albertaphotog wrote:
I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole.

+1

erasm roterdam wrote:
"Run for the Hills".

Iron Maiden, yeah

Jas "Belly Donsah"  wrote:
I think it's ok as long as it's not sexual.

Funny how repressed the rest of the world looks compared to the US...  ...

Cherrystone wrote:
The law says you can in many instances.
Photographs are open to interpretation.
Prosecutors love to interpret things differently.

THIS! If she's under 18, it's kiddy porn as far as they're concerned. The teens sexting each other are getting prosecuted, what makes anyone think that us photographers won't get arrested for this?

Paul Brecht wrote:

Funny how repressed the rest of the world looks compared to the US...  ...

No, it's funny how liberated the rest of the world is compared to the US.

Wolfstar Studio wrote:

THIS! If she's under 18, it's kiddy porn as far as they're concerned. The teens sexting each other are getting prosecuted, what makes anyone think that us photographers won't get arrested for this?

Generally, either people with different "agendas", or chest thumping, peacock puffing boys on their keyboard.

Prudence....it's a wonderful thing.

phil_M wrote:
I just worry about what other people might think. ... Any thoughts out there?

People might think you failed.

albertaphotog wrote:
I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole.

^this^.

phil_M wrote:
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?

No doubt many US posters will tell you not to do it, not necessarily because their puritanical but because they live in the land of litigation.  You're in the UK, which I presume is far more liberal about nudity.  If you see no wrong in shooting with this family, go for it.

Edited to add the opinion of a UK shooter more familiar with your situation:

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
OP, as you are in the UK please don't listen to the US people who say you only need a model release etc. That's irrelevant. The UK problem is one of 'indecency' in relation to a child (anyone under 18). As no UK court has ever ruled what 'indecent' means, you would be treading on very thin ice indeed by going ahead with this.

If it was your family and you were all long-established naturists then maybe you might have a little more wiggle-room, but taking nude (or even worse, topless) photos of somebody else's 16 year old daughter regardless of the alleged 'context' is tantamount to asking for trouble IMHO and I personally wouldn't go near it with a barge pole.

ETA: I just looked at your profile and with all due respect, having had your images published in Zoo, Nuts and the Daily Sport is not going to help your case in the slightest! Regardless of the fact that this is a naturist family, you would be portrayed by the prosecution as as a 'sleazy glamour photographer' with a long history of getting young women to pose topless in a 'provocative and indecent' manner for 'sex magazines'.



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Wolfstar Studio wrote:

No, it's funny how liberated the rest of the world is compared to the US.

+1

Pantaleoni Photographer wrote:
Does the DAUGHTER WANT to pose?

You might consider:
Talk with (BOTH) parents again.
Talk with (BOTH) parents and with daughter - what does she want?
I'd not undertake this without a Minor's Model's Release signed by all parties, but  that's me and you're the shooter here.

The fact that parents AND daughter appear to be 'naturists' (what happened to 'nudist' anyway?) certainly makes this sound 'more reasonable'.

Last thought:  Does the daughter want the shots?  Good luck.

It's nothing to do with all the release forms, legally binding agreements etc. It's all to do with how the photos were to be used and whether anyone deemed them sexual or not - posing topless at 16 isn't a problem here as long as it's not deemed "indecent" or overtly sexual. But since no-one has defined indecent or overtly sexual, people don't take the risk for fear of being arrested for child pornography offences.

OP could have all his paperwork in place and he could still end up arrested over any pictures deemed indecent.

phil_M wrote:
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?

There are some great pictures out there by Jock Sturges, he spend quite some time shooting naturist families in the south of France.
He did get into serious trouble though, once published.

Pink Tights Dance  wrote:
Seriously, you can't find anyone else to shoot? Like there aren't about a kabillion gorgeous adult women that are fine with nudity? But you're focused on this little girl? 

Sometimes we need to censor ourselves. This is one of those times. Lolita syndrome.

... and sometimes we need to read correctly.

This is your very first forum post and you quite obviously didn't even read the OP. It states that he was asked by a family to do a portrait. He isn't 'focused on this little girl' and telling him to go find someone else to shoot doesn't even make any sense (and wouldn't in a 'kabillion' years).

