Hugh Alison wrote:
It would be about as relevant for UK citizens to advise whether a model should pose nude wrapped in an American flag...

would that really cause problems? fascinated. what would they charge you under?

Davepit wrote:

Anyone who puts anyone else in anything from ann summers ought to go to court.

YAY!

Linux99 wrote:

would that really cause problems? fascinated. what would they charge you under?

397 posts on MM:

"US flag":

https://www.sendu.me.uk/modelmayhem/?te … rt_order=0

From one of them:

" the US Code (Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 3) identifies what is and is not covered, and it’s fairly broad. Also note that the US Supreme Court struck down the 1989 Flag Protection Act"

Hugh Alison wrote:
397 posts on MM:

"US flag":

https://www.sendu.me.uk/modelmayhem/?te … rt_order=0

From one of them:

" the US Code (Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 3) identifies what is and is not covered, and it’s fairly broad. Also note that the US Supreme Court struck down the 1989 Flag Protection Act"

Thanks! Good grief - that's very very different from the UK.

ei Total Productions wrote:
I see your arguments as fear mongering and nothing more.

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
If YOU lived in the UK then maybe your OPINION would carry some weight in this.

Can you show me one example of anyone being prosecuted for a "run of the mill" shot of a girl in a bikini top and a pair of jeans?   All opinions are valid.  One doesn't need to live in the UK to live in the UK to look at stateues that are being combined to create definitions or inferences that are being misapplied.  It doesn't take an Englander to know that the purpose of the act is to dial things down because Page 3 used to be filled with 16 year olds.

What it isn't desingned to do it so call into question, every mainstream, normal an appropriate photo of a minor by instilling fear that any photo, at any time, no matter how tasteful or innocent, could be declared "indecent" by a jury since in one small fishing village the elders think it inappropriate for a teen model to pout on camera.

You guys are way over the top on this thing.  Statutes are often written vaguely, andperhaps misapplied because of it.  Over time, courts interpret them and then there is guidance.  Thef fact that there are no court decisions tells me that there have been no absurd applications of the law.  Nobody has had to appeal.

It doesn't surprise me that a high school tutor got nailed for shooting a high school student topless.  They also didn't nail him to the corss, they slapped his wrist.  Clearly the system saw a tame topless shot as less serious than child porn.  They brought him before the magistrate to "get his attention."

The statute is written as a "wobbler" for a reason.  If you can show me examples of totally tame, mainstream appropriate images resulting in photographers being prosectued for indecency, then we have something to talk about.  Otherwise, your opinion simply strikes me as "fear mongering." 

Understand, i am flaming neither you, nor John.  Just as my opinion is valid, yours is valid too.  You are entitled to it.  I, for one, am not afraid to work with a teen so long as what I shoot is teen appropriate, I have the parent's consent, and that I comply with all of the labor laws associated with shooting minors.

I am a big boy.  I have beeen doing this for a long time.  I know what you can/should shoot, I know what you cannot/should not shoot.  More importantly, I know those things that approach the borderline as to what is appropriate and what is not.  I make a point of never getting anywhere near that borderline.  So long as I do that, I am never concerned.

ei Total Productions wrote:
Can you show me one example of anyone being prosecuted for a "run of the mill" shot of a girl in a bikini top and a pair of jeans?   All opinions are valid.  One doesn't need to live in the UK to live in the UK to look at stateues that are being combined to create definitions or inferences that are being misapplied.  It doesn't take an Englander to know that the purpose of the act is to dial things down because Page 3 used to be filled with 16 year olds.

What it isn't desingned to do it so call into question, every mainstream, normal an appropriate photo of a minor by instilling fear that any photo, at any time, no matter how tasteful or innocent, could be declared "indecent" by a jury since in one small fishing village the elders think it inappropriate for a teen model to pout on camera.

You guys are way over the top on this thing.  Statutes are often written vaguely, andperhaps misapplied because of it.  Over time, courts interpret them and then there is guidance.  Thef fact that there are no court decisions tells me that there have been no absurd applications of the law.  Nobody has had to appeal.

