iMn Photography wrote:

Yes ... and no.

There is a chain called Glamorshots, but they have all of their legal bases covered, and their business model is based on portraiture in a semi-public setting.  Not boudoir or other types of more sensual material in the glamour genre.

We have to be very careful regarding what is done by businesses, and what a photographer that is inexperienced in this field is attempting to do with a minor as the photo subject.

+1 - well put.

ei Total Productions wrote:
When a model in a bikini top and a pair of shorts becomes indecent, I need to move to another planet.  By the logic of most people here, one needs to shoot all teens in Burkas.  I'm sorry, I don't buy the argument.  I will do the OP's shot every day in any Western country and not bat an eye.

The statute may be vague people will still sit on the jury.  I don't think the O is anywhere near close to the definition of "indecent."

Well I take my cue from a case a while back of a NE of England university teacher, and apparently well known local arts photographer, who shot two young girls topless [and only that] as mythical fairies with the full consent of the mother, who was present throughout.

He was arrested, charged and given the difficult choice of pleading guilty to a magistrate sitting alone and without a jury, and thus subject to not more than 6 months in prison, which is the sentencing limit imposed on magistrates, or asking, by a plea of not guilty at the magistrate level, for a jury tiral and risking a sentence of 10 years.

He plead out to the magistrate.

Studio36

ei Total Productions wrote:
When a model in a bikini top and a pair of shorts becomes indecent, I need to move to another planet.  By the logic of most people here, one needs to shoot all teens in Burkas.  I'm sorry, I don't buy the argument.  I will do the OP's shot every day in any Western country and not bat an eye.

The statute may be vague people will still sit on the jury.  I don't think the O is anywhere near close to the definition of "indecent."

studio36uk wrote:
Well I take my cue from a case a while back of a NE of England university teacher, and apparently well known local arts photographer, who shot two young girls topless [and only that] as mythical fairies with the full consent of the mother, who was present throughout.

He was arrested, charged and given the difficult choice of pleading guilty to a magistrate sitting alone and without a jury, and thus subject to not more than 6 months in prison, which is the sentencing limit imposed on magistrates, or asking, by a plea of not guilty at the magistrate level, for a jury tiral and risking a sentence of 10 years.

He plead out to the magistrate.

Studio36

A topless girl is a far cry from a girl in a bikini top and shorts.  The difference between topless and a top is that the girl with the top isn't topless.

Paul Brecht wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
Unfortunately, in a UK context, I am referring to a real jury that could put you away for up to ten years. And that's the only one that matters.

Studio36

I understand, but my opening line was to address the fearmongers that line up in droves to give their legal definition that glam = indecent in a court of law, just like the post above. Then, many seem to think that the OP has motives that are bad in nature...

Paul

I could care less about their motive because I know it counts for nothing in the UK courts.

Studio36

Digital Vinyl wrote:

This is glamour. FHM might as well be porn

This has always been my first thought in glamour... as it is glamorous... and classy.

But I've observed that when a photographer approaches me to do glamour it is something completely different from that.

iMn Photography wrote:

Yes ... and no.

There is a chain called Glamorshots, but they have all of their legal bases covered, and their business model is based on portraiture in a semi-public setting.  Not boudoir or other types of more sensual material in the glamour genre.

We have to be very careful regarding what is done by businesses, and what a photographer that is inexperienced in this field is attempting to do with a minor as the photo subject.

Glamour & boudior, once again are 2 different words with 2 different meanings. The OP never said she was going to shoot boudoir with a 16 yo. She said glamour...

Once again proving my point...

Paul

ei Total Productions wrote:
A topless girl is a far cry from a girl in a bikini top and shorts.  The difference between topless and a top is that the girl with the top isn't topless.

No it is not the same but no matter the state of dress [or undress] the result could very well be the same, and I believe that any kind of sexualised images, even slightly so, of someone under 18 could very well be found indecent. Glamour images, at any level, being at even a greater risk than the artistic images I mentioned above. I also noted that nudity is not a required element for this purpose in the UK, just as it is not in the US.

