Paul Brecht wrote:

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

I agree with Paul

Hell, just look at the pre-teen pageants and so forth. Kids dressed up in bikinis and heels.

Not only that but the U.S. Postal service delivers pictures of young girls in bras and panties and bikinis to my mailbox every week. Target ads, Sears, K Mart, etc. Catalogs too.

The alternative is that you could live in a Muslim country and the women are covered from head to toe. You might be happier.

photoimager wrote:
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.

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.

Jake Garn wrote:
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.

Life is short. I prefer to concentrate on achieving my own goals and having fun while I do so rather than getting involved in a crusade that makes very little sense anyway.

Sure, you can always find something that looks like an erosion of liberty and get all worked up and political about it. But the freedom to shoot "glamour" images of 16 year old girls, when there are millions of 18+ models with whom you can shoot whatever you want with no worries? Honestly, it's a "cause" that interests me about as much as a campaign to save the local donkey sanctuary.


Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
...a campaign to save the local donkey sanctuary.

Come on Stefano, donkeys need love too... even the occasional one wielding a camera.   LOL

Studio36

Hugh Alison wrote:
Campaigning for "the freedom to shoot "glamour" images of 16 year old girls" sounds a bit dodgy to me....

Like Stefano says, the world isn't exactly short of over 18s.

It's a bit too pervy to even consider. Especially if you happen to be a paediatrician.  LOL

Studio36

Digital Vinyl wrote:

This is glamour. FHM might as well be porn

And such an image of an under 18 in the UK, might (and I stress might) be declared indecent by a jury, such is the crazy world we live in at the moment.

ei Total Productions wrote:

ei Total Productions wrote:
There has to be a line, whether or not it is bright, and I will stand by my opinion.  a photo of a girl in a bikini top and shorts, unless wildly sexualized, and I emphasize "wildly," is never going to cross that line.

By your logic, a photo of a girl walking her dog in a turtleneck sweater, on a crowded street, with her parents at her side and a nun for good measure, could be construed as indecent and thus an "offence' in the UK.  I am sorry, you are really heading over the top on this one.  I don't want to minimize the draconian nature of the current state of law in the UK as it applies to shooting a minor, but ... your position is simply ridiculous.  I am sorry ... and that is my last word.

There was one key bit missed out, the images have to be considered indecent for an offence to have been committed, and generally a pefectly normal image of a clothed child wouldn't ever be considered indecent , but the big problem in the UK is that there is no formal definition of indecent, and this is quite deliberate.

Digital Vinyl wrote:
This is glamour. FHM might as well be porn

Aethereal Visions wrote:
And such an image of an under 18 in the UK, might (and I stress might) be declared indecent by a jury, such is the crazy world we live in at the moment.

I dion't believe it and that is why there is a disagreement between us. 

First, I don't believe that any prosecutor would ever expend the resources to try to prosecute someone for that image and second I don't believe that he coudl convince a jury that it was indecent.

It is entirely possible that one day, sharks are going to grow lungs and are going to climb up out of the ocean, but I don't expect it to happen any time soon.  The same is true of an indecency conviction for that photo.  I think you are being way too paranoid.

Digital Vinyl wrote:
This is glamour. FHM might as well be porn

Aethereal Visions wrote:
And such an image of an under 18 in the UK, might (and I stress might) be declared indecent by a jury, such is the crazy world we live in at the moment.

I dion't believe it and that is why there is a disagreement between us. 

First, I don't believe that any prosecutor would ever expend the resources to try to prosecute someone for that image and second I don't believe that he coudl convince a jury that it was indecent.

It is entirely possible that one day, sharks are going to grow lungs and are going to climb up out of the ocean, but I don't expect it to happen any time soon.  The same is true of an indecency conviction for that photo.  I think you are being way too paranoid.

ei Total Productions wrote:

Digital Vinyl wrote:
This is glamour. FHM might as well be porn

I dion't believe it and that is why there is a disagreement between us. 

First, I don't believe that any prosecutor would ever expend the resources to try to prosecute someone for that image and second I don't believe that he coudl convince a jury that it was indecent.

It is entirely possible that one day, sharks are going to grow lungs and are going to climb up out of the ocean, but I don't expect it to happen any time soon.  The same is true of an indecency conviction for that photo.  I think you are being way too paranoid.

