Clothing Designer
Baanthai
Posts: 1218
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
![https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/4781993138_1883611ab1.jpg]() This model was 16 at the time of the shoot. Her mother was present (a family friend) and standing about 10 feet in back of me when the foto was taken. The mother also signed the commercial release. We've used this foto for over a year and have sold quite a few massage mats with it. I really don't see a problem using a foto like this. And of course, we're located in the U.S. I don't know about English law. Good Luck, -Jenny
Photographer
Bill Jones Photography
Posts: 1618
Los Angeles, California, US
Chanel Rene wrote:
A 16 year old in swimwear.... oh no! Does this mean I'm going to jail?
![https://chanelrene.smugmug.com/Models/Yuliya/IMG2349x/984366678_DAfDq-M.jpg]()
C'mon people!
First off, she's a female photographer.
Secondly, swimwear and bikini top with jeans isn't all THAT racy.
Everyone's definition of "glamour" is different. But from what I can tell from the OP, we're talking amped up Senior Pictures, not the cover of Playboy. Fantastic work Chanel!
Model
Troy Ariacelia
Posts: 275
Los Angeles, California, US
ACPhotography wrote:
Wow... How do all these 16 year old models end up in catalogs if no one will shoot them??? Exactly. And some nude too!!! Oh mmm gee
Or toddlers to pageants....
I'm not sure about the UK but it's legal in the US with parental consent and supervision. *Especially* as there will be no nudity or over sexualized/pornographic content.
Photographer
SAND DIAL
Posts: 6688
Santa Monica, California, US
WMcK wrote:
Well, get as lawyer and ask his views. This is not a legal forum. People's views are all that can be expressed here, they have no legal weight. If you don't want them don't ask, pay a lawyer. thank you...............THIS IS NOT FREE LEGAL
Photographer
Photography by Kid Yosh
Posts: 308
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
i really think it comes down to how suggestive the images are. TrueTeenBabes I thought was shut down before. But when it comes to glamour I always tell myself..."there's a reason Maxium hasn't plaster Miley Cyrus on the cover in her undies yet. She's not 18 and nor do they want to come under fire for it. If you lived in the UK where the rules are a little different I'd say go for it. While she may be related to you that isn't the issue. It's other people. Let someone see the photos and flip out over her age and start calling you a "pervert photographer" you're never gonna get a job again if that spreads.
but better safe than sorry if you feel iffy about it don't do it, or get a laywer
Model
Troy Ariacelia
Posts: 275
Los Angeles, California, US
Aoxomedia wrote:
But you'll already have learnt that there's a transatlantic difference in thinking on this topic fuelled by a real paranoia amongst our US colleagues. It's not that at all. Look at the difference of quality behind the majority of photographers (not just on this post, in general) who are 'paranoid' about this topic and discourage others.
Then look at the caliber of photographers who know what they are talking about and aren't afraid. (not creepy ones lol ..people who actually are professional and work enough jobs to NEED to know what the law is.)
Photographer
SCAM Photography
Posts: 961
Mansfield, Ohio, US
ACPhotography wrote:
Wow... How do all these 16 year old models end up in catalogs if no one will shoot them??? The same way they end up on pedofile websites!
Photographer
SCAM Photography
Posts: 961
Mansfield, Ohio, US
Chanel Rene wrote:
A 16 year old in swimwear.... oh no! Does this mean I'm going to jail?
![https://chanelrene.smugmug.com/Models/Yuliya/IMG2349x/984366678_DAfDq-M.jpg]()
C'mon people!
First off, she's a female photographer.
Secondly, swimwear and bikini top with jeans isn't all THAT racy.
Everyone's definition of "glamour" is different. But from what I can tell from the OP, we're talking amped up Senior Pictures, not the cover of Playboy. Did she survive the shoot? Looks like she could use a cheeseburger I.V.
Photographer
Virtual Studio
Posts: 6725
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Patrick Walberg wrote:
It is legal! Fear mongers are every where but they can't post a single case where anyone who shot a teenager in art or glamour was prosecuted unless it crossed the line into pornography.
You can buy art books with nudes of teenagers at any major bookstore of David Hamiltons work for example, and there are no laws against it. That's because by definition for it to have been a successful prosecution it has to be pornography.
Can you point to a single red car that isn't red?
The broken part about this is that while i can define "red" with a good dgree of accuracy there isn't a similar definition of pornography.
