Shooting under 18s

thing is, justifying it as art, is a copout. the image is either right or wrong, sexualising children, or not. Wether it is art or not, why would anyone want to have the image and covet it... Its the motivations of the collectors that need looking at as much as the parants and the photographer
 
Richard King said:
thing is, justifying it as art, is a copout. the image is either right or wrong, sexualising children, or not. Wether it is art or not, why would anyone want to have the image and covet it... Its the motivations of the collectors that need looking at as much as the parants and the photographer
Click to expand...

Now here's a thing, Mr Elton is openly a Gay man
had those images been of boys I wonder what the out come would have been ?
 
mrgas said:
just had a look at that !!

that aint art by any stretch of the imagination
Click to expand...

I agree! Didn't know what to expect :eek: but that certainly wasn't it :thumbsdown: Please don't turn this thread into examples of kiddie porn :bat:
 
I agree Splog.
I've left the post above describing it, because it's by a world-known leading photographer.

However, like Splog says, please don't turn this into an 'example' thread.
Lets please keep on topic, and that's Chicca and her situation
 
Splog said:
.... Please don't turn this thread into examples of kiddie porn :bat:
Click to expand...

Thats why I didn't link it but if you read the article,
that was linked By Richard, it would have given you a fairly good idea of what the content was likely to be,
Far from turning this into a kiddie porn thread ( and God forbid that's where
it leads) I think that the few above are posts are valid to the thread it shows
ambiguity at best.
Porno Image? quite possibly, Prosecution or destruction of said material?
most definitely not

Oh and I will go back and add a NSFW tag :thumbs:
 
KIPAX said:
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..
Click to expand...

I was merely trying to lighten the thread up mate.

PS.....2270`s,they are the dogs danglies,flat bullet hardly any trajectory.........:D
 
Just read this thread and thought I would share with what happened to someone I knew a few years back.

This person was taking some pictures for someones portfolio, no problem with that.

However the person he was taking the pictures for had a few of there female buddies along to watch and at the end of the shoot one of the buddies asked if he would take a few sexy pictures of her topless so she could give them to her boyfriend.

The guy agreed and took a few pictures of the girl and gave them to her on a CD.

This was all done of a Friday afternoon and on the following Monday he was invited to attend the local police station.

It transpired the girl he had agreed to take the topless pictures of was only 16, she had given them to her boyfriend on the Friday and the boyfriend had then decided to post them all over the Internet and given them out to other friends.

The girl in question was obviously upset about this and had told her parents who naturally hit the roof and made a complaint to the police.

The photographer in question was told by the police in no uncertain terms that what he had done was illegal, even though the girl had asked him to take the pictures, and he was given a very strong verbal warning
 
Cobra said:
Hmm
if you google Klara and Edda **Explicit images of young children NSFW**
you get said Image
I am no prude and thats not art
Click to expand...

now I hate to sound dumber than I usually sound but that links an article without any pictures, why the NSFW?
 
Because if you google what he's telling you to google, it's NSFW ;)
 
david1701 said:
now I hate to sound dumber than I usually sound but that links an article without any pictures, why the NSFW?
Click to expand...

The link by Richard is perfectly safe :thumbs:
Its a text article

Googling "Klara and Edda" brings up images that are not safe

Hence no link. If anyone is curious they are welcome to google but I did not add a direct link nor am I going to

I hope that makes more sense ?
 
Marcel said:
Because if you google what he's telling you to google, it's NSFW ;)
Click to expand...

Damn must type faster :D
Oh and I am advising that you don't :thumbs:
Not that you should :D
 
Cobra said:
Thats why I didn't link it but if you read the article,
that was linked By Richard, it would have given you a fairly good idea of what the content was likely to be,
Far from turning this into a kiddie porn thread ( and God forbid that's where
it leads) I think that the few above are posts are valid to the thread it shows
ambiguity at best.
Porno Image? quite possibly, Prosecution or destruction of said material?
most definitely not

Oh and I will go back and add a NSFW tag :thumbs:
Click to expand...

No probs... :thumbs: but tbh. I wouldn't want to have to explain that image being on my computer....
 
To just add to what Marcel said - not only does the link i provided explain a previous case, it does a fairly good job of explining the law and the arguments on both sides - which is why i posted it

I might also say - the law got this one so wrong im my opinion. If Nan golding hadnt been an "artist", and a woman, then she probrably would be in prision

If you actually look at her work - *** which will be NSFW if you choose to google it**** , there is nearly allways a sexual element - if she shoots a child or adult. In fairness, she normally shoots adults. From what I remember they argued that it was a photograph of children doing what they naturally do

Unfortunatally in my book, the "naked babies on a rug" shot, the shot which all parents take, has been stretched in its acceptability a bit to far.. that is - the parents didnt take the shot, and they were 7/8 year olds - or something like that. The fact they had to argue it was art proves the point. Im not being funny. My shot distant of 2 bridesmaids playing in a sweeping field has greater artistic qualities!
 