Unfortunately in the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service regularly expends ridiculous resources prosecuting what any sane individual can clearly see as nonsense, but yes I would hope that no UK jury would convict on such an image, and in truth there an increasing number of Judges who are also taking a more common sense approach so would probably throw such a case out as a waste of time and resources, but that doesn't really help anybody who finds themselves being prosecuted in such a situation as the media would blow things out of all proportion and that persons reputation could be heavily damaged.

You only have to look at the UK police in the way they treat any photography in public at the moment, because any photographer could be a terrorist in their view, despite repeated 'clarification' photographers are still stopped and challenged by police almost daily. Then ask why in the UK parents are prohibited in many cases from taking pictures or video of their own children at school sports days or school plays or concerts - paranoia, unfortunately, plays a pretty big role in UK general life at the moment, not many people like it or agree with it, but it still looms large regardless :-(

Aethereal Visions wrote:
Unfortunately in the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service regularly expends ridiculous resources prosecuting what any sane individual can clearly see as nonsense, but yes I would hope that no UK jury would convict on such an image, and in truth there an increasing number of Judges who are also taking a more common sense approach so would probably throw such a case out as a waste of time and resources, but that doesn't really help anybody who finds themselves being prosecuted in such a situation as the media would blow things out of all proportion and that persons reputation could be heavily damaged.

You only have to look at the UK police in the way they treat any photography in public at the moment, because any photographer could be a terrorist in their view, despite repeated 'clarification' photographers are still stopped and challenged by police almost daily. Then ask why in the UK parents are prohibited in many cases from taking pictures or video of their own children at school sports days or school plays or concerts - paranoia, unfortunately, plays a pretty big role in UK general life at the moment, not many people like it or agree with it, but it still looms large regardless :-(

Several of you keep saying that such a thinkg could happen, I keep asking the same question and nobody has ever answered, can you show me of a case, in any courty, anywhere in the UK where someone has been prosecuted for an image even close to that?  I truly think not, and until it happens, and I don't believe it will, it doesn't matter how many times you tell me that the sky will fall, it hasn't yet.

ei Total Productions wrote:

Several of you keep saying that such a thinkg could happen, I keep asking the same question and nobody has ever answered, can you show me of a case, in any courty, anywhere in the UK where someone has been prosecuted for an image even close to that?  I truly think not, and until it happens, and I don't believe it will, it doesn't matter how many times you tell me that the sky will fall, it hasn't yet.

Due to the very nature of the 'paranoia' such cases, even where they are thrown out, tend never to give details of the images which have led to the prosecution, so no I can't provide details of a case with a similar image to the one shown, and I sincerely hope the chances of such a case would be slim to impossible, but, reasonable or not, there is, as you have noted, a level of paranoia surrounding this subject in the UK that causes many photographers to be wary, rightly or wrongly!

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

if it is allowed in US, it is certainly allowed in the UK... But for best and most reliable answer, speak with an attorney in your area so as to make sure.

Aethereal Visions wrote:

Due to the very nature of the 'paranoia' such cases, even where they are thrown out, tend never to give details of the images which have led to the prosecution, so no I can't provide details of a case with a similar image to the one shown, and I sincerely hope the chances of such a case would be slim to impossible, but, reasonable or not, there is, as you have noted, a level of paranoia surrounding this subject in the UK that causes many photographers to be wary, rightly or wrongly!

I should perhaps add that I photograph children as a primary part of my business, shooting in nursery and pre-schools photographing children from 6 months upwards, and have shot fashion with under 18s with parents/guardians present so I don't let such paranoia stop me from working, but it does make me careful in what I do.

ACPhotography wrote:
Wow... How do all these 16 year old models end up in catalogs if no one will shoot them???

Most catalogs aren't "glamour." 

Advertisements are another matter.

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
Because MM has nothing to do with the real world and photographers who end up getting work in print.
OP its a total waste asking your question here all you will get is rampant paranoia and fear mongering.

Very true. I see these threads all the time and immediately the responses are over-the-top and hysterical.

ei Total Productions wrote:
Several of you keep saying that such a thinkg could happen, I keep asking the same question and nobody has ever answered, can you show me of a case, in any courty, anywhere in the UK where someone has been prosecuted for an image even close to that?  I truly think not, and until it happens, and I don't believe it will, it doesn't matter how many times you tell me that the sky will fall, it hasn't yet.