In the UK the laws on this are difficuly, poorly worded and wholly subjective. Is it really fear mongering to say that unlss you rally know what you are doing it's safest not to put yourself at the mercy of any overly zealous proscutor unless you have a really good idea about what you are doing?
Photographer
Ryan Bater
Posts: 3631
London, England, United Kingdom
Photographer
Virtual Studio
Posts: 6725
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Troy Ariacelia wrote:
It's not that at all. Look at the difference of quality behind the majority of photographers (not just on this post, in general) who are 'paranoid' about this topic and discourage others.
Then look at the caliber of photographers who know what they are talking about and aren't afraid. (not creepy ones lol ..people who actually are professional and work enough jobs to NEED to know what the law is.) Good post. And the police can do (and do) this exercise as well. there's a world of difference between a professional photographer with an established track record of commercial work and a guy (or gal) for who this is essentially a hobby or who is on the first steps of a career.
End of the day it's all about risk and reward. As you become more familiar with a domain it's possible to take on more risk, but you need to balance this with the potential downside.
The potential upside here is that you get some nice pics (with a high probability). The potential downside is that your entire life is ruined by a child sex scandal (with a low probability).
Score = (effect of good result x probability) - (effect of bad result x probability)
Weigh up the outcomes and make a call - if the Score is positive then do it, otherwise avoid.
Photographer
Ryan Bater
Posts: 3631
London, England, United Kingdom
Chanel Rene wrote:
A 16 year old in swimwear.... oh no! Does this mean I'm going to jail?
![https://chanelrene.smugmug.com/Models/Yuliya/IMG2349x/984366678_DAfDq-M.jpg]()
C'mon people!
First off, she's a female photographer.
Secondly, swimwear and bikini top with jeans isn't all THAT racy.
Everyone's definition of "glamour" is different. But from what I can tell from the OP, we're talking amped up Senior Pictures, not the cover of Playboy. +1.
the OP is NOT going for some adult magazine type shoot, this has gotten a bit out of proportion, LOL.
Photographer
Erlinda
Posts: 7286
London, England, United Kingdom
Photographer
Eric212Grapher
Posts: 3780
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
StaceyMarie-Retouch wrote:
Im not asking what some peoples views are, Legally i would like to know what is allowed Ask a "barrister" or whatever you in the UK call lawyers.
Free on-line legal advice is nearly as dangerous as free on-line medical advice.
And btw, even the lawyers are only giving you their views. "What is allowed" is up to the judicial system.
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
WMcK wrote:
Don't. It's not worth it. Since the law has never really been tested, would you like to become that test case and potentially land on the sex offenders register? +1000
OP, the whole thing hinges on the meaning of the word "Indecent" for which there is NO legally accepted definition in the UK. Get the wrong judge or the wrong jury and your fully clothed shots could be deemed "indecent" and land you in jail. Is that the sort of risk you're willing to take to help out a friend?
Just my $0.02
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Photographer
Erlinda
Posts: 7286
London, England, United Kingdom
SCAM Photography wrote:
Did she survive the shoot? Looks like she could use a cheeseburger I.V. LAME
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
Ryan-Bater wrote:
Well since All girl's on Adult Magazines, that model TOPLESS in the UK are 16+, I'm sure you'd be aloud. I've photographed girls In Swim wear before, but for a fashion purpose not glamour, aged 15/16. It should be fine, 16+ A girl can show their breasts in a photograph, 18+ they can go fully naked in one. Wrong!
Ryan, you are completely wrong on this. The law in the UK has changed since it was OK for 16 year olds to pose topless for the Sun. These days, anybody under 18 is considered a "child" so the Protection Of Children Act applies. While taking a topless photo of a 16 year old may be legal if it is not "indecent", how many judges and jury members will be willing to go out on a limb and state that they think such an image is NOT "indecent", especially if the type of photo is anything even slightly approaching a glamour shot as the OP was suggesting.
Please refrain from repeating this misinformation in the forums in future.
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Photographer
Dodys
Posts: 244
Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan
Photographer
A Picture of Matthew
Posts: 452
Cluj-Napoca, Cluj, Romania
Good Egg Productions wrote:
Ask a photographer if he'd shoot it.
Ask a lawyer if it's legal. The law in the US (and probably other countries as well) covers an incredible number of subjects. Finding a lawyer who is qualified to answer this question would be incredibly hard. Simply being a lawyer means nothing. A very good lawyer is going to charge you several thousand dollars minimum to give you an opinion. And an opinion is just that -- an opinion.