Studio36

Paul Brecht wrote:

Glamour & boudior, once again are 2 different words with 2 different meanings. The OP never said she was going to shoot boudoir with a 16 yo. She said glamour...

Once again proving my point...

Paul

Which you would have to prove to a jury. not sure I'd like my entire life to hang on the ability of 12 random strangrs to comprehend the differnce between "glamour" and "boudoir".

studio36uk wrote:
Well I take my cue from a case a while back of a NE of England university teacher, and apparently well known local arts photographer, who shot two young girls topless [and only that] as mythical fairies with the full consent of the mother, who was present throughout.

He was arrested, charged and given the difficult choice of pleading guilty to a magistrate sitting alone and without a jury, and thus subject to not more than 6 months in prison, which is the sentencing limit imposed on magistrates, or asking, by a plea of not guilty at the magistrate level, for a jury tiral and risking a sentence of 10 years.

He plead out to the magistrate.

Studio36

Okay, that's some bullshit right there...

I don't want this to get too political, but ya'll might wanna consider an enforceable constitution with a bill of rights at some point...  Freedom of speech is one of my favorites...

Linux99 wrote:

Which you would have to prove to a jury. not sure I'd like my entire life to hang on the ability of 12 random strangrs to comprehend the differnce between "glamour" and "boudoir".

Again any court cases you can point to that dont involve porn ??
Links to news of an arrest ??
Criminal indictments ???

Linux99 wrote:

Which you would have to prove to a jury. not sure I'd like my entire life to hang on the ability of 12 random strangrs to comprehend the differnce between "glamour" and "boudoir".

Ok, look @ this site:

http://www.missteeniowa.us/

This is glamour photography with teenagers. Let's say that this is what the OP is talking about. I'm sure a jury would have a hard time calling this boudoir, porn, sexually explicit, etc. It's the people in this thread that automatically link the OP's motives to being as such...

Paul

ei Total Productions wrote:

ei Total Productions wrote:
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.

When a model in a bikini top and a pair of shorts becomes indecent, I need to move to another planet.  By the logic of most people here, one needs to shoot all teens in Burkas.  I'm sorry, I don't buy the argument.  I will do the OP's shot every day in any Western country and not bat an eye.

The statute may be vague people will still sit on the jury.  I don't think the O is anywhere near close to the definition of "indecent."

I agree with you 100%

Paul Brecht wrote:
Ok, look @ this site:

http://www.missteeniowa.us/

This is glamour photography with teenagers. Let's say that this is what the OP is talking about. I'm sure a jury would have a hard time calling this boudoir, porn, sexually explicit, etc. It's the people in this thread that automatically link the OP's motives to being as such...

Paul

I was in the UK during the JonBenet Ramsey scandal was happening. I recall the public reastion to the (for us) shocking pictures of little girls in swimsuit glamour pictures. It's normal in th USA - in th UK you'd have been hassled by the authorities till you stopped. All this is so very subjctive and when you bring random things lik juries into the picture my advice would be to stay well well on the side of innocent unless you really know what you're doing.

Truth is none of us know what the OP means. It could b the sumptuous 1940's style picture above. It could be a thong and hand bra or it could be something which inadvertantly tips into what a jury of people who dont do this as a hobby / for a living would see as trying to make sexual images of a kid.

Paul Brecht wrote:

Ok, look @ this site:

http://www.missteeniowa.us/

This is glamour photography with teenagers. Let's say that this is what the OP is talking about. I'm sure a jury would have a hard time calling this boudoir, porn, sexually explicit, etc. It's the people in this thread that automatically link the OP's motives to being as such...

Paul

Exactly. Otherwise they have to arrest all editors of Teenage-Pop Magazines, MTV, Englands Next Superstar and other casting shows on TV, Print etc.

Paul Brecht wrote:
Glamour & boudior, once again are 2 different words with 2 different meanings. The OP never said she was going to shoot boudoir with a 16 yo. She said glamour...

Once again proving my point...

Paul

The only point that is being proven here, is that the OP doesn't know what she's getting herself into.

