Izzy D wrote:
You can do an underwear shot if your under 18 just depends on how comfortable you feel about it.

I'm totally cool with doing one, I want to do pinup when Im old enough anyways (:

Kevin Connery wrote:
Yes you can, but it's a complicated issue.

How complicated? (:

xKittyx wrote:

Kevin Connery wrote:
Yes you can, but it's a complicated issue.

How complicated? (:

Because there are so many people who believe there is a law against it, or that there really, really ought to be one, photographers have been arrested when doing something entirely legal. It's expensive to fight, and, even if they win--heck, even if they're just accused, they will get labeled as a 'child pornographer'--even if there wasn't anything resembling that in the slightest.

High risk.

Read through some of the threads above for some examples of when/how it's legal (and where/when/how it's not), and how some people don't seem to care what the laws actually say, and go by what they want it to have said..

Martin Philippo wrote:
I saw you are from Wales and not living in the USA. That would make things  different.
People in Europe are not half as paranoid about these things as they are in the USA.

Wales is part of the UK where the authorities are indeed paranoid about these things (mainly for political reasons).

Nudity is not the issue - but 'indecency' is.

Although it's technically legal to photograph the OP in underwear (or even nude) at any age, as she's under 18 any photographer who does so runs the risk of some interfering busybody claiming that the photos are 'indecent' and therefore fall foul of the Protection of Children Act.

If found guilty under this law (judged on the basis if whether the photos are 'indecent' or not - a word which has no legal definition in the UK - by a local judge or maybe a jury of 12 random members of the public) the photographer faces jail time and automatic inclusion on the Sex Offenders register.

Therefore, unless the shoot is for a large client, with an agency model, most photographers with any sense will not touch it with a bargepole and neither should they.

Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Stefano Brunesci Beauty wrote:
Therefore, unless the shoot is for a large client, with an agency model, most photographers with any sense will not touch it with a bargepole and neither should they.

Ciao
Stefano

The model enters the world of "victimhood"; whilst the photographer enters the world of "porridge".

No barge pole is anywhere near long enough, Stefano.

Frankly, I would shoot a minor completely nude on a nudist beach in the company of other naked people [in context] albeit not alone even in that setting, before I would ever shoot one in underware in ANY setting. The idiocy of the law is that you can quite legally have sex with a 16 y/o but you just better not take their picture in the process.

Studio36

Kevin Connery wrote:
Yes you can, but it's a complicated issue.

Certain kinds of photography of minors are unlawful--some clothed, and some unclothed.
Certain kinds of photography of minors are lawful--some clothed, and some unclothed.

In most situations, lingerie falls into the large gray area.

There are many instances where unlawful activities are widely accepted (e.g. speeding, changing lanes without signaling, tax evasion, copyright violations), and many instances where lawful activities are anathema (or are proclaimed to be anathema...) to many (e.g. adultery, adult pornography).

This is an area where many peoples' beliefs are at odds with the law, yet many of them insist that There Is A Law, apparently because they feel there should be one.

Some people will insist that it's always against the law. That's rarely correct: there are many situations where it's perfectly legal--but there is a social aspect which fits the above 'there oughta be a law' approach.

That said, other than commercial use for catalogs, magazines and such, you're going to find it difficult to find a photographer willing to take the social risks.