Cobra said:
The link by Richard is perfectly safe :thumbs:
Its a text article

Googling "Klara and Edda" brings up images that are not safe

Hence no link. If anyone is curious they are welcome to google but I did not add a direct link nor am I going to

I hope that makes more sense ?
Click to expand...

Did a Scroogle search. One look at the text in links was enough to see what what they may lead too so I backed off.
 
Why are people searching :)

I mean, in my paranoid world - the minute you search for that Elton John image, you end up on a list of "keep an eye on them" people. If people have said it contains dodgy photo's of kids, why the heck even search for it :lol:

Secondly, how the hell can the images you are describing be online? And how can Elton John have them on his wall?

Makes no sense, it's either porn or not, no?

Gary.
 
porn vs art ? new debate perhaps

I have no issues with either (with grown ups in of course) but where they overlap it can get a bit pretentious, not in the nudes on here but elsewhere - generally some art is just really expensive porn, a lot of it has real artistic value but some doesn't
 
Jo said:
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).
Click to expand...


So topless sunbathing is perfectly fine (at any age), but as soon as you take a photo of it it is instantly immoral? But that is the point, there are no laws stopping that kind of photo, it's not sexual, and just an image of a person relaxing, so what if they have their boobs out? The problem with this society (we really need to learn from the French) is we don't seem to understand that nudity is natural, and is rarely sexual, YOU have to make it sexual most of the time. Yes there are arguments for stopping paedophiles (not that they would be interested in a 17 year old girl), but 'they' (as you put it) could just go out to a beach and actually look at them properly (or even take photos themselves), it's like banning driving, because a tiny minority of people crash and kill someone...




Jo said:
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:
Click to expand...

The first point is perfectly fine, but the second point is just conjecture, and arguably wrong (especially for a paedophile, which if I remember correctly is "hard wired" in their brains, so no amount of looking at pictures by a "normal" person will change them into a paedophile).

Also I think we need to clear up who we are talking about, Paedophiles, or "normal" people, as a paedophile (like I have already mentioned) is someone with a sexual attraction for pre pubescent children, a "normal" person is attracted to post pubescent people. An image of a 17 year old topless is not going to attract a paedophile, but certainly attract a "normal" person (due to the fact they are sexually mature, and nature tells us we can have sex to reproduce with a person past puberty (say on average 13)), it's just our society that tells us it's wrong. If the image was of a 7 year old girl, then the idea would be reversed, most "normal people would probably go "ahhhh", whereas a paedophile would find them sexually attractive.

IMO the idea that fewer pictures would make fewer of 'them' (although it depends what you mean by 'them', do you mean people with a sexual attraction to children that may not actually act on it, people that collect/take images or people that actually go out as predators, there would be a big difference to the answer IMO depending on which you mean.) is rubbish, for all but the second group "collectors", but I don't have any sources to hand.

Jo said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

That's fine. I think I get sort of what you do.:)

Anyway, I think we are way off topic now, so i'll leave it at that for the moment.:lol:
Cobra said:
Hmm
if you google Klara and Edda **Explicit images of young children NSFW**
you get said Image
I am no prude and thats not art
Click to expand...

I agree too, however (being the devils advocate) what would you think if it was two over 18's, and maybe less 'grittily' post processed? Would it be classed as sexual then?

And to the OP, even if she had those shots done, so she wanted the for a modelling career (don't know if that is the reason), i'm sure the modelling companies wouldn't touch them with a barge pole anyway?
 
EdinburghGary said:
Why are people searching :)
Gary.
Click to expand...
If you give a kid a box of matches and say "don't light them"
What's that kid going to do? :D
Human nature / curiosity call it what you will. "that kid" will light a few
and maybe they will stop when they get burnt, maybe not

Amp34 said:
I agree too, however (being the devils advocate) what would you think if it was two over 18's, and maybe less 'grittily' post processed? Would it be classed as sexual then?
Click to expand...
That I would suggest is very much a personal point of view and probably to some
extent "what is actually on view"
If you are a boob person and there are a "large boobs" on view
then possibly

But if there are other body parts ( very long legs for example) on view but no boobs then maybe not ?
 
Keith W said:
Just read this thread and thought I would share with what happened to someone I knew a few years back.

This person was taking some pictures for someones portfolio, no problem with that.

However the person he was taking the pictures for had a few of there female buddies along to watch and at the end of the shoot one of the buddies asked if he would take a few sexy pictures of her topless so she could give them to her boyfriend.

The guy agreed and took a few pictures of the girl and gave them to her on a CD.

This was all done of a Friday afternoon and on the following Monday he was invited to attend the local police station.

It transpired the girl he had agreed to take the topless pictures of was only 16, she had given them to her boyfriend on the Friday and the boyfriend had then decided to post them all over the Internet and given them out to other friends.

The girl in question was obviously upset about this and had told her parents who naturally hit the roof and made a complaint to the police.

The photographer in question was told by the police in no uncertain terms that what he had done was illegal, even though the girl had asked him to take the pictures, and he was given a very strong verbal warning
Click to expand...

