Topless

:)

Thank goodness!

TBH I'm glad you posted this. At least you have not made what could have been a very costly mistake.
 
sorry fro not reading that bu you have made the right choice. and of course you will be posting the result for some C+C.
 
this thread is priceless!!!

people say that society is going downhill. i'm more inclined to be concerned about the intellect and common sense of some people after reading some of these posts....

keep up the good work folks.
 
the thing is, that although its not a good idea to undertake this particular photo shoot, thats not what cableliquid asked...
would be good if someone could answer the question instead of ranting about girls getting pregnant at 15.

I dont know the answer, but i would guess that taking a photo of a topless pregnant 15 year old covering her breasts is completely legal.
 
badgerbaiter said:
I dont know the answer, but i would guess that taking a photo of a topless pregnant 15 year old covering her breasts is completely legal.
Click to expand...

Probably not is the answer. The way the law works the offence is making the image in the first place and that's what happened to the fairy tog. AIUI his shots didn't have any explicit nudity but the question isn't about what is or isn't covered. It's the implication of the content and this is something that will vary with each image - and I mean each image in the shoot, not each shoot. Shots of a 15yr old girl covering her breasts could be considered sexually appealing by some, even more so because she's pregnant and therefore sexually active.
 
AliB said:
Don't do it. Not only is it illegal to go taking topless pics of a minor but do you honestly think you can get away with saying it's art?
Click to expand...

At what age does it become art? I know that there's an age when it becomes legal but is there an age when it becomes art? Annie Lebowitz has already done this type of photo. It caused controversy. There are countries in the world were the age of consent is 12. So it could be art there but not here. Point is that art is subjective not a legality. Of course in the UK you've got to be careful taking photos of kids on a good day. I was out at a street party in the middle of Liverpool where some entertainers were engaging with some kids, a good fun photo and some parent had to raise the issue. I'm not 100% sure there are pedos out there who like photos of kids with adults in gothic clothing on the steps of a cathedral. The media have made it a huge issue and its simply there. You simply can't take a photo of a kid now without it being there. So to have one topless will of course incur the wrath of the Daily Mail and its readers will be hunting you down with pitchforks at dusk.

However, if you had balls of steel, knew the editor of The Times and had *the* best lawyer in the country I would say go for it. Theres a ton of social issues surrounding this and in some respects that can make for a powerful image. Teenage pregnancy is a big issue. Teenagers wanting to emulate what they see in the media is also an issue. You've got mens mags off the top shelf, by the checkout now days where women are topless with tiny tiny dots covering their nipples. Thats socially ok now. So if you were to do a Demi Moore / Mylene Klass style image it could be something. A commentary on what is socially acceptable. A commentary on teenage pregnancy, emulating what teens see in the media and all sorts. Its a photo about motherhood except legally speaking she shouldn't be pregnant. I think that if everything was in the right place that could be a powerful photo. Unfortunately nothing is going to be in the right place and you will be shot at. Personally if it were me I would turn it down simply due to fear.
 
Wasn't there a load of trouble when a 15yo American actress was photographed in a strapless top, but the way it was framed (above the top but below the shoulders) implied she was nude, even though she wasn't, could the law be based on how the resulting image is interpreted, as well as the facts of what was shot?

I do agree with the others though, your new idea is much safer...
 
GoLotus said:
That totally sums this question up for me. Just stop think about this for a moment - adult male with camera + topless underage school girl........

This isn't just a can of worms thats being opened up here
Click to expand...

she is not topless though. she is not showing her breasts since her arms would be covering her.
 
POAH said:
she is not topless though. she is not showing her breasts since her arms would be covering her.
Click to expand...

Topless means not wearing a top. It's the suggestion that is the issue, not what you can or cannot see. A lot of trouble can be caused these days if you were to photograph a 15 year old topless from the back!
 
Wail said:
:popcorn:


I wonder how many will think of me as a perv. for enjoying this thread?
Click to expand...

Oh no, don't worry. It's threads like these that make forums interesting ;)

Good idea on the alternative approach though. Show art, just in a different way.
 
Cobra said:
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)
Click to expand...

Dude...when was this ever appropriate? In the 50s? In the 80s? This isn't a 'today' issue.
 
fabs said:
Topless means not wearing a top. It's the suggestion that is the issue, not what you can or cannot see. A lot of trouble can be caused these days if you were to photograph a 15 year old topless from the back!
Click to expand...


its still not topless and depending ont he shot not indecient which is what the law says.
 
I've never seen a thread turn into a full on morals argument so quick :lol:
 
Theo Moore said:
Dude...when was this ever appropriate? In the 50s? In the 80s? This isn't a 'today' issue.
Click to expand...

People take photos of their kids playing in the bath naked. Thats socially ok. Why wouldn't it be ok to take a photo of your daughter ala Demi Moore, or perhaps hire someone who knows what they're doing to take a really lovely portrait of an expectant mother? Age of consent list. According to that its ok in some parts of the world. I realise age of consent doesn't mean age of being photographed in this fashion but its just our silly society that likes to burn people for photographing kids. I think that was Cobra's point. We're so scared of taking a lovely photo because the Daily Mail will burn you.
 
petemc said:
People take photos of their kids playing in the bath naked. Thats socially ok.
Click to expand...

You want to try getting a shot of your son in the bath with pecker visible processed at Asda.

I'd suggest you could start counting to ten and social services would be round before you got to '9'.

