about the laws and explain I cannot do it.

A 17 year old contacted me today actually, and I explained the laws and she said she'll just have normal shots done and get the naked shots taken next year. She asked if I can still take underwear shots but I didn't know what to say. Would that be legally allowed or not?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by this? You either won't do it or you will if she's not just a random girl :shrug:

I'm sorry if this comes across bad but this is something I feel very strongly about. I hope by being brutally honest I've made someone stop and think about what they are doing. Wanting children so bad is hard enough. Seeing folk who have them, not do everything in their power to protect them from things like this really makes me sad :(
 
Jo said:
IMO that is a very ignorant thing to say, and you should be reported for doing that. I can, with 100% certainty tell you that by providing that girl with those shots, you will have likely have also (if it were posted online or available somewhere else easily accessible) provided some perv with under aged and illegal masturbation material. They start with the 'just' underage, and spiral down to much more sickening ages. I know this for a fact.

Anyone who makes any kind of naked (doesn't have to even be of a sexual nature) imagery of someone under 18 easily available to the general public is also guilty of this. This includes posting innocent shots of your children frolicking around the garden in the nudy, splashing around in a paddling pool. Yes these images are very cute, and very innocent to you and the majority of the population. But there are thousands and thousands of paedophiles out there that are looking for just that kid of image to satisfy their needs. Do you really want to be responsible for providing them with that material?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't ever publish the images. They were given to her on a CD. It's entirely up to her what she decides to do with them.

Jo said:
I'm not sure what you mean by this? You either won't do it or you will if she's not just a random girl :shrug:
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how I could have worded that any simpler. I have read it back several times and cannot see anyway which you could get confused over what I've typed. :shrug: I'll type it again differently: I would not (wouldn't) photograph a random under-18 girl because I wouldn't know what she'd do with the images. I would photography a under-18 girl that I was friends with and trusted. Please bare in mind I have just turned 21 and have lots of female friends in the age range of 17-25. If she's a few months/weeks/days away from being 18 I see no problem with it.

My sister is 17 and I get a lot of her friends enquiring about having some professional shots done, some of which I have slept with, and there's simply no-way I'm going to say, "Sorry, you're not 18 until next month so I cannot do that."

If that makes me a bad person then so be it... :lol:
 
Kryptix said:
I wouldn't ever publish the images. They were given to her on a CD. It's entirely up to her what she decides to do with them.
Click to expand...

Precisely, you've given a naive girl pictures that she will want to show off at every given opportunity if she is proud of her self. Which she probably is. You still took the pictures ... of an under-aged girl, you are still responsible.

Kryptix said:
I'm not sure how I could have worded that any simpler. I have read it back several times and cannot see anyway which you could get confused over what I've typed. :shrug: I'll type it again differently: I would not (wouldn't) photograph a random under-18 girl because I wouldn't know what she'd do with the images. I would photography a under-18 girl that I was friends with and trusted. Please bare in mind I have just turned 21 and have lots of female friends in the age range of 17-25. If she's a few months/weeks/days away from being 18 I see no problem with it.

My sister is 17 and I get a lot of her friends enquiring about having some professional shots done, some of which I have slept with, and there's simply no-way I'm going to say, "Sorry, you're not 18 until next month so I cannot do that."

If that makes me a bad person then so be it... :lol:
Click to expand...

I don't think it makes you a bad person, but instead an obviously immature one. If you can not recognise what is wrong with what you are doing, then you need a serious level of reality check. You also need reporting before you do any more harm. Whether you know the person or not, it doesn't matter really. Underage is underage, and ILLEGAL for a reason!

I'm guessing the law was created (adjusted since Sam Fox days) because after studying and investigating cases of sexual abuse with minors and studying the nature of paedophiles, they discovered it starts somewhere. Paedophiles use visual material to create their fantasies, and eventually act them out. The more people providing the material easily (via the internet) the quicker they (P****'s) offend. Since the worldwide web has become part of every day life more most, you are making alluring pictures of underage skin just a simple click away. Too easy.
 
I think this is getting a bit heated, the OP has been answered, maybe it's time to close this before it turns nasty.
 
Kryptix said:
My sister is 17 and I get a lot of her friends enquiring about having some professional shots done, some of which I have slept with, and there's simply no-way I'm going to say, "Sorry, you're not 18 until next month so I cannot do that."

