Shooting under 18s

[Chaz Photos]

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

 

[KIPAX]

Oh dear, another thread looking for it's padlock.

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 ?

 

[pxl8]

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 ?

I didn't say it needed stopping, only that's where it's heading. If there's one subject that needs sensible debate this is it, it's also the one that's least likely to get it.

I've extended an invite to people involved in my recent episode as I'd be interested to hear the logic behind their thinking, so far they've declined.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

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 ?

I agree but sadly the 'what is wrong with all you people brigade' have already shown up and have already begun aggravating the thread.

The thread will most likely degenerate from here with insults etc.

I hope not really, as it seems that some have made or could have potential in making some life long mistakes and a discussion seems necessary.

Let us not forget the original question asked by the OP and not be distracted by reactions to over-protection or paranoia of any kind.

 

[swanseamale47]

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 ?

Simply because it's not going anywhere, it's 2 sides arguing their cases, neither of which will "see" the others point. The OP's been answered ages ago.

 

[it's alive]

again.

However the best advice to the OP is to seek a qualified opinion. That advice was given ages ago, the rest isn't contributing to anything as it is mostly speculation and "debate" around the moral fibre of other posters . . .

I find the whole thing interesting, but don't really think it is continuing to provide a more substantive or useful answer for the OP.

 

[Byker28i]

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

Interestingly, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 38, (1989) insists: “State parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities.” The optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict to the Convention that came into force in 2002 stipulates that its state parties “shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons below the age of 18 do not take a direct part in hostilities and that they are not compulsorily recruited into their armed forces.”

Unfortunately, the MOD sent 15 under 18 year olds to Iraq.


In response to the Liberal Democrats’ questioning, Defence Minister Adam Ingram admitted that Britain had deployed under-18s to Iraq over a two-year period between June 2003 and July 2005. Claiming that it was the result of a mistake, Ingram excused the government of any culpability by saying that most of these had been despatched to the war zone only shortly before their eighteenth birthdays. Those who saw combat, he said, were withdrawn after only weeks of combat action.

Blaming a shortage of available soldiers, Ingram was quoted by the BBC as stating, “Unfortunately, these processes are not fallible and the pressures on units prior to deployment have meant that there have been a small number of instances where soldiers have been inadvertently deployed to Iraq before their eighteenth birthday.”

 

[Dave Stone]

Unfortunately, the MOD sent 15 under 18 year olds to Iraq.

I hope knowone took their photos while they were there. They could end up in trouble!!

 

[EdinburghGary]

Kriptix, please do not take my question or post the wrong way, I am just hoping to clarify something.

Am I right in thinking, you have admitted, online, to doing a paid topless photo shoot of a 17 year old girl?

Rightly, or wrongly, in the eyes of the law, does that not make you a potential candidate for pitch forks and angry mobs? I mean, taking the legal definition of your act into account - what kind of headlines would it make, should local news take an interest?

I think you need to tread very, VERY carefully!!!

Gary.

 

[MarkWoodhall22]

I hope knowone took their photos while they were there. They could end up in trouble!!

 

[welly]

Let's get the P****!

 

[DizMatt]

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.

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

not particularly helpful to be honest in my opinion.

the thread isn't about paranoid parents on trains and in a park shouting P**** at decent photographers (I understand your viewpoint on that matter), but specifically the legality regarding being asked by the parents of, and a 17y/o girl to shot topless modelling photos for the purposes (I presume) of glamour rather than fine art.

as for the young chap who proclaims to have slept with his sister's mates and they want some naughty photos too, then I don't think that he was ever paid (in money anyway ) however, it's still dodgy ground from the legal text quoted around here

 

[EdinburghGary]

not particularly helpful to be honest in my opinion.

the thread isn't about paranoid parents on trains and in a park shouting P**** at decent photographers (I understand your viewpoint on that matter), but specifically the legality regarding being asked by the parents of, and a 17y/o girl to shot topless modelling photos for the purposes (I presume) of glamour rather than fine art.

as for the young chap who proclaims to have slept with his sister's mates and they want some naughty photos too, then I don't think that he was ever paid (in money anyway ) however, it's still dodgy ground from the legal text quoted around here

He 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)."

