Maja Stina wrote:
In the UK, you can shoot topless at 16+ provided it's not shot in a sexual way. But having said that, you wouldn't be able to use those images online, of course.

It's fine to do glamour and stuff so long as she's not topless or showing anything.

However, I'd not be bothered with the hassle of shooting a minor and I'd just work with someone 18+ to save dramas.

Hell, you can shoot full nudes AT ANY AGE provided they are not shot "in a sexual way" but I guarantee there are courts and juries in this country that would send you to prison for it, while in another court on another day with a different jury they would turn you loose for exactly the same image(s).

The actual standard is "indecent" [nothing at all to do with: "shot in a sexual way"] and what is "indecent", because it is not defined in law, is an issue of fact that is left to the courts and / or a jury.

Unless you fancy sharing a small locked room [cell] with one or more big, likely ugly, possibly smelly, and probably very horny, room mates it is better to just steer clear of the whole idea. [In your case, Maja, that would be big women with short hair and sensible shoes ]

You have been warned!

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

Hell, you can shoot full nudes AT ANY AGE provided they are not shot "in a sexual way" but I guarantee there are courts and juries in this country that would send you to prison for it, while in another court on another day with a different jury they would turn you loose for exactly the same image(s).

The actual standard is "indecent" [nothing at all to do with: "shot in a sexual way"] and what is "indecent", because it is not defined in law, is an issue of fact that is left to the courts and / or a jury.

Unless you fancy sharing a small locked room [cell] with one or more big, likely ugly, possibly smelly, and probably very horny, room mates it is better to just steer clear of the whole idea. [In your case, Maja, that would be big women with short hair and sensible shoes ]

You have been warned!

Studio36

Didn't the Sun have 16 year old girls on Page 3 until recently?

David-Thomas wrote:
Didn't the Sun have 16 year old girls on Page 3 until recently?

Not since the law changed in 2003. That changed a lot of things which it seems as though a lot of people do not realise the full implications of.

David-Thomas wrote:
Didn't the Sun have 16 year old girls on Page 3 until recently?

Absolutely.  Indeed, many of the Page 3 girls were only 16 and 17 in the past. You will notice that they were all taken down a few years ago.

It was a result of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 along with the Children Act 1976 .

The net result was that the UK adopted a murky standard called "indecent" in which it became unlawful to produce or publish indecent images of a minor.  The problem is that the law didn't define what indecent meant.  It was deliberately left up to the decision of a jury.

So, while a topless shot might be perfectly legal in one court, you might end up in jail in another.  All of the under aged Page 3 girls were removed, and no new ones have been shot since nobody really wants to be the test case to see how the term will eventually shake out.

ei Total Productions wrote:
Absolutely.  Indeed, many of the Page 3 girls were only 16 and 17 in the past. You will notice that they were all taken down a few years ago.

It was a result of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 along with the Children Act 1976 .

The net result was that the UK adopted a murky standard called "indecent" in which it became unlawful to produce or publish indecent images of a minor.  The problem is that the law didn't define what indecent meant.  It was deliberately left up to the decision of a jury.

So, while a topless shot might be perfectly legal in one court, you might end up in jail in another.  All of the under aged Page 3 girls were removed, and no new ones have been shot since nobody really wants to be the test case to see how the term will eventually shake out.

So does that mean I go to prison if I don't destroy my collection of back issues of the Sun? And what about the poor librarians? They won't last a day in the nick.

David-Thomas wrote:

So does that mean I go to prison if I don't destroy my collection of back issues of the Sun? And what about the poor librarians? They won't last a day in the nick.

Possibly, and that is the problem. The situation is not defined.

WMcK wrote:

Possibly, and that is the problem. The situation is not defined.

I'll warn Mrs Smith.

Leah-A wrote:
You asked exactly the same question in Oct 2010 twice

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st14051901

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st14051866

?

maybe the girls are 18+ now.  maybe.

David-Thomas wrote:

Didn't the Sun have 16 year old girls on Page 3 until recently?

No, though the News of the World did some years ago.

To pose topless for newspaper/magazine/website in the UK, the law stipulates the model must be 18. Though I can't say when the change was implemented, it was definitely raised from 16 to 18.

David-Thomas wrote:
Didn't the Sun have 16 year old girls on Page 3 until recently?

Nope, the Sun, Sport, and their ilk stopped that completely as of ca April 2004 [whatever the exact date was that the SOA2003 came into effect]

AFAIK none of them wanted to be the test case on topless P-3 images and indecency with U-18 models.

If, per chance, they have done it has apparently not come to official notice, but that would be only one person's complaint away, as you well know.

Studio36

ei Total Productions wrote:
The net result was that the UK adopted a murky standard called "indecent" in which it became unlawful to produce or publish indecent images of a minor.  The problem is that the law didn't define what indecent meant.  It was deliberately left up to the decision of a jury. ...

"Murky" makes complete sense when you consider that the statute was written by - - - lawyers.   

M'Lord, I would like to introduce into evidence these 27 8x10 glossy photographs, with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one..... [with a tip of the ol' hat to Arlo Guthrie]  ROTFLMAO

Studio36

Leah-A wrote:
You asked exactly the same question in Oct 2010 twice

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st14051901

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st14051866

?

Possibly, he hopes that if he keeps asking eventually he will get a different answer.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

Possibly, he hopes that if he keeps asking eventually he will get a different answer.

Studio36

He probably will if he is referring to the same models who may be over 18 now!

studio36uk wrote:

Possibly, he hopes that if he keeps asking eventually he will get a different answer.

Studio36

uh yea somehow i don't think he's coming back .......till 2012 to ask again .

David-Thomas wrote:
And what about the poor librarians?

Public libraries had to clear any stock that might be interpreted as being unacceptable. The age of the person now does not matter, when the image was taken is what matters.

photoimager wrote:

Public libraries had to clear any stock that might be interpreted as being unacceptable. The age of the person now does not matter, when the image was taken is what matters.

Why does the date at which the image was taken matter? If it's child porn, it's child porn.

And no, most public libraries don't examine their newspaper archives for unacceptable material. And I could go get any issue of the Sun from the British library tomorrow (well, on tuesday - tomorrow is a holiday)

David-Thomas wrote:
Why does the date at which the image was taken matter? If it's child porn, it's child porn.

Er, agreed, I presume you missed my implied 'the age' after the comma:

photoimager wrote:
The age of the person now does not matter, when the image was taken is what matters.

photoimager wrote:
The parallel thread in General from the OP has gone off on all sorts of tangents.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=645141

Dual posting of threads, is that allowed ?

That thread ^^^^ was started last year - 2010

Studio36