It doesn't surprise me that a high school tutor got nailed for shooting a high school student topless.  They also didn't nail him to the corss, they slapped his wrist.  Clearly the system saw a tame topless shot as less serious than child porn.  They brought him before the magistrate to "get his attention."

The statute is written as a "wobbler" for a reason.  If you can show me examples of totally tame, mainstream appropriate images resulting in photographers being prosectued for indecency, then we have something to talk about.  Otherwise, your opinion simply strikes me as "fear mongering." 

Understand, i am flaming neither you, nor John.  Just as my opinion is valid, yours is valid too.  You are entitled to it.  I, for one, am not afraid to work with a teen so long as what I shoot is teen appropriate, I have the parent's consent, and that I comply with all of the labor laws associated with shooting minors.

I am a big boy.  I have beeen doing this for a long time.  I know what you can/should shoot, I know what you cannot/should not shoot.  More importantly, I know those things that approach the borderline as to what is appropriate and what is not.  I make a point of never getting anywhere near that borderline.  So long as I do that, I am never concerned.

Some points:
1. The OP didn't ask about whether this would be a good idea. Nor did he ask whether, if it were illegal, he would get away with it. He asked whether it is illegal in and of itself. Absent actually seeing the shots in question, you can't definitively state that the shots are lawful. As I pointed out, a single indecent frame out of 500 would constitute an offence. Obviously, in such a situation, detection, let alone prosecution, would be a remote possibility. But the question is one of legality, not of punishment.
2. insofar as you suggest that that vague guidance is crystallised by precedent - that's not the case where the meaning of a term is left to the jury.
3. You suggest that there are no court decisions. Absent appeal, a case in the crown court, let alone the magistrates court, is simply not going to be reported.

Efan Bruder wrote:
Americans should probably note (as should Brits, probably) that there really are no legally enforceable rights as Americans know them in the UK.  There is no real constitution, just a vague sense of "this is the way we've always done it."

That's not correct.

Davepit wrote:

Some points:
1. The OP didn't ask about whether this would be a good idea. Nor did he ask whether, if it were illegal, he would get away with it. He asked whether it is illegal in and of itself. Absent actually seeing the shots in question, you can't definitively state that the shots are lawful. As I pointed out, a single indecent frame out of 500 would constitute an offence. Obviously, in such a situation, detection, let alone prosecution, would be a remote possibility. But the question is one of legality, not of punishment.
2. insofar as you suggest that that vague guidance is crystallised by precedent - that's not the case where the meaning of a term is left to the jury.

The OP's a she.

Aoxomedia wrote:

The OP's a she.

Does that detract from my post in any meaningful way?

ei Total Productions wrote:
Understand, i am flaming neither you, nor John.

I know you're not, but a little paranoia is a beneficial thing, especially here in the UK.

Something not mentioned about that case of the university tutor here but which was mentioned in the newspapers at the time... who called in the police? It was the photo lab he used. It could, however, just as easily have been a computer repair shop; or if he had posted the images to a website someone clicking "report this image"; or someone sending a link to the Internet Watch Foundation; or a myriad of other ways that the public can submit reports of such things if their personal moral or religious sensibilities are affronted.

The reference I made to a paediatrician, and this actually happened here, illustrates the kind of ignorant response one can get here from the average, run-of-the-mill, member of the public. A paedophile, a real one, was reported to allegedly be living in a particular neighbourhood and promptly a self-righteous mob formed spontaneously, with such things as metaphorical pitchforks and burning torches, more likely loose bricks and possibly even the odd fire bomb, to attack his house and throw him out of THEIR neighbourhood - but they attacked the wrong house. They beat up the house of a doctor, because they couldn't tell the difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician. When the dust cleared a few members of the press asked some of the participants about why they chose that house. The average response was something along the lines of "Paedophile - paediatrician. Well it's the same thing innit?" - and this is also the average quality of people that will serve on jury duty.

I wouldn't trust them to take out my trash much less judge a question of indecency.

Studio36

Davepit wrote:

Does that detract from my post in any meaningful way?