MM Threads about Minors modeling Nude, Implied, in Swimwear or Lingerie, or Similar
Photography Talk > Need advice for underage shoot (Miley Cyrus/Vanity Fair-style)
General Industry > Minors shooting lignerie? General Industry > Underage models. (“sexy” photos requested by model)
General Industry > Suggested nudes (…of an underage model)
General Industry > Underage Model (Suicide girl-style, 5+ pages)
General Industry > Implied nude with minors? (5+ pages)
General Industry > Photographing Nude Minors...... (5+ pages)
General Industry > Under-age models & "implied"
General Industry > Dilema..!! (Art nudes w/16 y/o model in UK)
General Industry > What state in the US is underage... (…nude images acceptable?) (5+ pages)
General Industry > Shooting a 16 y/o nude, but covered sparsely? (6 pages, locked)
Model Matters > Underage models. How sexy is too sexy?
Model Matters > Underage model nudity? (3+ pages)
Model Matters > Underage models & glamour/pin-up/lingerie?
Model Matters > Minors working implide
Model Matters > Underage Lingerie Shooting
Model Matters > how young is to young?? (“…sexy pics done hand bras…”) (3+ pages)
Model Matters > Underage sister posing nude for pro photogs! (8+ pages)
Photography Talk > Underage lingerie modeling (3+ pages)
Photography Talk > Another Question about Minors!!! (Semi-nude)
Photography Talk > Legal age to shoot nudes (3+ pages)
Photography Talk > When I work with minors... (lingerie requested by parent)
Photography Talk > isn't teen glamour illegal? (Trueteenbabes.com) (4+ pages)
Photography Talk > Implied and underage model (7+ pages)
Photography Talk > Am I being set up? (2+ pages)

General Industry > Underage Fashion Models posing Nude for Euro Vogue (5+ pages)
Photography Talk > T Magazine & Paolo Roversi & Underage nudes

State Laws regarding Child Pornography or Nudity (USA)
State Child Pornography Statutes (PDF document)

Federal Laws regarding Child Pornography (USA)
All are part of Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 110 (Index)

Note that nudity is not automatically included, and that clothed images can be included.

2251. Sexual exploitation of children
§ 2252. Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors
§ 2252A. Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography
§ 2256. Definitions for chapter
§ 2257. Record keeping requirements

this is great, You must have this as a "Cut and Paste" how often this subject comes up (Myself, unfortunately included)... No need to read.. just cut and paste

I love this post just because it give links to the laws that were "in question"

Stephen Fletcher wrote:
Go down to your local Walmart and Target store and look at the current ads they have posted as you walk in.

They been doing it for years.

She's in the Uk.  That would be "your local Asda."

studio36uk would be the person in this thread best suited to comment on whether or not this's legal/a good idea.

xKittyx wrote:
okay so i been talking to a photographer who told me that just becasue im not 18 doesnt mean I cant do underwear shots, as long as theres no nudity.Im not too sure if this is true...?

It's all about the Photographer and how he/she feels about it...
Since you are not 18... and if they use model releases (which all of the photographers I have worked with use them) You would need a Parent or Guardian to sign it.

So it's so much read tape that most photographer just prefer 18+ even if there is no nudity so they don't have to go through a Parent or Guardian... they like just dealing with one person... the model.

Edit: and SLE is right, I should have read where you were from first.

studio36uk wrote:
The idiocy of the law is that you can quite legally have sex with a 16 y/o but you just better not take their picture in the process.

Studio36

And that truth shows the hypocrisy and illogical nature of the whole system.

Stephen Fletcher wrote:
Go down to your local Walmart and Target store and look at the current ads they have posted as you walk in.

They been doing it for years.

That is true, they have. The key word here......is "they."

The question is, should you.

John Edward wrote:
Your in England, don't listen to the fearmongers here.

As long as you keep your underwear on, and you don't get too wild, you'll be fine.

So I say It's okay, as long as you send me a link, LOL.

Gee, that doesn't sound creepy.  But you might notice someone IN the UK, who usually knows his stuff, posted that it might be a bad idea.

John Edward wrote:
Your in England, don't listen to the fearmongers here.

As you are NOT in England I don't see how it's appropriate for you to be giving the OP advice. Both Studio36uk and myself ARE from England and neither of us would recommend it.

John Edward wrote:
As long as you keep your underwear on, and you don't get too wild, you'll be fine.

I'm not saying it's illegal (it's not) - just that it's a minefield for the photographer (not the OP) and the whole question of whether a crime has been committed rests on the interpretation on the day by a judge or jury of the meaning of the word 'indecent' as applied the the photo(s) in question. There is NO legal definition of that word in the UK and if a jury decides that a photo of the OP dressed in spacesuit is 'indecent' then the photographer can go to jail and will be registered as a sex offender.