Photographer
ELITE Model Shots
Posts: 319
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Make sure mom is there and she signs the release if your going to chance it.
I can understand why people wouldn't want to chance it because in the US and Canada all it takes is an allegation of some wrong doing and your arrested, splattered all over the media and career ruined.... Then after the fact when you are found not guilty or the charges are dropped everyone has already judged you.
Is it really worth it for a TFP shoot with a 16 year old? Nahh! Next.
Photographer
exartica
Posts: 1399
Bowie, Maryland, US
tenrocK photo wrote:
The pixels are all made up from scratch in Photoshop. 16 years old models don't even exist. Erlinda wrote:
Really? what are you smoking? or better yet where do you live? But fuck nowhere? 16 year old models don't exist? maybe in your world... I think that your sarcasm detector is in serious need of repair. Better take it to the shop soon.
Model
Alisyn Carliene
Posts: 11756
San Bernardino, California, US
I'm in the U.S. and when I was 16 I did bikinis, lingerie etc. and it was all classy and tastefully done. it's possible.
Photographer
Brooklyn Bridge Images
Posts: 13200
Brooklyn, New York, US
fuscophoto wrote:
Is it really worth it for a TFP shoot with a 16 year old? Nahh! Next. Why the hell NOT ?? Kids wall into malls everyday and get photos taken WITHOUT parents or permission.
![https://www.modelinsider.com/images/portfolio/display/852/852-4acfdc18913dd.jpg]()
Photographer
Jake Garn
Posts: 3958
Salt Lake City, Utah, US
There are a lot of fear mongers on MM that actually don't have much experience shooting girls under 18. You absolutely can. If you're worried about it talk to a lawyer about the precautions you need to take.
A couple hour meeting with a lawyer about it in my area cost a mere $300 and now I'm all set.
That said, there are some risks associated with it, but there are risks associated with EVERY single activity you can imagine doing... don't listen to the fear mongers.
:-)
Photographer
Lee Andre
Posts: 106
Chelmsford, England, United Kingdom
WMcK wrote:
Don't. It's not worth it. Since the law has never really been tested, would you like to become that test case and potentially land on the sex offenders register? Yes it has Linsay Dawn Mckenzy was 16 when she first appeared in the Daily Sport, although personally I wouldn't do it myself.
Model
Kris London
Posts: 12
Abbeville, Alabama, US
first never use a video if there is even a micro second of her changing this means taking off one shirt and putting on another even wearing a bra and some judge decides the photo is lude then your now nailed for making a underage porn with a minor!!! second and most importantly what is it being used for Victoria's Secret has discovered and had 17 year old models on the runway so the key is believe it or not what are the standards for public dress in your area for instance if there is a beach what can a minor legally wear without being issued a citation and there you go that's the line
Photographer
Starburst Photography
Posts: 959
Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
StaceyMarie-Retouch wrote:
hey, just looking for advice.
I've only just started photography, and a 16 year old, (close relative) wants me to photograph her glamour, but not topless, just bikini top or bra/jeans, sexy pout/makeup etc, her mother doesn't mind as she was a model,
But is it allowed, even with mothers consent? in the UK? if allowed, what type of form would i need for her/her mother to sign?
Thanks.x Do what ever the hell you want.
Sometimes you just have to ask yourself, Why is the whole damn world so bent on being a control freak?
So what will happen if you take a photograph a person with a bra on? Will the world end? Will your head explode? Will all the trees in the forest die?
Some people just live an thrive off being controlled.
If folks don't like it ....tell em to take a jump in the lake.
Photographer
Angelus Complex
Posts: 10501
Columbus, Ohio, US
StaceyMarie-Retouch wrote:
hey, just looking for advice.
I've only just started photography, and a 16 year old, (close relative) wants me to photograph her glamour, but not topless, just bikini top or bra/jeans, sexy pout/makeup etc, her mother doesn't mind as she was a model,
But is it allowed, even with mothers consent? in the UK? if allowed, what type of form would i need for her/her mother to sign?
Thanks.x It's legal.
Photographer
Westdahl Studio
Posts: 333
COEUR D ALENE, Idaho, US
StaceyMarie-Retouch wrote:
Im not asking what some peoples views are, Legally i would like to know what is allowed Free legal advice is worth what you pay for it. See a lawyer to be safe.