If that makes me a bad person then so be it... :lol:
Click to expand...



I think this sums up the maturity of the poster.


You may of given her the disc and have no intention of posting or printing any pictures, but if she did and was questioned by the police who took them you would be in serious trouble.
 
Kryptix - you have amazed me. You write very well and for some reason I have always assumed you are in your 40s, not that you need to be over 40 to write well. If you are bedding your 17 year old sister's friends I hope I am wrong about your age unless of cause your sister has older friends:):)

As to the thread question the law states you can have sex with a person over the age of 16 if both agree. If the law states a person needs to be over 16 to have provocative photographs taken and I believe since 2003 it does then it is illegal.

There is a big difference. As a civilisation, in the UK we believe a person is capable of being a parent at the age of 16. We also believe that we will never regret giving life :D:D.

However there are a lot of women out there ( and men I guess) who regret agreeing to having naked photographs taken of them and maybe 16 is too young to know that.

stew
 
Its just not worth all the REMOVED

Also, i think women look more sexy with just the hint of 'topless/nude' rather then the real thing.

It takes no skill to snap REMOVED .. but a lot of skill to keep the clothes on and still get the blood flowing :-)
 
Tokkelossi said:
Its just not worth all the REMOVED

Also, i think women look more sexy with just the hint of 'topless/nude' rather then the real thing.

It takes no skill to snap REMOVED .. but a lot of skill to keep the clothes on and still get the blood flowing :-)
Click to expand...

agree with your first two points but not the third. I spent a couple of years back in the 80's shooting for the Diana Galliers school of modelling and sometimes it was a real struggle to snap those t1ttles. What the heck do you do when a biggggg lady comes in but then when the support is removed they drop to her waist!!!

Anyway more importantly I have only got one 1ds mk11 and want two so I am not pleased with you having two :D:D:D
 
Kryptix said:
and there's simply no-way I'm going to say, "Sorry, you're not 18 until next month so I cannot do that."
Click to expand...

why not?

Kryptix said:
If that makes me a bad person then so be it... :lol:
Click to expand...

I will keep my views on bad person to myself...But I would certainly say it puts you in the "didn't think it through" catagory...

Anytime from now to the end of your life these pictures could appear anywhere or end up with anyone with the explanation that the girl was 17 and your name as the photographer.. The implications legal or moral on yourself are frightning

For the above reason alone I would say to the OP .. Run a mile.. stop then run another mile from this.
 
KIPAX said:
Anytime from now to the end of your life these pictures could appear anywhere or end up with anyone with the explanation that the girl was 17 and your name as the photographer..
The implications legal or moral on yourself are frightening.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There is no argument with KIPAX's statement.

No matter how innocent you believe your actions were or whether the shoot was within a few months of an 18th birthday, it doesn't mean squat.

It's a well known and very sad fact - when someone gets busted = someone makes money.
If there's money to be made outta you = someone's going to make it.

This is our world.
 
There is a lot of barrack room lawyers here.
I think if you want to know then go to a Real lawyer.
You can find photos of under 18s in lots of places after all a baby in a bath is under 18 you see them on the beach topless I would guess that there are nudist camps with photos in there ads or promo videos.
The list goes on I for one do not have the answerer and I think most are Guessing. This is all due to the Over protective brigade in my work there is lots who ask for a CRB well I have had one BUT it is not for anyone else to see and it will not apply for any work carried out anywhere other then by the person who got it done. But many in my line of work all advertise that they got a CRB it means nothing.
I am sorry but the law is an ass at times
 
Krytix, if you are under 18 or 19 then I would be tempted myself at that age.
if you're 19 then you could get into a lot of trouble, under 18, then less so. ( I now see you're recently 21. so be careful!)

there is a great quote from a show called "peep show"
it's not a moral decission if no-one knows I've made it
Click to expand...

can everyone please stop bandying around opinionated conjecture and read this
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/
or if you can't be bothered to click twice.the pdf link is here

The guide was written by Linda Macpherson LL.B, Dip. L.P., LL.M is a freelance legal consultant specialising in Media Law and Intellectual Property Law. She is also a part-time law lecturer and has presented seminars on law for photographers.

