login info join!
This thread was locked on 2011-08-28 22:52:45. Reason: Duplicate of OP's 2010 threads http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=645141 and http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=645139
Forums > Photography Talk > Min age for Glamour, Swimwear, Lingerie in UK? Search   Reply
Photographer
Make U Model
Posts: 5
Longton, England, United Kingdom


I been contacted by model on MM at age 16 and 17 in London and asking if I could help them taking some images of them on Glamour, Swimwear, Lingerie, Erotic for their profile. When I check their profile on MM it clearly says ‘Age: 16’ and ‘Genres: Glamour, Swimwear, Lingerie, Erotic’.

Can 16 or 17 years model to do above images? Or do they need permission from their parents to do so?

The age 17 one even says ‘Shoot nudes: Yes’ Is it right?  I believe to do nude they must be 18 +?
Aug 28 11 07:59 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fashion Photographer
Posts: 14,388
London, England, United Kingdom


I'd be happy to recommend some models in London who are both over 18, and likely far better than the model you have in mind.
Aug 28 11 08:02 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Maja Stina
Posts: 3,620
London, England, United Kingdom


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.
Aug 28 11 08:06 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32,661
Detroit, Michigan, US


Send in a CAM to the moderators if you see that.
Aug 28 11 08:06 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,713
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


The answer is in the Protection of Children Act 1976; in combination with the Sexual Offences Act 2003; and the answer is NO!

You should not come within a barge pole's length of such images of anyone under 18 years of age. Not to make them; not to distribute them; not even to possess them. Simples!

Studio36
Aug 28 11 08:07 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,713
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


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 wink]

You have been warned!

Studio36

Aug 28 11 08:16 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32,661
Detroit, Michigan, US


There are a total of 21 females models on MM who are 16 or 17 and list Yes to Shoots Nudes. None have any actual nudes posted, and one even says she will never pose nude or implied. FWIW.
Aug 28 11 08:19 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fashion Photographer
Posts: 14,388
London, England, United Kingdom


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 wink]

You have been warned!

Studio36

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

Aug 28 11 08:24 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Not here anymo
Posts: 1,412
London, England, United Kingdom


Aug 28 11 08:35 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
photoimager
Posts: 4,856
Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom


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.

Aug 28 11 08:46 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 35,505
San Francisco, California, US


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.

Aug 28 11 08:47 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fashion Photographer
Posts: 14,388
London, England, United Kingdom


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.

Aug 28 11 08:54 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
WMcK
Posts: 5,274
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom


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.

Aug 28 11 09:08 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fashion Photographer
Posts: 14,388
London, England, United Kingdom


WMcK wrote:

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

I'll warn Mrs Smith.

http://obrag.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/librarian.jpg

Aug 28 11 09:09 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
L A U B E N H E I M E R
Posts: 8,557
Seattle, Washington, US


maybe the girls are 18+ now.  maybe.

Aug 28 11 09:17 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
- Phil H -
Posts: 25,306
Bury Saint Edmunds, England, United Kingdom


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.

Aug 28 11 09:21 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,713
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


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

Aug 28 11 09:25 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,713
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


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

Aug 28 11 09:31 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,713
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


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

Studio36

Aug 28 11 09:39 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
WMcK
Posts: 5,274
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom


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!

Aug 28 11 09:45 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Not here anymo
Posts: 1,412
London, England, United Kingdom


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 .

Aug 28 11 09:48 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
dklee studio photo
Posts: 2,587
Richmond, Virginia, US


so OP only has 3 posts, and all 3 times, posted about the same thing.

i think OP is a troll and is trying to just cause people to comment on a lame thread.

stop feeding him.

and ban him..
Aug 28 11 10:09 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
photoimager
Posts: 4,856
Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom


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.

Aug 28 11 10:42 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fashion Photographer
Posts: 14,388
London, England, United Kingdom


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)

Aug 28 11 10:51 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
photoimager
Posts: 4,856
Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom


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.

Aug 28 11 11:05 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
photoimager
Posts: 4,856
Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom


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

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

Dual posting of threads, is that allowed ?
Aug 28 11 11:07 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,713
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


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

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

Dual posting of threads, is that allowed ?

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

Studio36

Aug 28 11 11:20 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Sinopa_Rin
Posts: 221
Fareham, England, United Kingdom


There are plenty of excellent nude models in London and the surrounding area - I can recommend loads - so I wouldn't even waste your time with under 18 nude. You wouldn't be able to use those images online, and neither would she. I am 17 and have never considered shooting anything less than swimwear (although the number of times I've been asked is a whole different story...). In my experience, under 18s who claim/actually shoot nude are just trouble.

Best wishes
~Rin
Aug 28 11 11:32 am  Link  Quote 
  Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers