Clyph wrote:
Only because we've artificially redefined "childhood" in a way that completely flies in the face of both biology and history.   
Biologically speaking, humans reach sexual maturity in their early teens.

Historically speaking, up until the early 20th century, virtually every culture on the planet defined adulthood as starting between 13 and 15.   You can see the legacy of this in religious coming-of-age ceremonies.  In English Common law, the age of discretion was 14

The "hyper-sexualized" teens you're upset about would have been married and starting families for the vast majority of human history.

True, however, we don't live in a world where mores are defined by biology.

We live in very contradictory times.  Look at pop culture icons.  At the moment, someone like Miley Cyrus comes to mind.  We're not supposed to look at teens as being sexual creatures, yet they are paraded as such.  A young woman 100 years ago wasn't parading around in a corset and panties on a stage, flaunting her goodies to the masses (that's my perspective on modern girls being exposed to hyper-sexuality.)

It's also a fact that menses occurred at a later age 100 years ago, too.  We've got girls who are "open for business", biologically speaking, before we can even call them "teens".  Personally, I think that's why the laws have gotten so out of hand.  Parents, in particular, don't want to accept the fact that their little girls aren't "little girls".

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
As for your assertion that a picture of a topless teenage girl is not sexual as long as she's under 18 - I've never heard so much nonsense in my life. Human beings have evolved to mate with fertile members of the opposite sex as soon as they become sexually mature - ie. at puberty. However much you might feel offended by that, the fact remains that any female who is sexually mature will automatically be sexually attractive to members of the opposite sex, of almost any age.

Honestly, I don't think he's "offended" by it.  He's just being careful to avoid being viewed in a "certain" light. 

I love those times in life when someone is so full of shit that they can be smelled from states away. 

William Steel wrote:

Well, interesting input on the situation.  Care to elaborate? 

*eyeroll*

Ken Pegg wrote:
Write to the editor of H&E and ask his advice. Maybe he will offer to publish them.

I am a regular contributor to H&E Naturist and I can tell you that they do not publish photos of anyone under 18.
Currently they are now mostly only using 'implied' nude photos too.

Some non-UK magazines do publish photos of all ages (Canada I think does).

The Protection of Children Act, as amended by the Sexual Offences Act says making an indecent photograph of a minor (i.e. anyone under 18) an offence. The act does not define indecent though. It could well be possible that a clothed shot might be ruled as indecent by a court.

Daeda1us wrote:
Check out the recent advert that was banned in UK with Dakota Fanning as a model for a perfume.
http://www.eonline.com/news/dakota_fann … ive/274134

Please note: Dakota is 17, is not nude or topless.  Nor is she depicted engaging in sexual or implied sexual activity.

The UK's Advertizing Standards Authority pulled the add because she "appeared to be under 16" and they found the image "sexually provocative", drawing "attention to her sexuality".

I find this ad inappropriate!

She's intentionally made to look like a "Lolita" and has a phallus shaped object between her legs!!

What did you expect was going to happen??

This image is totally *inappropriate* in general, *AND* FOR THIS THREAD!

Nudism/Naturism has nothing to do with "sex" or being "provocative".  Quite the opposite, it's about being NATURAL and COMFORTABLE in your own skin, not wearing "fashion" -- and I think sometimes *THAT* is the biggest thing the "establishment" has against it at any age!

Scott

Dana LL wrote:
Get a contract written, and the parents to sign. Most importantly, have a concept that is soft, and not sexual. Parents on site during the shoot. Just general precautions after that. Good luck!

None of which will protect the photographer if someone considers an image taken to be indecent. Also, since the minor ( under 18 ) is too young to enter into a contract they can revoke the contract when they turn 18.

studio36uk wrote:
Here's a little observation for those who have said that the girl is not mature enough to decide. This is the position in the UK on that:
16 is the age of sexual consent - a girl of 16+1 day can have sexual relations, on their own decision, with anyone they choose, even a 40, 50 or 60 year old.

Unless that older person is someone who on a regular basis works with young people, such as a teacher or youth worker. In that situation the younger person has to be 18+.  UK

studio36uk wrote:
Here's a little observation for those who have said that the girl is not mature enough to decide. This is the position in the UK on that:

16 is the age of sexual consent - a girl of 16+1 day can have sexual relations, on their own decision, with anyone they choose, even a 40, 50 or 60 year old. Legally their parents have nothing at all to say about it. And legally the reverse is just as true - the 40, 50, 60 year old has nothing to fear from the law if they have a relationship with a 16+1 day year old.