No comment on whether it's right or wrong but that's how it is.
 
petemc said:
People take photos of their kids playing in the bath naked. Thats socially ok. Why wouldn't it be ok to take a photo of your daughter ala Demi Moore, or perhaps hire someone who knows what they're doing to take a really lovely portrait of an expectant mother? Age of consent list. According to that its ok in some parts of the world. I realise age of consent doesn't mean age of being photographed in this fashion but its just our silly society that likes to burn people for photographing kids. I think that was Cobra's point. We're so scared of taking a lovely photo because the Daily Mail will burn you.
Click to expand...

No. When was it ever okay to get a professional photographer to take a picture of a topless 15 year old pregnant girl? I assume this was also off-limits before the Daily Mail was in existance? Or perhaps this is just my naive notion of history.
 
I completely agree. I already said that the Daily Mail will hunt you for trying this sort of shoot, twice :)
 
How about doing something like this(i.e legal) instead?

2008-Zingaro-NJP_2008-NJ2_0267-4.jpg
 
Theo Moore said:
No. When was it ever okay to get a professional photographer to take a picture of a topless 15 year old pregant girl?

This was the original question.
Click to expand...

Actually it wasn't.

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
Click to expand...

Theres a difference between topless and covering up. Ask any model. They list implied nude and nude on their list of styles. This is implied nude, not nude. You could very easily use lighting to even hide the fact that she looks 15 as Flash in the Pan shows. You could go further and have a black background with a warm lamp for a golden look. The real question is whether there is any actual law that says even with parental consent it is illegal to photograph a minor hiding her breasts.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
How about doing something like this(i.e legal) instead?

2008-Zingaro-NJP_2008-NJ2_0267-4.jpg
Click to expand...

shoot it with her in her school uniform, photoshop shop in a free house and a few giros and thats a winner.

shocking.

i foresee a thread lock loaming, anyone got an answer to the OP or shall i just shut it now?
 
matty said:
i foresee a thread lock loaming, anyone got an answer to the OP or shall i just shut it now?
Click to expand...

Really? We haven't even got to discussing HDR yet. That'll really kick things off ;) Seriously though. My answer would be to use Flash in the Pan's idea. Keep her top on. Show her bump. Soft warm light. Get consent and all legality sorted. Should be no real issues there.
 
nice one pete. if no-one else has anything sensible to add, move along.
 
petemc said:
Really? We haven't even got to discussing HDR yet. That'll really kick things off ;) Seriously though. My answer would be to use Flash in the Pan's idea. Keep her top on. Show her bump. Soft warm light. Get consent and all legality sorted. Should be no real issues there.
Click to expand...

I liked FITP's idea too...at least its legal. And the picture still comes out looking great.
 
matty said:
shoot it with her in her school uniform, photoshop shop in a free house and a few giros and thats a winner.

shocking.

i foresee a thread lock loaming, anyone got an answer to the OP or shall i just shut it now?
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're wandering into moral, rather than legal, territory there, Matty. Whilst I agree with you, the OP's question was whether he should take the requested picture, rather than whether the girl should have got up the duff at such a young age.

Can we just watch the video and move on?

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/T6fkHZzlFUA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/T6fkHZzlFUA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
 
Actually, I think the law uses the word erotic before indecent, but could be wrong :thinking: and if it does then the picture is open to interpretation, topless or not
 
Having read this from front to back i am concerned that the OP really does want to take the original pic & was looking for backup to approve his thoughts. I have to question why you would even argue the nuances of a shoot that is plainly wrong both morally & legally.

I am at present thinking of my 3 adult[ish] daughters & how i would feel if this question had raised itself & concerned one of them.

JohnB
 
petemc said:
The real question is whether there is any actual law that says even with parental consent it is illegal to photograph a minor hiding her breasts.
Click to expand...

Let's take the fact that she's pregnant out of the equation.

Is it legal to take implied nude shots of a 15yr old girl?
 
If in doubt leave it out............
 
Hum - the request for the photo's is probably driven by the Demi Moore, Britney Spears, Mylene Klass trend. It seems every celeb needs to get their bumps out in semi naked poses.

Tell her its overdone and suggest other shots. There's the standard front on clutching a basketball type shot, the sideways with the bump peeking out of a shirt etc
 
I reckon you should wait till she's 18 and then do it for her when she's pregnant with her fourth child.
 
cableliquid said:
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
Click to expand...

I fully agree-but the law is the law and have to be careful with it-especially with kids.

Its a shame-she may have messed up by getting preganant at 15-of course everyone on tp didnt even consider sex at 15 lmfao. But then im sure she will do everything right and become a very loving caring mum-who would have liked to show her baby one day what mummy looked like when she was carrying her/him.

By god peeps-we are not living in a dickins era-pregant at 15 isn't the shame it once was-but taking pics of it is unfortunately-as even if the mother took pics for her daughter she would be breaking the law too.

No this doesnt mean i would condone the taking of undergae topless pics-but sometimes things are different-but the law is black and white with no room for shades of grey.
 
petemc said:
People take photos of their kids playing in the bath naked. Thats socially ok. Why wouldn't it be ok to take a photo of your daughter ala Demi Moore, or perhaps hire someone who knows what they're doing to take a really lovely portrait of an expectant mother? Age of consent list. According to that its ok in some parts of the world. I realise age of consent doesn't mean age of being photographed in this fashion but its just our silly society that likes to burn people for photographing kids. I think that was Cobra's point. We're so scared of taking a lovely photo because the Daily Mail will burn you.
Click to expand...

Its actually frowned upon big time now-the worlds gone mad.
 
A hyphen isn't a comma. Sorry but thats really annoying me :p
 
If I remember, wasn't some famous young actress photgraphed "implied nude/topless" (back to the camera I think) in the 70's, and it caused a media frenzy then....

I can't remember who it was, but I think she was 14 or 15 at the time....

Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top