|
Forums >
General Industry >
topless 16 year old
I have been asked by a family that I know to shoot some tasteful topless/ art nude shots of their daughter who is 16 years old. They are a naturist family and are looking at art images nothing else. I just worry about what other people might think. The family are fine with nudity and see no wrong in it. Any thoughts out there? Dec 13 11 12:41 am Link The only topless 16 year old I'd shoot would be a convertible. Preferably a Ferrari. Dec 13 11 12:44 am Link I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. Dec 13 11 12:47 am Link The age of consent where you live in 16...but I would be really careful were I you. Dec 13 11 12:50 am Link phil_M wrote: Since your laws permit this in the UK AFAIK, legally you can. Dec 13 11 12:53 am Link that is ALWAYS tricky ...http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/brooke-shields-by-gary-gross/ photo like those are of a 12 year old brook shields but also, some nudist colonies or nude beaches have people nude at every age from babies to grand parents ..but its all what you are comfortable in doing and what is actually legal and acceptable ..where ever in the world you are at ... Dec 13 11 01:03 am Link albertaphotog wrote: Fixed. Dec 13 11 01:07 am Link Amy Cavanaugh wrote: Age of consent has nothing to do with a photoshoot. Dec 13 11 01:09 am Link phil_M wrote: I wouldn't do this. Dec 13 11 01:27 am Link You say 'the family' have approached you - what does the subject think about this (and out of earshot of the parents)...? A group photo of a naturist family is a different matter - it's all about context. Dec 13 11 02:05 am Link  Dec 13 11 02:11 am Link EdBPhotography wrote: Amy Cavanaugh wrote: Wilde One wrote: All this! Dec 13 11 02:31 am Link phil_M wrote: You can go before a superior court along with the parents, and see if you can get her minority taken away.. Dec 13 11 02:37 am Link Perfectly legal to shoot anyone nude if you produce a non-sexual image. The issue can be that the 'law' may interpret images differently to you or the parents/model. I would choose a private location or studio (i.e. NOT a bedroom) A parent (preferably mother) would be present at ALL times, when the parent goes to the toilet, you leave!! Get written consent before the shoot from the parent AND the model - clearly define what it to be shot. Do not touch the model (well that applies to all shoots IMHO) Assuming you are using digital make sure you keep the images very safe, you don't want them to end up on some weirdo's hard drive. If they only want electronic images and not prints get them to buy their own memory card, you loose control of the copyright but are you going to be wanting to use the images? There are mainstream films with naked children in them (Walkabout for example) and these are shown on TV so it's not the nudity that is an issue!! Dec 13 11 02:54 am Link Have them sign a non-disclosure agreement with the contract and provide prints only. Shoot film and sell them the negatives as part of the package. Although no laws would be broken, anyone wanting to sully your reputation would have a hard time proving it. Dec 13 11 02:57 am Link thanks for some help clearing up the legal side of things for me. The family are happy with it. It was something the daughter had wanted to do , she is more than happy to do a nude shoot. Dec 13 11 03:03 am Link Wise man once said - "Tip Toe Lighty". .. Dec 13 11 03:06 am Link I had another thought, if you are doing a topless shot make sure she is wearing a bikini and not underwear - better still have her nude and use angles/framing to get what you want!! You could also suggest a family shot so could show anyone that it's a whole family of nudists - although if you ask everyone to go nude they might suggest that everyone means everyone - even you  Dec 13 11 03:17 am Link Are they offering to pay you for the shoot? If not then you need to be prepared for your own motivations for doing the shoot to be questioned. No matter how professionally and sensitively you approach the shoot it only takes one mention of it to the wrong person, perhaps by the child whilst she's at school, for the whole thing to undergo the worst kind of scrutiny and innuendo. Not something I'd take on lightly. Dec 13 11 03:38 am Link It depends on how good your lawyer / barrister is and how much money you have to spend defending the images. Dec 13 11 03:52 am Link My2cents---would NOT do it under any conditions. Dec 13 11 04:05 am Link If this much thought needs to be put into it the answer to me would be "no". Dec 13 11 04:05 am Link walk away from it it will only dis-credit you... and after its all over it will barther you.. Dec 13 11 04:12 am Link Agree with DSP Dec 13 11 04:12 am Link As long as you have in writing and the release for whatever use is signed by the parents. You are in the UK and there is little problem ther between nature, art, and parental rule. THe problem comes with posting to the web, and 18 being the web age. Europe had very little hangups on morality and artisitic nudity. The problem comes in where you reach the morally uptight putitanical views of america and elsewhere. There was areason why they kicked the puritan's out europe during the protestant