In a way it does.  It showsumass38lansing

Davepit wrote:
2. insofar as you suggest that that vague guidance is crystallised by precedent - that's not the case where the meaning of a term is left to the jury.

I don't completely agree with that.  If there were no guidlines, whatsoever, you could not give jury instructions.  A good analogy is the "Dost" test here for the term "Lascivious" in the 2256 and 2257 legislation.  It is clearly vague and ambiguious, but over time, the court came up with some guidelines for a jury to use when considering the word.  Eventually, as there are more cases, eentually there will be appeals and the courts will either say that a jury can call anything "indecent" or it will start to put together some guidance as for how the jury is to apply the word.  We haven't gotten tot that point.

Davepit wrote:
3. You suggest that there are no court decisions. Absent appeal, a case in the crown court, let alone the magistrates court, is simply not going to be reported.

Of course that is true, it is no different than lower court rulings here or unpublished appellate decisions.  The absence of published cases, however, clearly suggests that there haven't been any draconian applications of the law.  If a non-sexual bikini shot resulted in prosecution, you would have seen it in the news, and if there was a conviction, it almost certainly would have been appealed. 

Even the case that was used by John isn't draconian.  A guy took topless pictures of a high school student and the lab complained.  the prosecutor could have chosen to seek and indictment, but instead chose to treat it as a misdimeanor.  The court gave him community service.  I see no evidence that anyone tried to "throw the book" at him.

Sometimes the absence of court decisions will either indicate that we have settled law, or that the application, at least thus far, hasn't been controversial.

Show me a news article where someone had been prosecuted for a "vanilla" bikini image and then I will be concerned.

Efan Bruder wrote:
Americans should probably note (as should Brits, probably) that there really are no legally enforceable rights as Americans know them in the UK.  There is no real constitution, just a vague sense of "this is the way we've always done it."

Davepit wrote:
That's not correct.

Davepit is correct, but what is true is that, in some regards, we have a little more structure and more protections in our system than in the UK.  As an example, a judge cannot second guess a prosecutor here.  If you are charged with a misdemeanor, a judge can't change it to a felony (although in the case of a wobbler, the DA can charge it either way at his discretion).  Once a jury is enpanelled here, the charges can't be increased, even by the DA.  Double Jeopardy protects against that.

On the other hand, the UK isn't the wild west either.  There are many, many safeguards.  As an example, John suggested that a magistrate can refer a case to the Crown Court after hearing evidence.  I didn't actually disagree with that.  There are, however, safeguards.  That section is to allow a magistrate to second guess the prosecutor.  If the magistrate thinks the evidence, in a wobbler, should have justified an indictment, he can refer it for indictment.  That doesn't mean that the Crown Court has to agree, and there is a lot of appellate guidance on when and how that power is to be applied.

So, while it is true that our constitution is a bit more protective than the UK, the UK has a sophisticated, Western legal system, which is designed to be fair and protect the rights of the accused.

Hugh Alison wrote:
It would be about as relevant for UK citizens to advise whether a model should pose nude wrapped in an American flag...

Linux99 wrote:
would that really cause problems? fascinated. what would they charge you under?

Under the American flag, of course!

ei Total Productions wrote:
The statute is written as a "wobbler" for a reason.  If you can show me examples of totally tame, mainstream appropriate images resulting in photographers being prosectued for indecency, then we have something to talk about.  Otherwise, your opinion simply strikes me as "fear mongering."

Nobody has said that the OP will be prosecuted for taking clothed glamour images of an underage model. All we are saying is that, by virtue of the "wobbliness" of the legislation as it is written, the possibility exists that she might be. It's up to her to decide whether to take that risk or not. I don't see that as fear-mongering - I see it as providing helpful information in a situation where the OP is clearly entirely clueless as to the legal minefield she may be about to enter.

Personally, I (like most other in my opinion 'sensible' UK photographers) prefer to avoid the issue altogether by only working with 18+ models. They're not exactly hard to find!