That's why, unless (perhaps) you are shooting an agency model for a large client with massive insurance and the implied respectability that sort of scenario confers on the shoot (and the photos), it really isn't worth the risk for a photographer in the UK to shoot ANY model under 18 in ANY way these days, and the OP would be putting her photographer at risk by asking him to do so.

John Edward wrote:
So I say It's okay, as long as you send me a link, LOL.

Did you really just write that? Really? Oh yes, I guess you must have done. Nice move.

Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

John Edward wrote:
Your in England, don't listen to the fearmongers here.

As long as you keep your underwear on, and you don't get too wild, you'll be fine.

So I say It's okay, as long as you send me a link, LOL.

You want underwear pictures of a 16 year old?  Ummm.... WTF?

OP: I wouldn't do it, but if you do perhaps look at your local shopping catalogs (the UK equivalent of Sears, JcPenney, etc) for the "Miss" underwear section. Keep your poses & wardrobe similar and you (and the photographer) will be safer. I would reason that it would be difficult to call a pose of OP in the same outfit as "catalog model" indecent unless the catalog is also indecent.

Just the same, as a photographer, I'd pass.

John Edward wrote:
Your in England, don't listen to the fearmongers here.

As long as you keep your underwear on, and you don't get too wild, you'll be fine.

So I say It's okay, as long as you send me a link, LOL.

LOL

xKittyx wrote:
thanks alot for the help guys!
I think i'll pass on it, theres too many risks involved.

No problems

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

SLE Photography wrote:
Gee, that doesn't sound creepy.  But you might notice someone IN the UK, who usually knows his stuff, posted that it might be a bad idea.

Several of us in the UK said the same thing, James.

I T  I S  A  B A D  I D E A

Studio36

xKittyx wrote:
okay so i been talking to a photographer who told me that just becasue im not 18 doesnt mean I cant do underwear shots, as long as theres no nudity.Im not too sure if this is true...?

it's the intent of the images that will usually make a difference...

if the images say: "hey, this lingerie is $25.99 at VS"...thats ok...

if the images say: "hey i'm an underage 16 year old girl, looking hot and sexy in in adult womens lingerie"...

well then there might be issues..

Doug Swinskey wrote:

it's the intent of the images that will usually make a difference...

if the images say: "hey, this lingerie is $25.99 at VS"...thats ok...

if the images say: "hey i'm an underage 16 year old girl, looking hot and sexy in in adult womens lingerie"...

well then there might be issues..

yeah exactly.
Thats why i've decided against it (Y)

SLE Photography wrote:

She's in the Uk.  That would be "your local Asda."

studio36uk would be the person in this thread best suited to comment on whether or not this's legal/a good idea.

It's completely legal and happens on a nearly daily basis in magazines and newspapers. However, for hobbyist photographers (ie people not shooting for direct publication) it's a case of better safe than sorry just in case. Nobody's really been  brave enough to stand up against the UK law. Most photographers simply use 18+ models to avoid any possibility of drama.

Janice Marie Foote wrote:
Oh and don't do it TF* make the photographer pay you or its' a no go!

*smdh*

John Edward wrote:
I guess no one here has a sense of humor,

Or any sense at all for that matter.

You can always tell the guys who's mumma wakes them up.

No job, still live at at home, all that.

LOL - regretting what you said then? Lashing out at others won't help and just makes you look bad... oh, wait... you did that already.

Sorry - but if you don't mean it, don't write it.

Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Sophie Darling wrote:
Wouldn't the bottom line just be, as long as you can't see anything, it's fine?

Nope. The girl could be fully clothed and fall foul of the obscenity laws.

Ed Stringbourne wrote:

Nope. The girl could be fully clothed and fall foul of the obscenity laws.

Yep, there are probably 10,000 pics on MM alone that would fall into that category if the model was under 18 and living in the UK


Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com