Once again, I quote:

"...glamour, but not topless, just bikini top or bra/jeans, sexy pout/makeup etc"

She wants to shoot glamour... but she feels that she has to clarify that glamour expects nudity, therefore she will not use that aspect of it.

She wants to shoot the underage model wearing underwear, and wants her to pout in a sexy manner (i.e., boudoir style photography).

Is it me, or is this photo session an "indecent" image waiting to happen?

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:

Again any court cases you can point to that dont involve porn ??
Links to news of an arrest ??
Criminal indictments ???

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2007/09/26 … photo.html -Elton John was made pretty miserable for a while.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/61604.stm - Mapplethrope book seized as being obscene

Two genuine Art photographers who's work has been subject to exactly the sam "obscenity" test we're talking about.

As I said above as soon as there is a successful conviction it's deemed "porn" and as soon as the presecution fails you'll say "see not a successful prosecution". So can I point to a red car that isn't red? no I cant.

Efan Bruder wrote:
Okay, that's some bullshit right there...

I don't want this to get too political, but ya'll might wanna consider an enforceable constitution with a bill of rights at some point...  Freedom of speech is one of my favorites...

Frankly, he had a lawyer representing him but as I pointed out above even Brit lawyers can not come to grips with what the word "indecent" means because the law does not define it. It is, and in each case taken alone, indeed each image taken alone if there is more than one, what the jury says it is. It would certainly not be a stretch to consider that if, say, 20 similar images from the exact same shoot sequencce were set out in front of a jury that they could find 19 of them not indecent and one that is = a conviction.

This is called, vis a vis photography, a chilling effect - - -  of Antarctic proportions.

Studio36

iMn Photography wrote:

The only point that is being proven here, is that the OP doesn't know what she's getting herself into.

Once again, I quote:

"...glamour, but not topless, just bikini top or bra/jeans, sexy pout/makeup etc"

She wants to shoot glamour... but she feels that she has to clarify that glamour expects nudity.

She wants to shoot the underage model wearing underwear, and wants her to pout in a sexy manner (i.e., boudoir style photography).

Is it me, or is this photo session an "indecent" image waiting to happen?

Exatly!

Fur Elise wrote:

This has always been my first thought in glamour... as it is glamorous... and classy.

But I've observed that when a photographer approaches me to do glamour it is something completely different from that.

Linux99 wrote:
I was in the UK during the JonBenet Ramsey scandal was happening. I recall the public reastion to the (for us) shocking pictures of little girls in swimsuit glamour pictures. It's normal in th USA - in th UK you'd have been hassled by the authorities till you stopped. All this is so very subjctive and when you bring random things lik juries into the picture my advice would be to stay well well on the side of innocent unless you really know what you're doing.

Truth is none of us know what the OP means. It could b the sumptuous 1940's style picture above. It could be a thong and hand bra or it could be something which inadvertantly tips into what a jury of people who dont do this as a hobby / for a living would see as trying to make sexual images of a kid.

I thought the US was supposed to be the oppressed state...

Look @ the OP's portfolio & list of types of images she thinks are what she wants to do:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/list/307393

I think it's apparent what she likes to do & how she'd approach the shoot...

Paul

Paul Brecht wrote:

I thought the US was supposed to be the oppressed state...

Look @ the OP's portfolio & list of types of images she thinks are what she wants to do:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/list/307393

I think it's apparent what she likes to do & how she'd approach the shoot...

Paul

I dont see a single topless pouting girl there. So evidently this shoot would be out of genre for her.

iMn Photography wrote:
Is it me, or is this photo session an "indecent" image waiting to happen?

No it's not you. I have cautioned about the same thing throughout this thread. And living, as well as working in the UK, not without good reason.

Anyone shooting anything like that here, in the current state of play, is fundamentally walking onto a legal mine field blindfolded.

Studio36

ei Total Productions wrote:
A topless girl is a far cry from a girl in a bikini top and shorts.  The difference between topless and a top is that the girl with the top isn't topless.

studio36uk wrote:
No it is not the same but no matter the state of dress [or undress] the result could very well be the same, and I believe that any kind of sexualised images, even slightly so, of someone under 18 could very well be found indecent. Glamour images, at any level, being at even a greater risk than the artistic images I mentioned above. I also noted that nudity is not a required element for this purpose in the UK, just as it is not in the US.

