Topless

cableliquid

cableliquid

Suspended / Banned
Messages
510
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
I want to photograph a friend who's pregnant however she's only 15 and the plan was to have her topless lying down covering her breasts and showing off her bump. question is how old does a model have to be to get her top off, i always use model release forms and will be getting it signed by herself and her mother. however does anyone know the age for topless/nude/implied nude shoots as shes interested in being used in many projects im doing. Please dont think im a P**** or anything shes just a young mum who wants t be a model and i've known her a while. cheers giuys
 
Dude, she is 15.... regardless of her gravidity. I would not go anywhere near the photo assignment with a very very long bargepole.

B.
 
As a recent news report shows, even under the most innocent of situations taking shots like this are still illegal and you could end up in court.

But to go topless in a commercial setting she'd need to be 18.
 
regardless of how long you have known her you SHOULD BE AWARE that taking pictures of topless 15 year old girls is just not the right move to make:bonk:
 
well I guess you'll be on the wrong side of both then :(
 
yes, it's nothing to do with consent for commercial use which you'd normally need for a model under 18. That's not the law you need to worry about.

Did you not read about the case recently of the tog you took pictures at the parents request to make some fantasy fairy shots?
 
The law is that you will be committing an offence by making images of type 1 on the Oliver Scale. End of. No argument - she will be nude and she is a child. You will be guilty and subject to trial if reported.

Do you not read the news?

B.
 
Lets see....

Child + topless + camera.

Did you REALLY need to ask? :|
 
Don't even think about it - there's certainly something a bit wrong with this situation don't you think? Pregnant at 15 and has her mother's blessing to have it shown off like that.

I am about to do a shoot with a 15 year old but it's a basic fashion location shoot, with both parents present (at my insistance) who are encouraging her to build a modelling portfolio - and it still makes me a little nervous.

If her parents asked me to do anything other than fully clothed shots I would seriously question their morals and parenting methods and distance myself from the whole thing.
 
>>Did you REALLY need to ask?

Seems like he did... :(
 
Of course the irony is I'm in the middle of planning a shoot with some models all over 18 who will be dressed as school girls - St. Trinians in fact :lol:
 
reason i ask is because child birth and pregnancy is a very beautiful thing seen by alot of people as wrong who cares her age, she wants to bring a human being into this world. so yer she's 15 but its a beautiful thing. Now that i know what the law is i wont be doing the topless shoot however i dont think that showing off a pregnant lady of ANY age is wrong. yes under 18 is against the law so it wont be done but it shouldnt be shunned
 
pxl8 said:
Of course the irony is I'm in the middle of planning a shoot with some models all over 18 who will be dressed as school girls - St. Trinians in fact :lol:
Click to expand...

Nice! Need an assistant? :D
 
Of course childbirth and pregnancy are a wonderful thing. So I am presuming the father will be included in the pictures? Or is that a daft assumption?
 
My friend is a school-teacher, and she was saying that she's bound that if she see's any pictures of her students under the age of 16, sexualised, then they are bound to report them to social services, as they can be deemed as being able to be used for grooming of a child for underage sex...i was dumbfounded when she told me.
Even just a teenager laid on the floor propped up on her elbows, in a low cut top, can be seen as "Sexualising a Minor" and they're deemed to report it - with or without parental consent.
 
the law states that anyone under the age of 18 cannot be photographed in an indecent way it does not say you can't shoot nude, topless etc. if she is lying down and covering her breasts and the lighting is such then you have no fear.



cableliquid said:
I want to photograph a friend who's pregnant however she's only 15 and the plan was to have her topless lying down covering her breasts and showing off her bump. question is how old does a model have to be to get her top off, i always use model release forms and will be getting it signed by herself and her mother. however does anyone know the age for topless/nude/implied nude shoots as shes interested in being used in many projects im doing. Please dont think im a P**** or anything shes just a young mum who wants t be a model and i've known her a while. cheers giuys
Click to expand...
 
dellipher said:
My friend is a school-teacher, and she was saying that she's bound that if she see's any pictures of her students under the age of 16, sexualised, then they are bound to report them to social services, as they can be deemed as being able to be used for grooming of a child for underage sex...i was dumbfounded when she told me.
Even just a teenager laid on the floor propped up on her elbows, in a low cut top, can be seen as "Sexualising a Minor" and they're deemed to report it - with or without parental consent.
Click to expand...

Your right Del, since Victoria climbie, all agencies including sports centres and the like are required to report anything they feel untoward. If your working with children in a togging capacity i would imagine this also applies to you.
 
POAH said:
the law states that anyone under the age of 18 cannot be photographed in an indecent way it does not say you can't shoot nude, topless etc. if she is lying down and covering her breasts and the lighting is such then you have no fear.
Click to expand...
have you got someone that you got that from? would be interested in looking it up?
 
Modern society has developed very fat fingers.
 
I think the point everyone is making is that legal or not - do you really want to be in the position where people will point fingers at you?

Your shoes might be clean but once you step in sh** it's hard to get rid of the smell (am I overdoing the metaphors today? :-) )
 
The whole thing is crazy
Everyone now has to walk on egg shells to aviod a "lable" and I bet there are some fantastic images "missed" because of our Oh ever so PC society
( I am NOT condoning "certain types of shots" by any means)

I guess the mum concerned will now go and buy a "point and shoot" and take the images herself
After thought I guess this makes her a paedophile "as well" :shrug:
 
cableliquid said:
i've just read that myself (have been without a computer for a few weeks) was interesting but something doesnt seem right they say "certain parts of their bodies" that could me the souther regions on a female or the breast area, leaves it open!?
Click to expand...

You can see a few samples of Marcus Phillips' work at the link below. Whilst I did not see the shots of the young girls for which he was prosecuted, none of the shots in the samples at this link are any worse than one might see of a girl on the beach. So, assuming he had not strayed from his general standards, I would assume the shots of the girls he was taken to court for may have been similar.

Link: http://www.onetalentsource.com/portfolio/17312
 
Rozzy said:
i like that.

elaborate please.

and to the OP. don't be daft mate. its not worth the hassle.
Click to expand...


You'll need to work that one out :-)
 
Mart61 said:
Hhmmm. Perhaps you should read this too:

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Photographer-prosecuted-for-fairy-39child.4359539.jp
Click to expand...


I know the story and thats the problem with the way current law stands. what is indecent - thats down to sociaty as a whole. TBH I'm totally suprised the judge never threw that case out of court particularly from what the judge said

"What is clear is that you had no base motive, no sexual motive and there was not any question of deriving sexual gratification from what you were doing."

how can it be child pornography if that was her comments on it. makes no sense.

I still see no problem with the OP right to do the shoot.
 
I think the problem the the fairy tog was that the shots that tripped him up were the prep shots rather than the finished article. So it was just shots of the girls semi-nude without the photoshop work. I suspect the finished shots would have been ok but the law is about taking the shot not the intented use so he was guilty and pleaded so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top