Aethereal Visions wrote:
Due to the very nature of the 'paranoia' such cases, even where they are thrown out, tend never to give details of the images which have led to the prosecution, so no I can't provide details of a case with a similar image to the one shown, and I sincerely hope the chances of such a case would be slim to impossible, but, reasonable or not, there is, as you have noted, a level of paranoia surrounding this subject in the UK that causes many photographers to be wary, rightly or wrongly!

Except that I am sure that an arrest for something as benign as the image you showed me would have been in the news, certainly on the BBC, and if that incredible, probably here as well.  I have done a search on the Internet of all stories of that kind and can't find a single one.  Don't you think that tells us something?

I will be more concerned if and when it actually happens.  As of now, I don't believe it ever has.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
Do the shot but...

1. Videotape the entire shoot to document what's happened. There's no your-word-against-anyone-else's when there's video.

2. A parent must be present at the shoot.

3. Have your own crew present; a grip, a MUA, etc.

4. Model release signed by the model and her parents...both of them.

5. An underage work permit if needed.

And then you'll be just fine.

and if the video happens to catch a nip slip; or an "upskirt" shot?  Or her clowning around with sexy faces / poses between shots?  Plus, you can't have everything on the video, she has to change clothes off camera.

ei Total Productions wrote:

ei Total Productions wrote:
Several of you keep saying that such a thinkg could happen, I keep asking the same question and nobody has ever answered, can you show me of a case, in any courty, anywhere in the UK where someone has been prosecuted for an image even close to that?  I truly think not, and until it happens, and I don't believe it will, it doesn't matter how many times you tell me that the sky will fall, it hasn't yet.

Except that I am sure that an arrest for something as benign as the image you showed me would have been in the news, certainly on the BBC, and if that incredible, probably here as well.  I have done a search on the Internet of all stories of that kind and can't find a single one.  Don't you think that tells us something?

I will be more concerned if and when it actually happens.  As of now, I don't believe it ever has.

We don't know the 'severity' of the images involved but

http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co. … ticle.html

This sort of case, where either the case is thrown out before or during the trial, or the defendent is found not guilty actually happens reasonably frequently - galleries and museums have been 'raided' a number of times or closed down due to complaints made by a member of the public, often without even seeing the 'offending image' before common sense wins out.

See also

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 … -porn-laws

for an example of the extent of the paranoia surrounding this in the UK.

Aethereal Visions wrote:
We don't know the 'severity' of the images involved but

http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co. … ticle.html

This sort of case, where either the case is thrown out before or during the trial, or the defendent is found not guilty actually happens reasonably frequently - galleries and museums have been 'raided' a number of times or closed down due to complaints made by a member of the public, often without even seeing the 'offending image' before common sense wins out.

See also

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 … -porn-laws

for an example of the extent of the paranoia surrounding this in the UK.

Yes, but that case may explain your paranoia (for lack of knowledge as to what the images were), but ... it says nothing as to whether your paranoia is justified.  From my reading, prosecutors tried hard to build a case against this guy and the judge would have no part of it.  My guess is that the pictures were definitively more than what is being used as an example here.   If anything, it reinforces my belief that an image like the one we were discussing would never even get close to getting there.

I have a silly question, why doesn't someone just show the photo to a couple of prosecutors and ask them their view, i.e. would they prosecute on that image if it were of a 16 year old?

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
Do the shot but...

1. Videotape the entire shoot to document what's happened. There's no your-word-against-anyone-else's when there's video.

2. A parent must be present at the shoot.

3. Have your own crew present; a grip, a MUA, etc.

4. Model release signed by the model and her parents...both of them.

5. An underage work permit if needed.

And then you'll be just fine.

MikeRobisonPhotos wrote:
and if the video happens to catch a nip slip; or an "upskirt" shot?  Or her clowning around with sexy faces / poses between shots?  Plus, you can't have everything on the video, she has to change clothes off camera.

I so agree with you on this.  There is far more danger from the video itself being a problem than the photoshoot.  I would never videotape a shoot to document my conduct.

Baba Dody wrote:
i wonder what the laws say about teenage beach photography. beaches are public places, right ?

i for one was very surprised to see this http://www.google.com.pk/images?q=teens … 24&bih=546

You were surprised to see a google search?

ei Total Productions wrote:

Yes, but that case may explain your paranoia (for lack of knowledge as to what the images were), but ... it says nothing as to whether your paranoia is justified.  From my reading, prosecutors tried hard to build a case against this guy and the judge would have no part of it.  My guess is that the pictures were definitively more than what is being used as an example here.   If anything, it reinforces my belief that an image like the one we were discussing would never even get close to getting there.