 

[Dave Stone]

"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

That is NOT for you to decide. You are not above the law. I think I should be allowed to drive at 100mph. Do you know why I don't? Because the law says no.

 

[HoppyUK]

Let us be clear: it is NOT illegal to photograph under-18s either topless or naked. It is illegal to take INDECENT photographs.

The law does not define what is decent and what is not, that's your call. This is an excellent link on Photographers' Rights, only two pages long. It was posted earlier, but it's well worth showing again: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf

If the OP wants further clarification, then go to a solicitor. The police will be no help at all.

 

[ConfusedChicca]

The reason I'm asking a police officer is simple - I want to be 100% sure on where I stand, so I can make an informed decision.
If the law is what people have said on here, that I can photograph her but not take indecent photographs, it doesn't help me massively as what I consider indecent someone else might consider OK.

And I found it interesting that someone said the photos were for glamour but not fine art purposes.. If I said "I'm photographing a 17 year old topless for a fine art project", would people's opinions be any different?

 

[EdinburghGary]

The reason I'm asking a police officer is simple - I want to be 100% sure on where I stand, so I can make an informed decision.
If the law is what people have said on here, that I can photograph her but not take indecent photographs, it doesn't help me massively as what I consider indecent someone else might consider OK.

And I found it interesting that someone said the photos were for glamour but not fine art purposes.. If I said "I'm photographing a 17 year old topless for a fine art project", would people's opinions be any different?

I dunno, I think I would really look at the risk vs reward Chicca. Is it *really* worth even a 1% risk of being branded or accused of child abuse in one way or another?

Gary.

 

[groovyf]

Here's something else to throw into the hornet's nest to chew on...

How would a woman be looked upon if she was doing the said/proposed "glamour" shots of the 17-year old as opposed to it being a male taking the shots?

Obviously, according to the law it doesn't matter, but I suspect some would look upon it being a far worse thing to do should it be a man taking the pics rather than a female.

 

[mrgas]

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 ?

 

[mrgas]

The reason I'm asking a police officer is simple - I want to be 100% sure on where I stand, so I can make an informed decision.

unsurprisingly police officers aren't always the best people to ask if you want to know the laws of this land

 

[Jo]

not particularly helpful to be honest in my opinion.

the thread isn't about paranoid parents on trains and in a park shouting P**** at decent photographers (I understand your viewpoint on that matter), but specifically the legality regarding being asked by the parents of, and a 17y/o girl to shot topless modelling photos for the purposes (I presume) of glamour rather than fine art.


as for the young chap who proclaims to have slept with his sister's mates and they want some naughty photos too, then I don't think that he was ever paid (in money anyway ) however, it's still dodgy ground from the legal text quoted around here

Exactly what I was hoping would I would get across from my replies. But I have a feeling people may be implying the other. This is not the case at all though.

Though Gary pointed out the correct bit about your second paragraph below...

He 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)."

That is NOT for you to decide. You are not above the law. I think I should be allowed to drive at 100mph. Do you know why I don't? Because the law says no.

You see, not only would I not do either because it is the law, but my reasons would be because both are capable of causing harm to another person.

The reason I'm asking a police officer is simple - I want to be 100% sure on where I stand, so I can make an informed decision.
If the law is what people have said on here, that I can photograph her but not take indecent photographs, it doesn't help me massively as what I consider indecent someone else might consider OK.

And I found it interesting that someone said the photos were for glamour but not fine art purposes.. If I said "I'm photographing a 17 year old topless for a fine art project", would people's opinions be any different?

Chicca my opinion would be exactly the same. Why is it so difficult to wait a few months for it to be legal? Fine art is something intended to last a life time and beyond, a few month is not going to make a blind bit of difference to the art. But it most definately will make a difference as to whether you get banged up for breaking the law.