The OP might not be the one with a Lolita syndrome... I mean, your MM username gives me pause...

phil_M wrote:
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?

Europe: Maybe, US: NO WAY!

phil_M wrote:
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?

Brunoworks wrote:
Europe: Maybe, US: NO WAY!

In that you are right next door to MO, you might want to look at their statutes.  Unless they have changed their laws, they permit topless shots of minors (absent real or simulated sex).  There are places in the U.S. where this might be fine.  There are places where it might be a problem.  I agree with you, it is probably not a good idea.

The question, however, was about the UK.  When you say "Europe:  Maybe" bear in mind that indecent images of a minor in the UK are illegal.  The definition of what is indecent is vague.  As of yet, the courts have not given guidance.

If it were me, I would be a lot more concerned about doing it in the UK than I would be doing it in Missouri.

Robert Smith PHY wrote:
imho

1. ask your lawyer
2. what happened to a written parental consent (ahem... aren't they legal guardians and legally responsible for a minor)
3. golden rule... if you've got to ask the question, you know the answer but you don't like it, so just don't do it

hope this helps

As you are in the UK I'll answer your point #2 for you very quickly. Making an image of a "child" that is "indecent", a term that is not defined, is unlawful and criminal in the UK; the parent, therefore, can not knowingly consent to the commission of an unlawful / criminal act any more than the photographer could make the image; in addition to making, possession and distribution of any such image - all criminal acts - PERMITTING THE IMAGE TO BE MADE, and that is what the parent would be doing, is also a criminal act. Ergo, the parent who explicitly consents to it, and arranges for it by making the "child" available, could also be charged.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

As you are in the UK I'll answer your point #2 for you very quickly. Making an image of a "child" that is "indecent", a term that is not defined, is unlawful and criminal in the UK; the parent, therefore, can not knowingly consent to the commission of an unlawful / criminal act any more than the photographer could make the image; in addition to making, possession and distribution of any such image - all criminal acts - PERMITTING THE IMAGE TO BE MADE, and that is what the parent would be doing, is also a criminal act. Ergo, the parent who explicitly consents to it, and arranges for it by making the "child" available, could also be charged.

Studio36

I'd love to know what happend to the UK. Ten years ago, topless sixteen year old were routinely used to sell trashy tabloid papers. Today the whole country seems to have turned into a bunch of prudes...

Amy Cavanaugh wrote:
The age of consent where you live in 16...but I would be really careful were I you.

Age of consent for sex is 16 - for being in erotic pictures it's 18. Really confused - you can spank her, sodomise her and then come on her face with impunity - but take a picture of the result and you're doing serious time.

albertaphotog wrote:
I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole.

For real

Madcrow Photographics wrote:
I'd love to know what happend to the UK. Ten years ago, topless sixteen year old were routinely used to sell trashy tabloid papers. Today the whole country seems to have turned into a bunch of prudes...

Welcome to the 21st century.   The world view has become more modern and progressive - certainly more tolerant - NOT!

Pink Tights Dance  wrote:
Seriously, you can't find anyone else to shoot? Like there aren't about a kabillion gorgeous adult women that are fine with nudity? But you're focused on this little girl? 

Sometimes we need to censor ourselves. This is one of those times. Lolita syndrome.

-1



reading comprehension fail.

Linux99 wrote:
Age of consent for sex is 16 - for being in erotic pictures it's 18. Really confused - you can spank her, sodomise her and then come on her face with impunity - but take a picture of the result and you're doing serious time.

Yes. THIS ^^^ is absolutely true!

In the UK you might even get away with, though of course I wouldn't advise it, doing those things to an U-16 [say a 14 or 15 y/o] as long as it was consensual, and still have less risk of jail time than merely taking their nude picture.

So, you see, the prudery does not extend to sex, or sexuality, or sexual orientation itself [they have actually lowered the age of consent here for gay males in recent years] only photographs of it.

Studio36

salvatori. wrote:

... and sometimes we need to read correctly.

This is your very first forum post and you quite obviously didn't even read the OP. It states that he was asked by a family to do a portrait. He isn't 'focused on this little girl' and telling him to go find someone else to shoot doesn't even make any sense (and wouldn't in a 'kabillion' years).

The OP might not be the one with a Lolita syndrome... I mean, your MM username gives me pause...