SO - - -

You can f**k their little brains silly you just can't take their picture while they are doing it. They can't take their own picture while they are doing it.

ALTERNATIVELY  - - - for instance

You could go to nude beach and watch, in the flesh so to speak, all the naked U-16's there to your heart's content. Taking pictures of them is a whole other thing, altogether.

The law may be, as the expression goes, an ass, but it is the law.

Studio36

this is what i do not understand you can have a relationship with someone
wayy older but you cant take pictures thats really silly

-L- wrote:
this is what i do not understand you can have a relationship with someone way older but you cant take pictures thats really silly

Until an ammendment was made to the 2003 act it was unlawful for a married couple aged between 16 an 18 to have 'indecent' photos of each other. They could be put on the sex offenders register for this !. Now they must not be shared with anyone.

photoimager wrote:

Until an ammendment was made to the 2003 act it was unlawful for a married couple aged between 16 an 18 to have 'indecent' photos of each other. They could be put on the sex offenders register for this !. Now they must not be shared with anyone.

oh right i dont no about any of this.. but i just think its stupid
people are weird about topless pictures but you can sleep
with someone whos like 30 + :l

photoimager wrote:
Unless that older person is someone who on a regular basis works with young people, such as a teacher or youth worker. In that situation the younger person has to be 18+.  UK

True but that is an exception to the rule, it is not the rule itself. It would also not apply where that older person is not in a "relationship" with a younger person directly or indirectly under their care and / or control. Just being a person who merely works in a teaching, social work, medical, ect., environment is not sufficient to trigger that exception.

Studio36

-L- wrote:
this is what i do not understand you can have a relationship with someone
wayy older but you cant take pictures thats really silly

One could aptly describe it as a "legal absurdity." True.

Studio36

photoimager wrote:

-L- wrote:
this is what i do not understand you can have a relationship with someone way older but you cant take pictures thats really silly

Until an ammendment was made to the 2003 act it was unlawful for a married couple aged between 16 an 18 to have 'indecent' photos of each other. They could be put on the sex offenders register for this !. Now they must not be shared with anyone.

That is also quite correct. The 2003 Act was an attempt to deal with the former hodgepodge of bizarre, sometimes even conflicting but mostly diverging in equality, laws made piecemeal over many years.

Typical of that situation was the stance on M-M gay sex. It started out being completely unlawful and criminal, then when first decriminalised the age of consent was set at 21, then again, later, to 18, ultimately to 16. Meanwhile, F-F gay relationships were never specifically unlawful, and the age of consent was set to 16 for many many years prior to the equalisation of the M-M age of consent.

Studio36

-L- wrote:

oh right i dont no about any of this.. but i just think its stupid
people are weird about topless pictures but you can sleep
with someone whos like 30 + :l

start a separate thread about 17 year olds sleeping with the over 30 set lol

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

start a separate thread about 17 year olds sleeping with the over 30 set lol

why ?

-L- wrote:
why ?

doubles the drama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  have you seen how opinionated everyone has been on here and how absolute?

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

doubles the drama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  have you seen how opinionated everyone has been on here and how absolute?

no i do not think i ampatient enough to read through all this thread
it is quite long , and i dont understand some of the stuff people
wrote, but i still think what i said is funny .

besides dramalamas are no fun

Edward Guymer wrote:
*reads some UK laws*...OK, so the main reference I can find to this is in the "Protection of Children Act 1978" which refers to "indecent photographs of children". It has no clear definition (or usable definition) of indecent; but it does define a someone under the age of 16

See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/37/section/7 for details

However, reading the law and enforcing the law are two distinctly different things and unless anyone here on this thread is a lawyer, we cannot offer advice.  That being said, from a layman's perspective, unless the laws are completely different across the pond, if you are not legally able to enter into a contract, you are not at the age of majority.  Plus 16 is just weird no matter how you cut it for topless shots.  I figure this is a budding barrister's dream case to cut their teeth on.  Plus toss in the laser focus this would get because it deals in "artistic expression...."  Don't do it.