Photographer
Wysiwyg Photography
Posts: 6326
Salt Lake City, Utah, US
Stefano Brunesci wrote:
+1000
OP, the whole thing hinges on the meaning of the word "Indecent" for which there is NO legally accepted definition in the UK. Get the wrong judge or the wrong jury and your fully clothed shots could be deemed "indecent" and land you in jail. Is that the sort of risk you're willing to take to help out a friend?
Just my $0.02
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com ^^From the UK^^
I'd take his advice before I would take anyone else's ... Just sayin'
Photographer
Shire Photography
Posts: 32
Vineyard, Utah, US
The word "Indecent" is the key here to the answer. The problem is how do you define "indecent". Many on this site have a pretty broad definition and I don't have a problem with that at all. I think what I feel is "indecent" is not too strict.
BUT at the end of the day it does not matter what I think, you think and often what your solicitor thinks. What it comes down to is how the cops on prosecutors define "indecent". Most of the laws that I have read seem pretty vague and leave a lot up to local officials to define.
In some cases it does not even matter how the law defines "indecent" but how the media defines "indecent". Images that one person sees as nice art to the next person are considered child porn by someone else. Considering the media hysteria in the UK of just taking regular pictures of children in public who knows how they might react on a slow day to what they see as a guy taking pictures of a "child" in her underwear. Understand I am not saying this is right or that a 16 is a child, but the law, reporter and some uptight people can take everything out of proportion.
Am I saying you should not take the pictures? No, this decision has to be yours. If it goes bad I doubt the court will care about the advise you received on MM. While this site is a nice place to talk about such ideas, I have yet to see a UK Solicitor posting legal advice on the forum.
Personal, I would not take the pictures - My own feelings are to wait until the models are 18, but this is just me and my own personal feelings and beliefs. I don't impose or preach these to anyone else. They are my own. You need to decide for yourself how you feel about it and if you want to take these shots. At the end of the day you need to make the choice and remember that you made the choice and have to live with the consequences. Find a GOOD solicitor to get real advice on the UK law, use a local one so they can tell you if how the local officials are about such issues.
BTW - there maybe no bad consequences - the results may just be some great images.
Model
Troy Ariacelia
Posts: 275
Los Angeles, California, US
A Picture of Matthew wrote:
[A very good lawyer is going to charge you several thousand dollars minimum to give you an opinion. And an opinion is just that -- an opinion. Uhhh....wth kind of lawyers are you seeing? A GREAT lawyer in the top cities (NYC, LA, SOBE etc) charge per hour...and it's typically UNDER $1000. And really, if you've ever met with a lawyer you know they tend to do their work in 15 mins or less then charge you for the hour 
And a lawyers opinion is based on law and knowledge of a judicial system and past cases...it's based on research (though usually done by paralegals) into the background of a question and its premise. It's half their job to give opinions, and I'd trust it a million times more than I would, say...YOURS.
Photographer
Falater Photography
Posts: 371
Los Angeles, California, US
It always surprises me how people over react and how many false hoods there are and how many people make up ' I know a guy who..." stories when it comes to this subject.
You don't need lawyers, you don't need a video camera running, and all that other nonsense.
It's perfectly legal to shoot kids in non sexually suggestive poses. Just have their parent or guardian present and have the parent sign the model release. No big deal. In fact, kids are far easier to work with than adult models and more fun. It's great to get them laughing and they love to model.
Check out my website and click on 'younger models' to see some examples of how I shoot kid models and teens. You can shoot them in glamour, beauty, fashion, etc and do it age appropriately. You can also get some good ideas from modeling agencies who represent kids and teens. Look at some of the pics already in their portfolios.
Photographer
Miko Was Here
Posts: 4033
Ventura, California, US
IDK about the UK but... As long as I have a signed consent from the parent /guardian... I wouldn't sweat bullets over shooting a 16 yo at all here in California USA... Not even if there was a little nipple showing. Stefano Brunesci wrote:
+1000
OP, the whole thing hinges on the meaning of the word "Indecent" for which there is NO legally accepted definition in the UK. Get the wrong judge or the wrong jury and your fully clothed shots could be deemed "indecent" and land you in jail. Is that the sort of risk you're willing to take to help out a friend?
Just my $0.02
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com You should move here... You can sleep on my couch until you're set.
Photographer in Ventura California
Photographer
Hugh Alison
Posts: 2125
Aberystwyth, Wales, United Kingdom
StaceyMarie-Retouch wrote:
hey, just looking for advice.