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

ei Total Productions wrote:
The statute is written as a "wobbler" for a reason.  If you can show me examples of totally tame, mainstream appropriate images resulting in photographers being prosectued for indecency, then we have something to talk about.  Otherwise, your opinion simply strikes me as "fear mongering."

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
Nobody has said that the OP will be prosecuted for taking clothed glamour images of an underage model. All we are saying is that, by virtue of the "wobbliness" of the legislation as it is written, the possibility exists that she might be. It's up to her to decide whether to take that risk or not. I don't see that as fear-mongering - I see it as providing helpful information in a situation where the OP is clearly entirely clueless as to the legal minefield she may be about to enter.

Personally, I (like most other in my opinion 'sensible' UK photographers) prefer to avoid the issue altogether by only working with 18+ models. They're not exactly hard to find!



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

There are many who are concerned about shooting minors and I understand that.  In doing so, they hold out the law and suggest that, there is a possiblility, however remote, than some bible thumping prosecutor is going to prosecute you for taking a non-sexual, mainstream photo of a minor in a bikini.  I hear these arguments all the time and I respect the decision of those who hold that opinion. 

What I have never seen is a news article, a court case or other credible evidence that it has ever happened in the UK, U.S. or any other modern, western country.  I real a lot of Internet chatter, but I haven't even seen a legal treatise suggesting that it is risky.

Life is full of risks.  There are people who are afraid of shark attacks in the ocean, yet they very rarely occur.  There are people who are afraid of airplanes yet it is afer to fly in a commercial airliner than to walk down the street.  In a thunderstorm, there are people who are afraid of lightning.  Do you know that statistically, you are more likely to be killed from a coconut falling on your head than from being struck by lightning?

I understand risk management.  I, personally, am in the business of making a living by taking pictures.  I have said this before, I know what is clearly legal and what is clearly illegal.  I recognize that there is an area that becomes "grey" and could be illegal under the right circumstances.  I shoot minors all the time.  I am simply smart enough to shoot only that which is clearly legal and avoid both that which is illegal and that which is gray.

ei Total Productions wrote:
I have said this before, I know what is clearly legal and what is clearly illegal.

Not in the UK you don't - and neither does anybody else here, including the prosecuting authorities, as it all rests on the interpretation at trial by the judge or jury of the meaning of the word "indecent" as applied to a single photo up for consideration by that judge/jury in that court on that day.

ei Total Productions wrote:
I shoot minors all the time.  I am simply smart enough to shoot only that which is clearly legal and avoid both that which is illegal and that which is gray.

Again, not in the UK - unless you can read the minds, in advance, of the judge/jury who will be deciding whether your photo is "indecent" or not!

Sure, we're all smart guys here and of course we can all make assumptions about what we feel is "clearly legal" and what is "clearly illegal".... but the whole problem is that these are exactly (and only) that: assumptions.

When not even the police know what is "clearly legal" or not, how much faith are we supposed to have in our assumptions? And when advising somebody else what to do, how ethical would it be to simply say, "well, make an assumption about what you think should be OK and then hope your assumption is correct"?

I'd rather be accused of fear-mongering by advising a cautious approach than give somebody a false sense of security that could land them in jail.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Davepit wrote:

That's not correct.

Really? Point me to the UK Constitution, then. Send me a link to the UK Bill of Rights.

Efan Bruder wrote:
Really? Point me to the UK Constitution, then. Send me a link to the UK Bill of Rights.

Strict answer would to point you to the Acts of Union of 1707 and if you ask any Scots educated lawyer that's exactly what they will do.

English lawyers will point out that a constitution doesn't have to be embodied in a single document (as indeed the US constitution is not - there are numerous ammendments) so will cite a number of sources.

As for a Bill of Rights I would point you to the  European Convention on Human Rights which subsumes the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

ei Total Productions wrote:

I don't completely agree with that.  If there were no guidlines, whatsoever, you could not give jury instructions.  A good analogy is the "Dost" test here for the term "Lascivious" in the 2256 and 2257 legislation.  It is clearly vague and ambiguious, but over time, the court came up with some guidelines for a jury to use when considering the word.  Eventually, as there are more cases, eentually there will be appeals and the courts will either say that a jury can call anything "indecent" or it will start to put together some guidance as for how the jury is to apply the word.  We haven't gotten tot that point.