Studio36

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.

studio36uk wrote:
Anyone shooting anything like that here, in the current state of play, is fundamentally walking onto a legal mine field blindfolded.

Studio36

Spot on!

Paul Brecht wrote:
Ok, look @ this site:

http://www.missteeniowa.us/

This is glamour photography with teenagers. Let's say that this is what the OP is talking about. I'm sure a jury would have a hard time calling this boudoir, porn, sexually explicit, etc. It's the people in this thread that automatically link the OP's motives to being as such...

Paul

Let's not say this is what the OP is talking about. 

I don't see anyone in their underwear or any sexy pouting going on.

Linux99 wrote:
I dont see a single topless pouting girl there. So evidently this shoot would be out of genre for her.

I don't see any mention of topless

StaceyMarie-Retouch wrote:
not topless, just bikini top or bra/jeans, sexy pout/makeup etc.

Milley Cyrus & almost all other teen stars do the pouty (duckbill) look...

You guys read way too much into things...

Paul

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.

The Crown Prosecution Service uses a five level scale of indecency > child pornography. The so called Copine typology. Level one, the lowest level, consists of possession of a "collection" [and there is no defined number of images more than two that are necessary to comprise a "collection"] of images of ordinary and non-nude children e.g. cut from clothing magazines, or even from street work if the focus is on children, as an offence. It may not result in a charge but it will certainly provoke a formal investigation, and that would absolutely mean seizure of computer gear for forensic examination at the very least.

As I said, in the UK it's like walking into a mine field blindfolded.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
Well I take my cue from a case a while back of a NE of England university teacher, and apparently well known local arts photographer, who shot two young girls topless [and only that] as mythical fairies with the full consent of the mother, who was present throughout.

He was arrested, charged and given the difficult choice of pleading guilty to a magistrate sitting alone and without a jury, and thus subject to not more than 6 months in prison, which is the sentencing limit imposed on magistrates, or asking, by a plea of not guilty at the magistrate level, for a jury tiral and risking a sentence of 10 years.

He plead out to the magistrate.

Studio36

That university teacher obviously recieved poor legal advice. Whilst it may appear to be the easy option. It is only giving the do gooders more power.

It's not really a difficult decision. There has been enough precedents set in the UK and other common law jurisdictions to fight it and win

Paul Brecht wrote:

Linux99 wrote:
I dont see a single topless pouting girl there. So evidently this shoot would be out of genre for her.

I don't see any mention of topless

Milley Cyrus & almost all other teen stars do the pouty look...

You guys read way too much into things...

Paul

"Miley Cyrus & almost all other teen stars" are not in the same league as Stacey's 16 year old subject.

The pouting (in a sexy manner) while posing for photographs wearing underwear sounds like boudoir to me.  Again... we're starting an argument about semantics, but I re-iterate that the OP needs to do more legal research on her own, before attempting this shoot.

Someone once told me that the best way to prevent an email from haunting you in the future is to not write it at all.

I think that the mother of the underage model should take that into account, before putting her daughter in a similar situation with an inexperienced photographer.

If you don't want an embarrassing picture to haunt you in the future, then you should try, if possible, to prevent it from being done.

The law is trying to protect the minor, not prevent others from being offended.

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.

studio36uk wrote:
The Crown Prosecution Service uses a five level scale of indecency > child pornography. The so called Copine Topology. Level one, the lowest level, consists of possession of a "collection" [and there is no defined number of images more than two that are necessary to comprise a "collection"] of images of ordinary and non-nude children e.g. cut from clothing magazines, or even from street work if the focus is on children, as an offence. It may not result in a charge but it will certainly provoke a formal investigation, and that would very well mean seizure of computer gear for forensic examination at the very least.

As I said, in the UK it's like walking into a mine field blindfolded.

Studio36

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.

Paul Brecht wrote:
You guys read way too much into things...