I read his post quite clearly. The fact the child's family sanctions this activity is neither here nor there. Sometimes parents are the problem. That's why there's such a thing as child abuse and incest. If a "family" contacted me to photograph their underage daughter, I'd not only turn them down, I'd report them to child welfare. Let them sort out what the motivations are. Can just imagine the family taking out the family album, and saying, "Yeah, this is my nude daughter at 16 ..." you fill in the rest. 

And I was commenting on him actually considering this. I mean he didn't just say, "Go away," he's posting this question why? His own shaky moral stance? For a consensus? So if over 50% of the posts go his way, he'll do this?

And if you weren't so ignorant, you'd know pinktights refers to my ballet photography and is part of the name of my company. If you see some symbology, or gylphs, or mystical meanings in ballet dancers wearing pink tights, it's on you, not me.

Sounds like you're overly defensive. Not surprised.

A L L A N A H wrote:

-1



reading comprehension fail.

-14

snarky quotient fail.

Pink Tights Dance  wrote:
I read his post quite clearly. The fact the child's family sanctions this activity is neither here nor there. Sometimes parents are the problem. That's why there's such a thing as child abuse and incest. If a "family" contacted me to photograph their underage daughter, I'd not only turn them down, I'd report them to child welfare. Let them sort out what the motivations are. Can just imagine the family taking out the family album, and saying, "Yeah, this is my nude daughter at 16 ..." you fill in the rest. 

And I was commenting on him actually considering this. I mean he didn't just say, "Go away," he's posting this question why? His own shaky moral stance? For a consensus? So if over 50% of the posts go his way, he'll do this?

And if you weren't wound so tight you would also know that naturism/nudism involving men, women and children, in a family like environment [at home, in a camp ground or on a nude beach], is generally not unlawful either in Europe, the UK in specific, or, even in the US [with the singular exception of Arkansas].

Even photography in a nudist environment and context is not manifestly and automatically unlawful.

The only issue being discussed here is the legal tension between taking pictures of nudists, including children, and the BRITISH law concerning images of children that might be found to be "indecent." It is not unheard of to find that images of clothed children might be found equally "indecent". On balance one needs to exercise a certain amount of caution in taking photographs of ANY children and understand the actual limits beyond which one must not go as well as those which it is voluntarily prudent not to explore or test.

BEING NUDE, in a nudist/naturist context, in the presence of others who are not your own family, including children, is not an offence against the law. It is not in Europe generally, the UK in specific, or in the US [save for Arkansas]. End of story.

Studio36

Pink Tights Dance  wrote:
I read his post quite clearly. The fact the child's family sanctions this activity is neither here nor there. Sometimes parents are the problem. That's why there's such a thing as child abuse and incest. If a "family" contacted me to photograph their underage daughter, I'd not only turn them down, I'd report them to child welfare. Let them sort out what the motivations are. Can just imagine the family taking out the family album, and saying, "Yeah, this is my nude daughter at 16 ..." you fill in the rest. 

And I was commenting on him actually considering this. I mean he didn't just say, "Go away," he's posting this question why? His own shaky moral stance? For a consensus? So if over 50% of the posts go his way, he'll do this?

And if you weren't so ignorant, you'd know pinktights refers to my ballet photography and is part of the name of my company. If you see some symbology, or gylphs, or mystical meanings in ballet dancers wearing pink tights, it's on you, not me.

Sounds like you're overly defensive. Not surprised.

Your reply to me makes even less sense than your reply to the OP. And uh, yeah, I know that pink tights are a ballet thing, I'm not an idiot.

Why you 'aren't surprised' that I'm 'defensive' (which I don't even see in my reply, I was really just questioning your lack of logic) is ridiculous.

And I will go further and question something else you have said. Intrinsically, it is not immoral to photograph a teenager nude. It can be art if one chooses to make it in that manner. For example, wouldn't you consider this image artistic?:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FNndI0BvPNA/S … ges_31.jpg

It is possible (though it is not my place to say as I don't know him) that he has the correct intentions in possibly pursuing this project.

And to equate child abuse and incest with naturism is actually the scariest and most dangerous thing you said and it makes me sad for any 'children' under your tutelage for any period of time, even in the context of being photographed in a ballet class; the level of paranoia must be ridiculous.