I have a silly question, why doesn't someone just show the photo to a couple of prosecutors and ask them their view, i.e. would they prosecute on that image if it were of a 16 year old?

Photographers and others have asked, on occasion, for clear guidelines as to what is/isn't acceptable to be drawn up/published. The Government have very specifically refused to do this. It has been speculated that as this forces photographers to err on the side of caution that this is exactly what the Government want. So whilst your suggestion is emminently sensible, neither the police, nor a solicitor, nor a CPS prosecutor is likely to be willing to give a definitive answer unless the image is very clearly indecent or not.

Going back to the original question, is a photograph of an under 18 in a bikini top or bra likely to be considered indecent in the UK, if shot in a 'fashion' style, as could be seen in a clothes catalogue, then no it wouldn't.

If shot in a 'lads mag' style, with sexy make-up and pout, as suggested by the OP, then most wouldn't find it indecent, but it begins to stray into a deliberately gray area and some might take offence.  Though if the photographer can demonstrate that similar images of under 18s are published regularly in the UK without prosecution then that would provide a reasonably firm basis for being confident that such an image couldn't be taken as indecent.

Aethereal Visions wrote:
Photographers and others have asked, on occasion, for clear guidelines as to what is/isn't acceptable to be drawn up/published. The Government have very specifically refused to do this. It has been speculated that as this forces photographers to err on the side of caution that this is exactly what the Government want. So whilst your suggestion is emminently sensible, neither the police, nor a solicitor, nor a CPS prosecutor is likely to be willing to give a definitive answer unless the image is very clearly indecent or not.

Here, I assure you, photographers have been threatened with arrest, or ejected from some places, for taking ANY photos of children, e.g. in parks and play grounds. Even their OWN children or in some instances their OWN grandchildren. Usually it is the case that these are not pros but just ordinary folks who are, from the git-go, put at the disadvantage, in the face of whatever "authority" figure is challenging them, of not knowing what their rights are.

Believe it or not you don't even have to be deliberately taking pictures of children... you could be taking pictures of flowers but where some "authority" thinks you MIGHT capture an image of a person - of any age - while you are doing it. And this is right now - Aug 26 2010

LINK - pictures of flowers in the park

Studio36

Aethereal Visions wrote:
If shot in a 'lads mag' style, with sexy make-up and pout, as suggested by the OP, then most wouldn't find it indecent, but it begins to stray into a deliberately gray area and some might take offence.  Though if the photographer can demonstrate that similar images of under 18s are published regularly in the UK without prosecution then that would provide a reasonably firm basis for being confident that such an image couldn't be taken as indecent.

If we are talking about nothing more than a put, you have to stretch the imagination very far to get it close to indecent.  I do, however, agree that there are plenty of things that you can do in a bikini that could potentially cross the line, I just thienk the OP is talking well to the left of center.

studio36uk wrote:

Here, I assure you, photographers have been threatened with arrest, or ejected from some places, for taking ANY photos of children, e.g. in parks and play grounds. Even their OWN children or in some instances their OWN grandchildren. Usually it is the case that these are not pros but just ordinary folks who are, from the git-go, put at the disadvantage, in the face of whatever "authority" figure is challenging them, of not knowing what their rights are.

Studio36

saw this on the web and posted as a separate thread:
man in conn. arrested for youtube of 8 year old cursing...'encouraged the boys immorality'.

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
Life is short. I prefer to concentrate on achieving my own goals and having fun while I do so rather than getting involved in a crusade that makes very little sense anyway.

Sure, you can always find something that looks like an erosion of liberty and get all worked up and political about it. But the freedom to shoot "glamour" images of 16 year old girls, when there are millions of 18+ models with whom you can shoot whatever you want with no worries? Honestly, it's a "cause" that interests me about as much as a campaign to save the local donkey sanctuary.


Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

I don't disagree with you, except no crusade is needed.  Shooting models under 18 is not filled with the legal problems you're imagining, it's done every day and the images are published throughout the world. Avoiding it because you're fearful of unused potential powers of an oppressive government just seems beyond silly to me.  Practically and philosophically. 