Of course that is true, it is no different than lower court rulings here or unpublished appellate decisions.  The absence of published cases, however, clearly suggests that there haven't been any draconian applications of the law.  If a non-sexual bikini shot resulted in prosecution, you would have seen it in the news, and if there was a conviction, it almost certainly would have been appealed. 

Even the case that was used by John isn't draconian.  A guy took topless pictures of a high school student and the lab complained.  the prosecutor could have chosen to seek and indictment, but instead chose to treat it as a misdimeanor.  The court gave him community service.  I see no evidence that anyone tried to "throw the book" at him.

Sometimes the absence of court decisions will either indicate that we have settled law, or that the application, at least thus far, hasn't been controversial.

Show me a news article where someone had been prosecuted for a "vanilla" bikini image and then I will be concerned.

Hang on, who said anything about non-sexual shots? As I said, without seeking the actual shots, and with the limited detail given,  you are just hypothesising about whether they will be sexual or not. See my post on the first page.

Efan Bruder wrote:

Really? Point me to the UK Constitution, then. Send me a link to the UK Bill of Rights.

We have an unwritten constitution, and here's the text of the statute called the Bill of Rights.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.as … Id=1518621

Linux99 wrote:

Strict answer would to point you to the Acts of Union of 1707 and if you ask any Scots educated lawyer that's exactly what they will do.

English lawyers will point out that a constitution doesn't have to be embodied in a single document (as indeed the US constitution is not - there are numerous ammendments) so will cite a number of sources.

As for a Bill of Rights I would point you to the  European Convention on Human Rights which subsumes the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

And what force of law do those documents carry? I'm sure not going to hang any legal weight on the EU Convention on Human Rights.  EU countries, the UK especially, have a nice habit of ignoring anything the EU does that they don't like.

The UK doesn't have a constitution protecting the rights of citizens and defining the scope and limits of government.  If they did, they'd likely still have an empire on which the sun does not set.

I would also point out that, given the common law assertion that ignorance of the law is no defense against the law, and the fact that the word indecent is left entirely undefined, or defined so broadly as to be effectively undefined, one might argue that in the case of the UK's indecency laws, it's actually impossible to be anything but ignorant of the law, which is fundamentally unjust, and any rational bar of justice would be compelled on those grounds to nullify the law or refuse to enforce it until the term "indecent" is more clearly and narrowly defined.

But this is treading deeply into soapbox territory, and if I continue my debate on this matter, I'm likely to really step over the line, so I will retire from this line of conversation with the simple suggestion that UK photographers start lobbying hard for a clear, concise definition of indecent.

Efan Bruder wrote:
I will retire from this line of conversation with the simple suggestion that UK photographers start lobbying hard for a clear, concise definition of indecent.

Meh, I can't be bothered.

It's a lot easier to just stick to shooting 18+ models instead



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Efan Bruder wrote:

And what force of law do those documents carry? I'm sure not going to hang any legal weight on the EU Convention on Human Rights.  EU countries, the UK especially, have a nice habit of ignoring anything the EU does that they don't like.

The UK doesn't have a constitution protecting the rights of citizens and defining the scope and limits of government.  If they did, they'd likely still have an empire on which the sun does not set.

I would also point out that, given the common law assertion that ignorance of the law is no defense against the law, and the fact that the word indecent is left entirely undefined, or defined so broadly as to be effectively undefined, one might argue that in the case of the UK's indecency laws, it's actually impossible to be anything but ignorant of the law, which is fundamentally unjust, and any rational bar of justice would be compelled on those grounds to nullify the law or refuse to enforce it until the term "indecent" is more clearly and narrowly defined.

But this is treading deeply into soapbox territory, and if I continue my debate on this matter, I'm likely to really step over the line, so I will retire from this line of conversation with the simple suggestion that UK photographers start lobbying hard for a clear, concise definition of indecent.