JohnTaylor wrote:
You never know what the future holds. Ten years from now, a new, hardline regime may be in power in the UK, and they may enact child pornography laws similar to those in the US. They may retroactively bust you even though it would have been legal when you took the pictures. With the digital platform, everybody's a photographer. Guide them if you wish, but, for the most part, I agree with the Alberta photographer--walk away from that one.

nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege

Have ou ever heard of this? You cant be penaly punished retroactively, with a new law over acts that were legal in the past...

-L- wrote:
this is what i do not understand you can have a relationship with someone
wayy older but you cant take pictures thats really silly

Lawmakers often get silly when it comes to "sex, minors & co"...

Like something even more silly?

By German law "child" is defined by "age under 14". Children (= people younger than 14 years) are non-accountable for any violation of criminal laws. Nada.

By German law it is a crime to have sex with a child.

Now imagine two teenagers - both 13 years old. One of them is born on February, 1st, one is born on May, 1st.

These teenagers are friends and have a sexual relationship. You may say: a little bit early but that's not the point here. There are 13 years old teenagers who have sex. In Germany, in the US, in the UK. (In some countries they are married and have children, by the way...)

Okay. They live in Germany. They have sex. Because each of them have sex with a child (person younger than 14) they break the law and commit a crime - but because the are non-accountable because of their age they cannot and will not by prosecuted.

Now comes the 1st of February...

Until 23:59 hrs on the 31th of January those teenagers may have sex without getting prosecuted. But from 00:01 hrs on the 1st of February the older one is accountable for commiting crimes. So if he or she does not stop sex at midnight this day he or she faces to be charged for child abuse... No way out.

So for the next three month our teenage couple have to live in celibate.

Until the night of April, 30th. At midnight they legally may resume their sexual relationship.

Just to give an example for "silly legal framework".

TomFRohwer wrote:

Lawmakers often get silly when it comes to "sex, minors & co"...

Like something even more silly?

By German law "child" is defined by "age under 14". Children (= people younger than 14 years) are non-accountable for any violation of criminal laws. Nada.

By German law it is a crime to have sex with a child.

Now imagine two teenagers - both 13 years old. One of them is born on February, 1st, one is born on May, 1st.

These teenagers are friends and have a sexual relationship. You may say: a little bit early but that's not the point here. There are 13 years old teenagers who have sex. In Germany, in the US, in the UK. (In some countries they are married and have children, by the way...)

Okay. They live in Germany. They have sex. Because each of them have sex with a child (person younger than 14) they break the law and commit a crime - but because the are non-accountable because of their age they cannot and will not by prosecuted.

Now comes the 1st of February...

Until 23:59 hrs on the 31th of January those teenagers may have sex without getting prosecuted. But from 00:01 hrs on the 1st of February the older one is accountable for commiting crimes. So if he or she does not stop sex at midnight this day he or she faces to be charged for child abuse... No way out.

So for the next three month our teenage couple have to live in celibate.

Until the night of April, 30th. At midnight they legally may resume their sexual relationship.

Just to give an example for "silly legal framework".

I've had an idea for a shoot on similar lines etc. It would involve 2 shots, the first would be of a sweet and innocent looking girl, the clock in the background would say 11:59. The second shot would be of the same girl with a cigarette in one hand, a bottle in the other and completely naked - 12:01 on the clock - the caption would be 'Happy 18th Birthday' - The tricky thing is I can't put a casting call on this or other web sites as I am asking a 17 year old to agree to do nude even though she would be 18 when she actually gets naked (I know I could use an 18 year old or older but would love to actually do it 'for real' on the girl's birthday!!

Nyctiphaes wrote:
nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege

Have ou ever heard of this? You cant be penaly punished retroactively, with a new law over acts that were legal in the past...

Wanna bet? Here in the UK that discussion has already been undertaken ad nauseum, and it is settled law - - -

Say you acquire an "indecent" image of a "child", an antique original print, that was made, let's say in the year 1885, long, LONG before any of these laws were on the books. You didn't make it and the photographer is long dead and buried... what sort of problem might you have with that?