reformation. If they are for art and you clearly have written usage agreement between the parents and you, you should have no problem. Do it right, create the beautiful art they are looking for. You'll be fine! Dec 13 11 04:14 am Link camerawerk wrote: +1 Dec 13 11 04:22 am Link I've been to the UK and so I personally know that there aren't any females over the age of 16, so I understand why you would want to do this. Oh, sorry, what's that? There are millions of females over the age of 16 willing to be photographed in the UK. Sorry my bad. Dec 13 11 04:29 am Link no Dec 13 11 04:35 am Link 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. Dec 13 11 04:41 am Link Stefano Brunesci wrote: +1 I couldn't agree more! This situation is just too risky to worry about ruining one's reputation over. Here in the States, even though it might be okay with the parents, the courts might rule the parents negligible of child endangerment, etc. and take custody of the child, and put the offending photographer behind bars, forever. It is just not worth the risk IMHO. Dec 13 11 04:51 am Link Have one of the parents sit in on the shoot behind the scene . . . Dec 13 11 04:51 am Link why is there so much paranoia about something that isn't even illegal...in the UK and USA I could understand a point blank, saying no to shooting a 16 year old in a porn scene or something sexual in nature, but innocent artistic nude? i could even understand a "cover the bases", have a parent there, get it writing, ect..... but its a really sad state of affairs when we fear our government when we aren't doing anything wrong..in the USA we dont deserve our own constitution... we have become a nation of pussys.. i'd take the gig, collect my compensation and deliver the images.. Dec 13 11 04:58 am Link Dear OP...90% of the responses you've got here didn't even look to see your from England. 9% (including me) do not know if its legeal or not. and the other 1% are just a bit confused. Dec 13 11 05:10 am Link Write to the editor of H&E and ask his advice. Maybe he will offer to publish them. Dec 13 11 05:11 am Link phil_M wrote: Is it legal in the country where you are shooting? Dec 13 11 05:11 am Link 
Photographer Posts: 4288 Amundsen-Scott - permanent station of the US, Unclaimed Sector, Antarctica I am not in the UK, but I don't freak out about this shit either. There are some beautiful portraits of 16 year olds out there that are well done, and legal. If it were me (and I am not trying to talk you out of doing it), I would talk to my legal counsel and have him or her write a session contract which could serve as a model release and include anything else that is necessary (seems like they would know what to include). The session should include a couple of shots of the parents in the vicinity of the youth (so you can prove they are there) and the poses should be artistic not provocative. Not providing any type of critique, but your avatar (which is a good pic) is the type of pose that is NOT a good way to go (for a youth). Produce something substantial and be proud of it, as much as she will be to have it done. My only other thought is this: if the idea of going to a lawyer to draw up the papers makes you feel embarrassed in any way, you might not be of the right mindset to do it. Also, remember that doing this session may make you or break you, reputation-wise. Be prepared for that. Good luck. Dec 13 11 05:26 am Link TomFRohwer wrote: This. In the case of the UK, under-18 topless stuff has been illegal since 2000 (Prior to that naked teenagers were a common sight on page six of a certain tabloid) So don't do it. Dec 13 11 05:28 am Link Neil Snape wrote: DO the laws permit it, though? I mean, the laws regarding consent in Canada are 16 as well - however unless created for personal use alone, distribution of under-18 subjects is strictly forbidden. That's just "nude"! Furthermore, regardless of whether or not the images are distributed (which we all know the teen *would* do!), if the images are posed/expressed/presented with editing in such a way that they appear sensual or even mildly suggestive in nature, the Canadian authorities will view them as constituting "Child Pornography". I've been asked by a 16-y/o and a 17-y/o if I'd shoot them topless! Can we say "eek!"? (Naturally, I did NOT!) DO the laws in the UK actually permit the distribution of under-18 nudes images? Because here, while shooting them non-sensually is fine the moment they are distributed you can plan your stay in jail! Or smth less dramatic, with a great lawyer Dec 13 11 05:30 am Link Your heading says topless and now you are saying nude? That's just plain creepy. I am a female photographer and I wouldn't touch that Dec 13 11 05:34 am Link
Photographer Posts: 4288 Amundsen-Scott - permanent station of the US, Unclaimed Sector, Antarctica Topless or nude are irrelevant terms: it's the context and intent that matters. Photograph a 16 year old fully clothed and have her grab her crotch and it's more illegal than an 8 year old just standing there naked. Also, and I don't know how many freakin' times this needs to be said, 'age of consent' (which is when a person can legally have intercourse) has NOTHING to do with this. Dec 13 11 05:39 am Link |