I've only just started photography, and a 16 year old, (close relative) wants me to photograph her glamour, but not topless, just bikini top or bra/jeans, sexy pout/makeup etc, her mother doesn't mind as she was a model,
But is it allowed, even with mothers consent? in the UK? if allowed, what type of form would i need for her/her mother to sign?
Thanks.x Swimsuit, on the beach, with mother present - first shot of the session would be of mother holding ID standing next to the model, last shot of the session would be mother and daughter holding a signed model release.
Then I might possibly do it for a close relative. Sexy pout, bra, makeup - not worth the potential hassle.
Taking indecent fotos of a minor is (AFAIK) an "absolute offence" in the UK - just like having possession of an unlicenced firearm - i.e. no paperwork signed by the parent will protect you, and no copy of fake ID will protect you.
If you think about the woman who thought it would be funny to put a cat into a bin recently (and got what she deserved in my opinion), you can see how a newspaper witch-hunt can escalate.
Photographer
photoimager
Posts: 5164
Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom
Patrick Walberg wrote:
It is legal! Fear mongers are every where but they can't post a single case where anyone who shot a teenager in art or glamour was prosecuted unless it crossed the line into pornography.
You can buy art books with nudes of teenagers at any major bookstore of David Hamiltons work for example, and there are no laws against it. David Hamilton - the photographer whose images hang in the US Library of Congress, Carnegie Hall and the Royal Danish Palace - has had his multi-million-selling images of young, naked women and girls officially branded as indecent in a landmark British ruling.
Anyone owning one of his coffee-table books now risks being "arrested for possession of indecent photographs", following a ruling at Guildford Crown Court.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2005/ … graphy.art
July 2005
Photographers have been taken to court and punished for having his books.
Newspapers like 'The Sun' can still be retrospectively taken to caught for the topless 16 year olds they published if they still have the images.
Classic example of some people giving advice when they do not know the facts. Something which web forums are full of. In UK law you can be married to an under 18 year old, take a photo of your 'other half' naked and run the risk of being jailed. Recently an ammendment has, I think, made an exception for this provided the images are for personal use.
Keep the clothes on, no bra only on top, and go ahead with the 'shoot ideally with a parent present, if you like. No legal problem with that. Forget poses that might be deemed suggestive in any way. As someone has posted, the law has not been sufficiently tested since it was changed and, presumably, you do not want to be the test case.
Think about it, the quality of an image is not dependent on the lack of clothing or the sexual nature of the image. Stick to imagery which keeps clear of any potential misunderstanding and you should keep clear of trouble.
Photographer
Miko Was Here
Posts: 4033
Ventura, California, US
photoimager wrote:
David Hamilton - the photographer whose images hang in the US Library of Congress, Carnegie Hall and the Royal Danish Palace - has had his multi-million-selling images of young, naked women and girls officially branded as indecent in a landmark British ruling.
Anyone owning one of his coffee-table books now risks being "arrested for possession of indecent photographs", following a ruling at Guildford Crown Court.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2005/ … graphy.art
July 2005
Photographers have been taken to court and punished for having his books.
Newspapers like 'The Sun' can still be retrospectively taken to caught for the topless 16 year olds they published if they still have the images.
Classic example of some people giving advice when they do not know the facts. Something which web forums are full of. In UK law you can be married to an under 18 year old, take a photo of your 'other half' naked and run the risk of being jailed. Recently an ammendment has, I think, made an exception for this provided the images are for personal use.
Keep the clothes on, no bra only on top, and go ahead with the 'shoot ideally with a parent present, if you like. No legal problem with that. Forget poses that might be deemed suggestive in any way. As someone has posted, the law has not been sufficiently tested since it was changed and, presumably, you do not want to be the test case. And they call us Puritanical...
Photographer in Ventura California
Photographer
photoimager
Posts: 5164
Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom
Image is Nothing wrote:
And they call us Puritanical...
Photographer in Ventura California If you are going to get historical and go back to the days of the Pilgrim Fathers then, historically you would be correct.
Aside from that, the OP is in the UK so opinions that run contrary to UK law are meaningless. Opinions from overseas that advise caution, moderation and sensibility are meaningful.
Photographer
I M N Photography
Posts: 2350
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Stay away from it. I am not a lawyer. Do not claim to be one; and will not make claims of knowledge regarding British law, but a quick search online indicates that you're taking a big risk.
Terms like "indecent", "minor", and "improper" seem to be so vague, that it is not worth the legal hassle that this might bring to you.
|
Not so much glamour tho since its more of a sexual thing 