Paul

+ 1000

iMn Photography wrote:
"Miley Cyrus & almost all other teen stars" are not in the same league as Stacey's 16 year old subject.

The pouting (in a sexy manner) while posing for photographs wearing underwear sounds like boudoir to me.  Again... we're starting an argument about semantics, but I re-iterate that the OP needs to do more legal research on her own, before attempting this shoot.

Someone once told me that the best way to prevent an email from haunting you in the future is to not write it at all.

I think that the mother of the underage model should take that into account, before putting her daughter in a similar situation with an inexperienced photographer.

If you don't want an embarrassing picture to haunt you in the future, then you should try, if possible, to prevent it from being done.

The law is trying to protect the minor, not prevent others from being offended.

What if her niece is the next Miley ? Miley started somewhere. Even though her dad was rich/famous, so did all those others...

You keep stating: "in her underwear", which is misleading. If that's what you read, you read way too much into things too. She said:

StaceyMarie-Retouch wrote:
bikini top or bra/jeans

Underwear makes it sound like panties & bra, boudoir makes it seem like sheer/see-through. If they opt for bikini instead of bra, is it still boudoir ?

It's like you try & make it sound as pervy as you can. Just like the news media...

Paul

Paul Brecht wrote:
You keep stating: "in her underwear", which is misleading. If that's what you read, you read way too much into things too. She said:

Underwear makes it sound like panties & bra, boudoir makes it seem like sheer/see-through. If they opt for bikini instead of bra, is it still boudoir ?

Paul

I would love to get into a discussion about how boudoir is tied into glamour photography, or how wearing a bra as a top (whether you're wearing jeans or panties) is still considered being photographed in your underwear.

But I have to finish working on two shoots that I did today, and this "short break" turned into a big distraction.

I will say one thing... although boudoir is usually used in referenced to shooting a subject (most commonly a woman) in a private setting (most commonly a bedroom) wearing "private attire" (most commonly underwear) - A big part of boudoir has more to do with the posing (e.g., sexy pouty lips).

My non-legal/fellow-photographer advice to the OP:

Shoot the mom first.  If the mom feels uncomfortable with the shoot, then use that as your "decency" thermometer.  It is very easy to make decisions for someone else, but things are very different when you're the one that is being judged.

Paul Brecht wrote:

iMn Photography wrote:
"Miley Cyrus & almost all other teen stars" are not in the same league as Stacey's 16 year old subject.

The pouting (in a sexy manner) while posing for photographs wearing underwear sounds like boudoir to me.  Again... we're starting an argument about semantics, but I re-iterate that the OP needs to do more legal research on her own, before attempting this shoot.

Someone once told me that the best way to prevent an email from haunting you in the future is to not write it at all.

I think that the mother of the underage model should take that into account, before putting her daughter in a similar situation with an inexperienced photographer.

If you don't want an embarrassing picture to haunt you in the future, then you should try, if possible, to prevent it from being done.

The law is trying to protect the minor, not prevent others from being offended.

What if her niece is the next Miley ? Miley started somewhere. Even though her dad was rich/famous, so did all those others...

You keep stating: "in her underwear", which is misleading. If that's what you read, you read way too much into things too. She said:

Underwear makes it sound like panties & bra, boudoir makes it seem like sheer/see-through. If they opt for bikini instead of bra, is it still boudoir ?

It's like you try & make it sound as pervy as you can. Just like the news media...

Paul

Making it sound "pervy"? I think not.  It's not like I'm calling a spade a spade.  I'm just trying to keep things as concrete as possible, so that the conversation doesn't stray into malapropisms and misinterpretations.  Lots of opinions (mine included) floating around.  We don't need to start blurring the lines between things, just because we're afraid they sound "pervy."

ei Total Productions wrote:
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.

By my logic I have identified what is called here in the UK an "indicative offence" [a collection of such images - however otherwise innocent] and that may provoke an investigation.

For sentencing purposes, and one can not be sentenced unless they are already convicted of something, the statement that follows describes what might constitute sufficient content for a conviction. From the original 10 point Copine typology the Sentencing Advisory Panel devised a five point scale - the so-called SAP scale. This is the lowest level described for sentencing purposes:

"Deliberately posed pictures of children fully clothed, partially clothed or naked (where the amount, context and organisation suggests sexual interest)."