The EU convention on human rights became a formal part of UK law (just like any other part) in 1998 by act of parliament.

I'm curious about The UK doesn't have a constitution protecting the rights of citizens and defining the scope and limits of government.  If they did, they'd likely still have an empire on which the sun does not set. though.

Are you saying that the USA's obsession with agressive foreign wars is a result of having a constitution? plausible I suppose though it's a new argument to me.

Jay Kilgore wrote:

Looking at some of the stuff that comes out of the UK, this sounds relatively minor.

However, if you have to ask,maybe it's something you should stay away from? While it might be totally legal, do you want that rep?

Cheers,
Jay Kilgore
http://www.jaykilgore.com | http://www.meetingofthemasters.com

i agree... could very well be so much more headache and heart burn than what it would be worth, even if the mom is there

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
Meh, I can't be bothered.

It's a lot easier to just stick to shooting 18+ models instead



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

I agree. Reading through this thread has kinda altred my opinion on this one.

With criminal trials people say "it's better for 100 guilty men to walk free than 1 innocent man to go to prison".

I'm starting to think that it's better for 100 innocent photographers to miss out on shoots with a 16 year old than 1 girl gets damaged by a perv. Perhaps a dliberately ambiguous law which has people running far into the safe zone is better than something which is razor fine in its definition and which can be loopholed.

Efan Bruder wrote:
Davepit, that could have been a great bill of rights that would have kept the American Colonies, and likely most of the others, happy had it not been for all the clauses that basically say "... unless parliament really wants to."

Linux99, way too political and grossly insulting to boot.  Drop me a pm and I'll be happy to discuss what I really meant (which should be clear from the paragraph above), and debate whatever you like.

Honestly if you're insulted then I sincerly and publicly appologise. You did seem to be having your own little pop at the UK though. Personally I see the loss of the empire as a good thing for human rights.

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
Meh, I can't be bothered.

It's a lot easier to just stick to shooting 18+ models instead



Ciao
Stefano

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.


And right now they're coming for the photographers, but the photographers aren't even willing to stand up for themselves.  What happens if they raise the age to 21? Or to 30? Or 45? If one allows the incremental erosion of essential liberties (and freedom of expression is an essential libery, as is the right to know what is and is not illegal with certainty), one invites, accepts, and even welcomes tyrrany.

Linux99 wrote:
Honestly if you're insulted then I sincerly and publicly appologise. You did seem to be having your own little pop at the UK though. Personally I see the loss of the empire as a good thing for human rights.

Apology accepted wholeheartedly, and I appologize to anyone who felt insulted by my objections to the way the law under discussion was written and the underlying problems with civil rights in the UK that allow such a law was a slight to the UK as a whole.  On the balance, I see the UK as being very much a brother nation, if you will, to the US, one culture having sprung from the other.

Davepit wrote:
Hang on, who said anything about non-sexual shots? As I said, without seeking the actual shots, and with the limited detail given,  you are just hypothesising about whether they will be sexual or not. See my post on the first page.

I think the OP's description was pretty clear of what she intended.  We are just going around in circles.  I think all the points have been made and my position is preety clear so I am, once again, out of here.

Thanks for an interesting and civil discussion.

ei Total Productions wrote:

Jake Garn wrote:
Why did you put indecent in quotes?  The OP never mentioned that he was planning on creating an 'indecent' glamour session... why are you putting words in their mouth?

Your fearmongering is not helpful...

Yes, but nothing in the OP's post suggests that he would be doing anything that might be considered "indecent," even with the vague nature of the statute.

The OP posted to ask if he would be breaking the UK law so he is already wondering where the line is on taking pictures of 16 year old models. No one here is saying the images would be "indecent" what we are saying is the opinion that matters on the images is what the law enforcement people think and the guideline given is so vague that no one can say for sure. If you get someone who is very narrow minded it could wind up costing the OP a lot of time and money to fight charges. If a reporter trying to get publicity could blow this way out using terms like - "the photographer was taking pictures of underage girls in various stages of undress..." When the image was of a 16 year old girl in a bra and jeans.