 

[ConfusedChicca]

This is the thing, I explained that she should wait, do some fashion based stuff, even some evening wear stuff (like prom dresses, etc), but she's so determined to do this and I know for sure she's been in touch with a couple of less than trustworthy photographers. One of whom advised a friend of mine previously that he'd do a shoot with her, and to relax she should drink some of his "special wine". Another girl I know, very good looking, and more than ample cleavage, was told she's only good for glamour work unless she sleeps her way to the top.
I know this girl isn't my responsibility, but I keep thinking if she's going to get these photos done, it should really be with someone that isn't going to take advantage.
Oh and I haven't made any decision yet, I'm just gathering as much accurate information as I can, and I definitely wouldn't display the photos anywhere, the disc would just be for her.

 

[Cobra]

Here's something else to throw into the hornet's nest to chew on...

How would a woman be looked upon if she was doing the said/proposed "glamour" shots of the 17-year old as opposed to it being a male taking the shots?

Obviously,according to the law it doesn't matter, but I suspect some would look upon it being a far worse thing to do should it be a man taking the pics rather than a female.

Exactly what I was about to post and of course it shouldn't matter in the slightest but if push came to shove etc.....

unsurprisingly police officers aren't always the best people to ask if you want to know the laws of this land

I know a police trainer quite well and he would actually agree
with that ( "they have far too much else to worry about than the finer points of the law")

 

[mrgas]

and I definitely wouldn't display the photos anywhere, the disc would just be for her.[/QUOTE]

you hope !!!!!

 

[ROFL2K9]

Surely you can't possibly contemplate doing the shoot. You'll have your collar felt if you are taking photos of a 17yr old's boobs. True enough, as people have pointed out, it not illegal to photograph girls under 18 when in the correct context, e.g. a shot of bathing your toddler or a family snap of your kids on a nudist beach. But, you'd be taking photos of this girl with her boobs out, specifically for the intention of people to look at them and derive some amount of pleasure from them. :nono:

I'd be more inclined to ask for her contact details and have a word with her parents and tell them where they're going wrong (presuming they know about it of course)...

 

[mrgas]

I know a police trainer quite well and he would actually agree
with that ( "they have far too much else to worry about than the finer points of the law")

i only know this through experience as i asked a local copper to clarify a couple of things for me once and he wasn@t able to

 

[KIPAX]

and I definitely wouldn't display the photos anywhere, the disc would just be for her.

For me this is the major problem you have.. you will have no control over when or where these pictures will appear or worse still in what context and all with your name attached to them ..

Forget about the legalities the moral issues and everything else for just one moment and consider the following . Semi nude pictures of 17 yr old girl by "your name" in X years time appearing on a dubious website.... what would be your reaction then ?

Thats my opinion and advice for what its worth

 

[Kev M]

I know this girl isn't my responsibility, but I keep thinking if she's going to get these photos done, it should really be with someone that isn't going to take advantage.

The law is an ass but you need to leave this one well alone until she's 18. If you're concerned about her welfare with regards to the other photographers then speak to her parents about it, if she does end up going to one of them then one of her parents should go along as a chaperone to ensure that she isn't taken advantage of.

 

[Voyager]

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......

 

[Yv]

For me this is the major problem you have.. you will have no control over when or where these pictures will appear or worse still in what context and all with your name attached to them ..

Forget about the legalities the moral issues and everything else for just one moment and consider the following . Semi nude pictures of 17 yr old girl by "your name" in X years time appearing on a dubious website.... what would be your reaction then ?

Thats my opinion and advice for what its worth

Regardless of the morals, legalities, etc, its your own reputation that may be at stake in the future. Though I also tend to agree, rightly or wrongly, that having the shots done by a female will be seen by many as considerably less bad than if they were done by man [who will obviously be a pervert *8rolls eyes**]


However, as the legalities are unclear judging by the comments on this thread, I would forget the police and take proper advice from a solicitor with some knowledge in the field. It may cost more then she is prepared to pay for the shoot, but could be worth the expence if you know several prospective clients for whom this may be relevant.