Clearly, then, deliberately posed fully clothed images of children in quantity, context and organisation could result in conviction. So now we review anew the OP's first post in light of that and what you get is the inescapable conclusion that, in the UK: "Ya pays your money ya takes your chance."

Studio36

ei Total Productions wrote:
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.

studio36uk wrote:
By my logic I have identified what is called here in the UK an "indicative offence" [a collection of such images - however otherwise innocent] and that may provoke an investigation.

For sentencing purposes, and one can not be sentenced unless they are already convicted of something, the statement that follows describes what might constitute sufficient content for a conviction. From the original 10 point Copine typology the Sentencing Advisory Panel devised a five point scale - the so-called SAP scale. This is the lowest level described for sentencing purposes:

"Deliberately posed pictures of children fully clothed, partially clothed or naked (where the amount, context and organisation suggests sexual interest)."

studio36uk wrote:
Clearly, then, deliberately posed fully clothed images of children in quantity, context and organisation could result in conviction. So now we review anew the OP's first post in light of that and what you get is the inescapable conclusion that, in the UK: "Ya pays your money ya takes your chance."

Studio36

So let me see, if someone is convicted of a sexual offense, they can look at things, like a proclivity to pedophelia when considering sentence?  OK, that is fair enough.  That statute has nothing to do with indecency, and I promise you, if you cited the full statute, it will have nothign to do with the matter at hand.

This is starting to concern me because, your arguments are simply damaging your credibility.  by your logic having two or more photos of your daughter eating pizza with her school principle could be illegal.

No matter how vague the statute is, a jury still has to be convinced that an image is indecent to be illegal.  The statute you cited is unrelated to that.  Indecency isn't an element of the sentencing guideleins.

Sooner or later your courts are going to provide guidance on what the statute means, but it doesn't mean that an an innocent bikini photo is now illegal. I am going to have to be a lot more careful in the future about accepting your analysis of these kinds of issues.  Your argument here is just severly flawed.

Linux99 wrote:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2007/09/26 … photo.html -Elton John was made pretty miserable for a while.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/61604.stm - Mapplethrope book seized as being obscene

Two genuine Art photographers who's work has been subject to exactly the sam "obscenity" test we're talking about.

As I said above as soon as there is a successful conviction it's deemed "porn" and as soon as the presecution fails you'll say "see not a successful prosecution". So can I point to a red car that isn't red? no I cant.

Both those case are about nudity not the type images the OP is talking about...

iMn Photography wrote:

Making it sound "pervy"? I think not.  It's not like I'm calling a spade a spade.  I'm just trying to keep things as concrete as possible, so that the conversation doesn't stray into malapropisms and misinterpretations.  Lots of opinions (mine included) floating around.  We don't need to start blurring the lines between things, just because we're afraid they sound "pervy."

The "pervy" is you put it out like:

"she wants to shoot a 16yo in her underwear"

when in reality, the 16yo wants to shoot in jeans w/ either a bikini top or bra top. There is a difference & sensationalizing "teen in underwear" makes it sound pervy, when in fact, that was never the subject of the OP. That was your interjection, which makes it like she wants to get a teenie bopper to strip down to her undies so she can shoot her & using descriptives like boudoir, sexy, etc., makes it sound pervy, when the connotation isn't there...

Paul

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

Amen.......
I have never been afraid of shooting a minor who's mother is right there next to me looking from the same angle I am shooting from. Mind you I shoot much slower and make sure all is well before every shot! Not quite sure what the BIG deal is! If this was illegal, the photographer who photographed the 14 yo Kardashian would have been publicly stoned to death by now. I also cheat, I ask mom to fix hair straighten a top etc and ALWAYS get a shot of her on the set!!!!! Ahhhh kinda hard to deny involvement when I have a cpl pics of you there.! Use you head, don't try to make it sexual and knock it out of the park! Have release signed by parent, keep on file forever! Smile at yourself for making some amazing images!