I'm surprised this debate is still raging.
Illegal by 1 day is illegal by one month, and one year.
everyone looking to take sexually orientated pictures of under 18's please look after yourselves. Most girls that want this sort of thing doing, are imho, attention seeking trouble. I blame it on bad media rolemodels and reinforcement of 'empowerment' by sexual alurement. which is frankly an illusion longterm.

anyway Rant over...good luck to the OP
 
Chaz Photos said:
There is a lot of barrack room lawyers here.
I think if you want to know then go to a Real lawyer.
You can find photos of under 18s in lots of places after all a baby in a bath is under 18 you see them on the beach topless I would guess that there are nudist camps with photos in there ads or promo videos.
The list goes on I for one do not have the answerer and I think most are Guessing. This is all due to the Over protective brigade in my work there is lots who ask for a CRB well I have had one BUT it is not for anyone else to see and it will not apply for any work carried out anywhere other then by the person who got it done. But many in my line of work all advertise that they got a CRB it means nothing.
I am sorry but the law is an ass at times
Click to expand...

no its not in this case - its there for a reason, you may not like it but its there. Its pretty clear on the indecent shoots of minors point - babys in a bath is hardly glamour photography is it??. Consult a lwayer by all means but also run a long way away from this shoot, for the legal and moral impact on yourself if nothing else
 
There will be no denieing it either. EXIF is a wonderful thing. These could come back and haunt you in 5, 10, 15, 20 years. Who knows when?

How long is it before "18 in a few months" turn into "only a couple of years before she is 18" me lud!
 
I have read through most of the first page of posts following the initial posts and don't intend going through the rest because it it clear how the vast bulk of people feel on this matter.

Seems to me that enough trouble finds us in life without walking into a situation where there is a risk of being collared for a sex offence involving a young girl. That is incredibly poor judgement - to say the least.
 
boyfalldown said:
no its not in this case - its there for a reason, you may not like it but its there. Its pretty clear on the indecent shoots of minors point - babys in a bath is hardly glamour photography is it??. Consult a lwayer by all means but also run a long way away from this shoot, for the legal and moral impact on yourself if nothing else
Click to expand...

Who has said it was going to be Indecent shoots? No one has said its was going to be sexual. Everyone is assuming it like many things on the internet replying with out ALL the facts, or jumping in with only one part of the reason for the post in the first place.
 
Chaz Photos said:
Who has said it was going to be Indecent shoots? No one has said its was going to be sexual. Everyone is assuming it like many things on the internet replying with out ALL the facts, or jumping in with only one part of the reason for the post in the first place.
Click to expand...

read the first post - 'glamour photographs up to and including topless' strikes me as its you not reading all the facts, not anybody else and the advice on here has been (for the most part) perfectly sensible.
 
Oh dear, another thread looking for it's padlock.

The law isn't really the problem here, it's the paranoid fear of those who can't reason and apply logic that leads to stupidity for all. If we were to believe them then the world is full of perverts with cameras in one hand, a bag of sweets in the other and they hunt the streets in packs like some post-nuclear action movie.

I was recently asked to cover a production of My Fair Lady but on the night I was told that they failed to get permission from the parents so not to use any shots of under 16s. There'd been a complaint from a parent after photos from a previous show were put online.

The day after the show facebook is filled with shots taken by the audience and cast members without restriction but at least some paranoid and thick as two short planks parent was satifisfied that the perverts wouldn't see any "official" photos of their child.

Could everyone please put on their tinfoil hats, lock all children in the cellar and gauge out their own eyes just to make sure no one see a child by accident. Tonight's tea will be jelly and custard :lol:
 
pxl8 said:
The law isn't really the problem here, it's the paranoid fear of those who can't reason and apply logic that leads to stupidity for all. If we were to believe them then the world is full of perverts with cameras in one hand, a bag of sweets in the other and they hunt the streets in packs like some post-nuclear action movie.

I was recently asked to cover a production of My Fair Lady but on the night I was told that they failed to get permission from the parents so not to use any shots of under 16s. There'd been a complaint from a parent after photos from a previous show were put online.
Click to expand...

you'll forgive me for not unbderstanding the point of this post - there was a very specific qustion asked - 'is it OK to do a glamour shoot of a minor?' Answer No - its clearly illegal. Why does anything else come into it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top