Personally, I would duck out gracefully for many of the reasons mentioned in this thread, but I would also be doing it with some degree of grudgingness because as said before, at 16 they can do pretty much what they want in terms of private indecent behaviour as long as it isn't photographed :bonk:

 

[DizMatt]

And I found it interesting that someone said the photos were for glamour but not fine art purposes.. If I said "I'm photographing a 17 year old topless for a fine art project", would people's opinions be any different?

I mentioned this because of the rather vague term of 'indecent'.
Also my opinion is not coloured by Chicca's motives, I'm confident that they are only of the highest order and not lascivious in nature. it helps that she is herself a woman (but that's my bais). Objectively I passing convern for her legal wellbeing. The prospect of this young lady having unscrupulous 'photographers' plying her with drink and 'career advice' isn't great. It's bizarre that the parents and the 'child' wish to pursue this instead of waiting a few months. as mentioned in another thread, it is illegal in the UK for the parents to consent to this also! I can sympathise with Chicca though, even with the prospect of her having a conventional photoshoot so that she knows how these things 'should' be done.

 

[Creed]

This is the thing, I explained that she should wait, do some fashion based stuff, even some evening wear stuff (like prom dresses, etc), but she's so determined to do this and I know for sure she's been in touch with a couple of less than trustworthy photographers. One of whom advised a friend of mine previously that he'd do a shoot with her, and to relax she should drink some of his "special wine". Another girl I know, very good looking, and more than ample cleavage, was told she's only good for glamour work unless she sleeps her way to the top.
I know this girl isn't my responsibility, but I keep thinking if she's going to get these photos done, it should really be with someone that isn't going to take advantage.
Oh and I haven't made any decision yet, I'm just gathering as much accurate information as I can, and I definitely wouldn't display the photos anywhere, the disc would just be for her.

Chicca,

We can all completely understand why you want to look out for her, and seeking professional advice, be that from a police officer or another party, is definitely the right thing to be doing. But everyone here is just looking out for a fellow forum member and not wanting you to end up in trouble, possibly even years down the line, for doing this. However, you have read everyone's opinions and the majority say it's illegal, as do I, but if you do find differently please let us know.

Maybe get this girl to speak to whoever you choose to go to for professional advice as well, including her parents so that everyone involved completely understands what the consciences are. As has been mentioned before if she went to another photographer with her parents then her parents and the other photographer could still end up getting in serious trouble for this.

Also maybe approach it with her from the point of view that, if people know those photo's are of her under-age, they may not want to know and also will think of her in a bad light.


I hope you get the advice that you need and do the right thing but let us all know regardless as this thread seems to have got a lot of interest

 

[kelack]

Here's something else to throw into the hornet's nest to chew on...

How would a woman be looked upon if she was doing the said/proposed "glamour" shots of the 17-year old as opposed to it being a male taking the shots?

Obviously, according to the law it doesn't matter, but I suspect some would look upon it being a far worse thing to do should it be a man taking the pics rather than a female.

But ConfusedChicca is a woman. Sorry if I've misread your post.

 

[Jo]

To be perfectly honest Chicca I wouldn't even consider it, and I can't believe you still are honestly

If I were you, my next step would be to report the parents to the police. I know it's not good, but if they really are going to such lengths and encouraging her to do it, they need reporting, as it's not right. Morally or legally IMO. That is the only real way to stop her getting taken advantage of by some perv photographer, whilst stopping yourself from being in a vulnerable position with regards to the law and wrecking your business to boot.

 

[Cobra]

But ConfusedChicca is a woman. Sorry if I've misread your post.

I read it and responded as if groovyf knew Chicca was a woman
I think that the point being made here is that
if she went ahead and it all went tits up ( sorry no pun intended)
Pear shaped (Damn! I'll stop digging now)

Then She as a woman would be less likely to feel the full weight of the law
than some "male" that would be perceived as a out and out perv.