They couldn't charge you with making the initial image -BUT- they could charge you with "making an indecent image of a child" on any account of any modern contemporary copy you made, even if you merely scanned the original photograph into your computer;

They would still have a charge available, even if not charged on making the original or a copy, because mere possession of the original image, no matter how old it might be, is also an offence. So you will get charged with possession of it, at the very least;

Either way you're f**ked!

When these modern laws were in-between their date of passage and the date they were to come into effect, usually a period of 6 months -  museums, libraries and archivists moved out of the UK many old, antique, scientifically, artistically and socially valuable images of children in their collections that might have been seen in these new legal frameworks to be "indecent". In every other case self-elected destruction was what was expected, and anticipated, in terms of the new laws.

What became a really bizarre case in point was that, when the Protection of Children Act was first passed there was no exception provided for the police of the Crown prosecutor's office to be in possession of such images even in the course of an investigation or prosecution. The law had to be swiftly amended to even allow that.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
Wanna bet? Here in the UK that discussion has already been undertaken ad nauseum, and it is settled law - - -

Say you acquire an "indecent" image of a "child", an antique original print, that was made, let's say in the year 1885, long, LONG before any of these laws were on the books. You didn't make it and the photographer is long dead and buried... what sort of problem might you have with that?

They couldn't charge you with making the initial image -BUT- they could charge you with "making an indecent image of a child" it on any account of any modern contemporary copy you made, even if you merely scanned the original photograph into your computer;

They would still have a charge available, even if not charged on making the original or a copy, because mere possession of the original image, no matter how old it might be, is also an offence. So you will get charged with possession of it, at the very least;

Either way you're f**ked!

When these modern laws were in-between their date of passage and the date they were to come into effect, usually a period of 6 months -  museums, libraries and archivists moved out of the UK many old, antique, scientifically, artistically and socially valuable images of children in their collections that might have been seen in these new legal frameworks to be "indecent". In every other case self-elected destruction was what was expected, and anticipated, in terms of the new laws.

What became a really bizarre case in point was that, when the Protection of Children Act was first passed there was no exception provided for the police of the Crown prosecutor's office to be in possession of such images even in the course of an investigation or prosecution. The law had to be swiftly amended to even allow that.

Studio36

I agree with what you are saying, but not how you are saying it.  If I took a photo, in 1971, of a 15 year old nude, I can't be prosecuted today for having taken then, even if the photo would be illegal by today's standard (but legal to take back then).   The law cannot be retroactive.

On the other hand, if I make a copy of that photo, today, I can be prosecuted for production of child pornography.  I can be charged with the current act, by making the duplicate.

Likewise, there are laws covering posession of child pornography.  So, while it may have been legal to have taken the photo then, if the image is illegal now, I can be charged with posession now.

In neither case am I being charged with a crime retroactively.  In neither case and I being charged with an act I did back then. 

It is no different than gun laws in the U.S.  As an example, in most cases, it is illegal for a felon to own a handgun (and in some states, even a rifle).  That hasn't always been true.  So if a felon purchased a gun before the law went into efffect, he can never be charged with making an unlawful purchase.  On the other hand, since it is now illegal for a felon to posess the handgun.  To be in compliance with the law he would have been obligated to dispose of the gun. 

If he were in possession of the handgun now, he would be in violation of the current law prohibiting possession.

So both of you have valid points.  A criminal statute cannot be passed which is retroactive.  On the other hand, that doesn't mean that a current law cannot be passed which would affect you.

Efan Bruder wrote:
My takeaway from all this (and really every post like it) is that:
......
B- Y'all in the UK might seriously want to consider adopting a real constitution with an enforceable bill of rights, including freedom of speech. In the US your law would be thrown out on its ear for being overly broad and ill-worded.

Believe it or not, most people in the UK are not intent on breaking this law, despite what the Daily Rags might imply. So the apparent mess is not relevant for most people. There are more important things in life than this. I do not see where US / UK 'freedom of speach' differs, other than our not having locked up people in my lifetime because of their views on racial equality.

ei Total Productions wrote:
So both of you have valid points.  A criminal statute cannot be passed which is retroactive.  On the other hand, that doesn't mean that a current law cannot be passed which would affect you.

No disagreement with that at all. As mere possession is an offence then it doesn't matter when or by whom the image was made. Making a new copy is also an offence. Giving/providing access to the original or a copy to anyone else is also an offence [distribution], and on and on.

Studio36