As far as shooting girls over 18 eliminating all potential problems and legal trouble?  It doesn't. Rare problems can crop up there too.

studio36uk wrote:
And there are tons more stories just like those...

Park attendants ordered to interrogate adults spotted without children

10th September 2008

[Telford Town Park in Shropshire]
Park wardens have been ordered to stop and interrogate anyone who is not accompanied by children.

The visitors who are quizzed have to explain their presence and risk being thrown out or reported to police if their answers are not satisfactory....



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … z0y86qVtEs

---

Father-of-three branded a 'pervert' - for photographing his own children in public park

16.07.08



When Gary Crutchley started taking pictures of his children playing on an inflatable slide he thought they would be happy reminders of a family day out.

But the innocent snaps of seven-year-old Cory, and Miles, five, led to him being called a ‘pervert’.

The woman running the slide at Wolverhampton Show asked him what he was doing and other families waiting in the queue demanded that he stop.

One even accused him of photographing youngsters to put the pictures on the internet.

Mr Crutchley, 39, who had taken pictures only of his own children, was so enraged that he found two policemen who confirmed he had done nothing wrong.

Yesterday he said: ‘What is the world coming to when anybody seen with a camera is assumed to be doing things that they should not?

‘This parental paranoia is getting completely out of hand. I was so shocked. One of the police officers told me that it was just the way society is these days. He agreed with me that it was madness.’ ...

---

And then there are those like "biker dude" in this other thread who are offended by something that they are not part of and that does not / should not concern them at all in the first place. That is called "offence by proxy" and is likely to happen in a case where events / images are seen by a total stranger - - -  like those that might be the subject of the OP's question, and then where the "offended", rightly or wrongly, takes it upon themselves to complain.

AND, it is a virtual certainty they they WILL do it here in the UK if it involves images of "children" [or someone who looks young enough to be one]

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=624520

---

Studio36

umm this last post kinda/sorta proves everyone else's point. there are idiots everywhere.  but this guy just went up to the police and the police sided with him. 

I come from the province where a couple lost their kids for three (3) months and spent overnight in jail for having the audacity to take pics of their 2-3 year old children naked in the tub.  The local supermarket film lab reported them. yes film. It happened 20 years ago.  You can find examples of extreme behaviour every where in the world if you look for it and ...if it finds you... sucks to be you... but to live  your life in unreasonable fear of an improbable outcome seems totally fear mongering.
sorry.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
umm this last post kinda/sorta proves everyone else's point. there are idiots everywhere.  but this guy just went up to the police and the police sided with him. 

I come from the province where a couple lost their kids for three (3) months and spent overnight in jail for having the audacity to take pics of their 2-3 year old children naked in the tub.  The local supermarket film lab reported them. yes film. It happened 20 years ago.  You can find examples of extreme behaviour every where in the world if you look for it and ...if it finds you... sucks to be you... but to live  your life in unreasonable fear of an improbable outcome seems totally fear mongering.
sorry.

I've seen the same happen before as well, where the police approached it that way but the ordinary public did not, with innocent images... and where the police could see there was nothing iffy about what was shot. I assure you that TODAY had there been more doubtful material as in your example, and your example is a perfect one from 20 years ago, it would have been a different story completely here in Ol' Blighty [and in the US as well].

Studio36

StaceyMarie-Retouch wrote:
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

Is what allowed?

Jake Garn wrote:

I don't disagree with you, except no crusade is needed.  Shooting models under 18 is not filled with the legal problems you're imagining, it's done every day and the images are published throughout the world. Avoiding it because you're fearful of unused potential powers of an oppressive government just seems beyond silly to me.  Practically and philosophically. 

As far as shooting girls over 18 eliminating all potential problems and legal trouble?  It doesn't. Rare problems can crop up there too.

+1

Aethereal Visions wrote:

And such an image of an under 18 in the UK, might (and I stress might) be declared indecent by a jury, such is the crazy world we live in at the moment.

It must be said that you statement is stupid. what you said is not true. please post a case where this has happened in the U.K. and I'll give you your might but until then you're not well informed.

safe as houses wrote:
It must be said that you statement is stupid. what you said is not true. please post a case where this has happened in the U.K. and I'll give you your might but until then you're not well informed.

Have you read the thread ?. Examples have been given. You are not in the UK, please do not tell us what hasn't / has happened here.