 

[david1701]

If you're seriously worried about her saftey (which seems fair as she doesn't seem the brightest) might it be worth having a word with her parents about just how illegal this is (I saw earlier that you said they were happy with the shoot - maybe they don't understand the risks). If that fails report her to the plod as she could get herself hurt and another tog in a lot of trouble.

Just a thought.

and when I was 17 I'd have to think dammed long and hard about whether it was kosher to shoot a girl I'd been with for a while, I only got into photography since I was 18 and I've never had anything nude to do so it hasn't come up. But if it happened tomorrow I'd say no (at 19) though atm most of my friends are older as I'm a first year here so it is very unlikely

 

[mrgas]

if this girl has got what it takes to be a model then waiting a couple of months to do things right wont make a blind bit of difference !!

i@m actually very surprised you@re still contemplating doing this < this could quite easily come back to haunt both of you in years to come

also its her parents consenting to this that alarms me < they@re obviously not up to the job of parenting

sorry about my bad punctuation but keyboards playing up

 

[HoppyUK]

I'm sure the advice here is well meaning, but all that is being proposed is that some glamourous photos are taken of a young woman. At her request, and with her parents full knowledge and support. There is no suggestion of anything indecent at all, which is the only thing the law might be interested in, regardless of her age. (Although from what we know, I very much doubt that there would be any illegal implications; there is nothing underhand or deceitful going on, just look around at what is apparently both quite legal and socially acceptable.)

Some of the advice being given is quite clearly from a moral standpoint, and verges on censorship; I am against that, although as an indicator of the higher end of public opinion, it is relevant. But if you want to take a moral stance, I don't see how waiting three months until she's over 18 makes any difference whatsoever.

 

[boyfalldown]

Some of the advice being given is quite clearly from a moral standpoint, and verges on censorship; I am against that, although as an indicator of the higher end of public opinion, it is relevant. But if you want to take a moral stance, I don't see how waiting three months until she's over 18 makes any difference whatsoever.

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

 

[Marcel]

As has been stated, nude photos of under 18's are legal.
Indecent or sexualised photos of under 18's are not.

The problem is that indecent is open to interpretation. Now normally, if I am not mistaken, a court would take the interpretation of a majority of right-thinking peers to decide whether it's indecent or not.

Just look at the amount of replies on here and how many of them would consider it dodgy ground? That, I think is your answer, and is likely to be the decision of a court IMHO.
Nevertheless, that's all conjecture and guesswork and really still doesn't give an answer to the problem.

I understand you have this girl's interests at heart when you say you're considering it. However, would you seriously risk a criminal record and a ruined career, just to stop her going to another photographer that might be a bit dodgy? As much as I am kind and helpful to a fault, I know I wouldn't.

And no court in the land would allow that as an excuse should it ever come to light.
The thing is, it's not just a case of you doing it this once and no one knowing. The shots could materialise in 10, 20, 30 years time. Do you really want that hanging over your head?

I advise you to firmly refuse to do any under 18 work, and express to her that not only is it illegal for you to do it, it's illegal for anyone to do it.
I would also explain that her mum's consent means nothing in law, if anything were to happen, her mum could be put on the sex offenders register (a dramatic statement but entirely possible). Maybe not now, maybe not in the near future, but again, 10, 15, 20 years down the line.
Look at how many people who worked with youths in the 70's and 80's are now being arrested and charged with child sexual offences.

OK, taking some risque shots of a 17 year old is clearly different to sexually abusing an 8 yr old. However, the law covers both, and a criminal record can be given for both. The SRO can be given for both offenses too.

Two opposite ends of the spectrum I agree, but both still illegal, and therefore taking the photos IMO is certainly not worth the risk.





On a final note, please don't let this thread descend into a catfight or a sick-joke-athon It's a good discussion and does serve to highlight the problems that photographers face.

Unfortunately, it's a sad fact of life that we must protect ourselves first and foremost, because it's a really dangerous world out there, where lives can be ruined by even the smallest headline or accusation.