I'm trying to stay out of this now as I've said everything I wish to. Also this has become quite off topic and the meaning of the original post has been lost a little, although I'm sure Chicca has had plenty of advice now..however, because of the rather random posts going around I'm quoting the above post because I think it is hugely on topic, worth repeating and perhaps might be lost in the general chat about Elton John and his 'art'
 
Going back to the original question. The OP needs to look at the motivation of the parents and the child. Why will they not be patient? what do they want as an outcome? This needs to be balanced agains the OP's standards of taste and decency, along with ensuring the law isnt broken
 
I think the answer to the OPs question is very clearly laid out in the other thread containing the actual text of the law.
 
Well it's all been said before but personally I find it quite amazing that the OP is still considering doing this despite all the sound advice given. By the sound of it you need to learn to say no chicca imho.
 
ConfusedChicca said:
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".

________________


Let her get on with it then, she won't be the FIRST woman in this situation to regret some of the actions of her younger days and she wont be the LAST woman either. - Assuming she MIGHT regret it at a later date. She might not, she might go on to be the next top porn star.....

She's NOT your responsibility.

Lisa
Click to expand...
 
Crazyhorse said:
Let her get on with it then, she won't be the FIRST woman in this situation to regret some of the actions of her younger days and she wont be the LAST woman either. - Assuming she MIGHT regret it at a later date. She might not, she might go on to be the next top porn star.....

She's NOT your responsibility.

Lisa
Click to expand...

Update thread HERE. ;)
 
what a sham :( i never knew the other thread existed.. makes a mockery of the whole process if you ahve an interesting debate like this then start another thread to say what the outcome way.. poor.. real poor :( thanks for pointing it out fabs :)
 
fabs said:
I think the law may have been changed since then.
Click to expand...

It has indeed ... In the late 50's I worked for Russell Gay studios.
we had models as young as 13 coming in for nude shoots. All under 16's we insisted that they were brought by their parents.

As late as 2000 the Bradford photo museum had some shots of child nudes in artistic poses, taken in the 20's and 30's, on display.

The concept of exploitation of children by photography was not yet conceived. It was still all very innocent.

The underworld of pornography existed, but people and the law understood the difference.
 
KIPAX said:
what a sham :( i never knew the other thread existed.. makes a mockery of the whole process if you ahve an interesting debate like this then start another thread to say what the outcome way.. poor.. real poor :( thanks for pointing it out fabs :)
Click to expand...

I was in two minds whether to reply to this in so doing "bumping"
But I decided that it was worth it
I am in complete agreement with you KIPAX :thumbs:
Dump one thread because you don't like the way that its going
IMHO I think that they should be merged
for "interested parties" to see the outcome

and cheers for the link
also Marc
 
I'm interested in this thread, as I have also been asked to take some of a 16 year old, however just for fun and not to be shown to anyone, does the limit apply then? Or for your own library is it OK?
Thanks.
 
Have you read the thread TC? ;)

The offence is to take indecent photos, however that is defined (it varies a lot). Where or how they are used and shown is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

Furthermore, what the law says, and what juries think, what public opinion says, and what your own personal judgement suggests - those things are all different and changeable too.
 
Mr-Tomcat said:
I'm interested in this thread, as I have also been asked to take some of a 16 year old, however just for fun and not to be shown to anyone, does the limit apply then? Or for your own library is it OK?
Thanks.
Click to expand...

read the thread - then walk away, whatever her motivations and reasons for doing it, and your motivations/moral arguments etc then its not worth the world of grief you'll risk bringing on your own head
 
I skimmed the first and last page, seems pretty black and white to me and the rest of the forum? What on earth are the parents thinking??*

This thread got my right up nose in that....

Today in society this thread has proved we all live by a legal and moral code....

Yet Fashion Houses are able to use young models in overtly sexual poses and print them out billboard size, or in the multi-media world the same image through magazines, tv ads, internet. They force this upon us and our children, telling us we are nothing without the product/label. More than once the models have been the children of celebs again WTF were they thinking,to be a success in life they must be in every magazine??

*Perhaps the parents are trying to groom her into a jordan/jody etc,etc. Horrid self-absorbed people with no interest in anyone but themselves
 
deadpan said:
I skimmed the first and last page, seems pretty black and white to me and the rest of the forum? What on earth are the parents thinking??*

This thread got my right up nose in that....

Today in society this thread has proved we all live by a legal and moral code....

Yet Fashion Houses are able to use young models in overtly sexual poses and print them out billboard size, or in the multi-media world the same image through magazines, tv ads, internet. They force this upon us and our children, telling us we are nothing without the product/label. More than once the models have been the children of celebs again WTF were they thinking,to be a success in life they must be in every magazine??

*Perhaps the parents are trying to groom her into a jordan/jody etc,etc. Horrid self-absorbed people with no interest in anyone but themselves
Click to expand...

Your position would seem to be just as extreme and judgemental as those you are condemning. Many people would agree with you, and equally, many would not. That's what makes the whole issue so difficult.

Personally, I have my own moral compass and don't need anyone to tell me what's right, what is okay, or what is not. I simply ignore or avoid images that I don't like, and so long as nothing is forced upon me, or extremists views on either side try to coerce me, I'm happy to find my own way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top