All well and good to say go for it, but I am not a UK Solicitor. I have lived in the Swansea where the OP is from and I know a little about the area. I would say he should find out more about the local climate for such images. Probably no problem in the south of France or beach communities in So Cal, but get to the US mid west and all bets are off. Get to some communities in the UK it can be the same way.

The end of the day its the OP's choice - I won't tell him he should not do the shoot -its his choice.

Ed Shropshire wrote:
No one here is saying the images would be "indecent" what we are saying is the opinion that matters on the images is what the law enforcement people think and the guideline given is so vague that no one can say for sure.

The problem with this argument is that here, in the US (including So CA), we use the Dost test as a standard. The same standard has been adopted around the world & is the current fuzzy standard that is being referred to here...

It's really not as scary as being made out to be. Don't make teenage genitalia (clothed or not) the focus & you should be ok...

Look here:
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&rlz= … 22&bih=661

This is teenage glamour that is pretty much acceptable in the Western world. There's plenty you can do under the "glamour" genre without being risque'. Stick to that & you'll be ok. Make the shots more fashion style & bras & such are more acceptable...

Paul

ei Total Productions wrote:

ei Total Productions wrote:
I see your arguments as fear mongering and nothing more.

Can you show me one example of anyone being prosecuted for a "run of the mill" shot of a girl in a bikini top and a pair of jeans?   All opinions are valid.  One doesn't need to live in the UK to live in the UK to look at stateues that are being combined to create definitions or inferences that are being misapplied.  It doesn't take an Englander to know that the purpose of the act is to dial things down because Page 3 used to be filled with 16 year olds.

What it isn't desingned to do it so call into question, every mainstream, normal an appropriate photo of a minor by instilling fear that any photo, at any time, no matter how tasteful or innocent, could be declared "indecent" by a jury since in one small fishing village the elders think it inappropriate for a teen model to pout on camera.

You guys are way over the top on this thing.  Statutes are often written vaguely, andperhaps misapplied because of it.  Over time, courts interpret them and then there is guidance.  Thef fact that there are no court decisions tells me that there have been no absurd applications of the law.  Nobody has had to appeal.

It doesn't surprise me that a high school tutor got nailed for shooting a high school student topless.  They also didn't nail him to the corss, they slapped his wrist.  Clearly the system saw a tame topless shot as less serious than child porn.  They brought him before the magistrate to "get his attention."

The statute is written as a "wobbler" for a reason.  If you can show me examples of totally tame, mainstream appropriate images resulting in photographers being prosectued for indecency, then we have something to talk about.  Otherwise, your opinion simply strikes me as "fear mongering." 

Understand, i am flaming neither you, nor John.  Just as my opinion is valid, yours is valid too.  You are entitled to it.  I, for one, am not afraid to work with a teen so long as what I shoot is teen appropriate, I have the parent's consent, and that I comply with all of the labor laws associated with shooting minors.

I am a big boy.  I have beeen doing this for a long time.  I know what you can/should shoot, I know what you cannot/should not shoot.  More importantly, I know those things that approach the borderline as to what is appropriate and what is not.  I make a point of never getting anywhere near that borderline.  So long as I do that, I am never concerned.

Oh so very well said.  I second this motion.

Efan Bruder wrote:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.


And right now they're coming for the photographers, but the photographers aren't even willing to stand up for themselves.  What happens if they raise the age to 21? Or to 30? Or 45? If one allows the incremental erosion of essential liberties (and freedom of expression is an essential libery, as is the right to know what is and is not illegal with certainty), one invites, accepts, and even welcomes tyrrany.

I couldn't agree more. Shoot whatever you want, but to avoid shooting something because you are FEARFUL of your government?  Well... your choice is yours and I respect the freedom that you employ in making that choice, but I have a lot more respect for people that aren't afraid to stand up for themselves. Especially to an out-of-bounds government.

Then again, I'm glad to live in the U.S.... that constitution carries a lot of weight when you get to court.