photoimager wrote:

If you are going to get historical and go back to the days of the Pilgrim Fathers then, historically you would be correct.

Aside from that, the OP is in the UK so opinions that run contrary to UK law are meaningless. Opinions from overseas that advise caution, moderation and sensibility are meaningful.

I get that...

I'd offer the same advice of caution for those here in the US that happen to live in the "Bible Belt".

I am still suprized that it's that way in the UK.

For what it's worth.

Daniel... Photographer in Ventura California

Linux99 wrote:

The law enforcement officials give a lot more leeway (and IMHO rightly so) to professional photographrs working with agency represented models in a studio with an assistant, MUA, admin assistant etc than thy do to a guy shooting his friends cousins kid in the living room.

Why can you go pay $200 to watch a boxing match where the boxers are lauded as heros yet two guys fighting in the street are both arrested for assault and breach of the peace? Same same.

+1

You hit the nail on the head.

Linux99 wrote:

That's because by definition for it to have been a successful prosecution it has to be pornography.

Can you point to a single red car that isn't red?

The broken part about this is that while i can define "red" with a good dgree of accuracy there isn't a similar definition of pornography.

In the UK the laws on this are difficuly, poorly worded and wholly subjective. Is it really fear mongering to say that unlss you rally know what you are doing it's safest not to put yourself at the mercy of any overly zealous proscutor unless you have a really good idea about what you are doing?

There doesn't even seem to be a decent definition for "indecent."

photoimager wrote:

Anyone owning one of his coffee-table books now risks being "arrested for possession of indecent photographs", following a ruling at Guildford Crown Court.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2005/ … graphy.art

Did you read the article you posted?

In the article below, we say that the books of the photographer, David Hamilton, were declared indecent in a "landmark ruling" at Guildford crown court. This was not a landmark ruling. The defendant had pleaded guilty to specimen charges and this fact was accidentally edited from the original story.

Which basically reads to me as "Any relation the following article bears to the facts is purely coincidental."

The man had 19,000 pictures that the prosecutors called "indecent," and chose not to fight the accusation (like a moron).  I'm willing to bet that there were other charges filed against him, and he negotiated it down to calling his picture collection indecent.  On the other hand, the prosecutor may have just put the thumbscrews to the guy (figuratively) as he'd spent a lot of time on the case, or needed a big win, or just didn't like the guy's face and coerced a guilty plea to the only thing he had on him.

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
Wrong!

Ryan, you are completely wrong on this. The law in the UK has changed since it was OK for 16 year olds to pose topless for the Sun. These days, anybody under 18 is considered a "child" so the Protection Of Children Act applies. While taking a topless photo of a 16 year old may be legal if it is not "indecent", how many judges and jury members will be willing to go out on a limb and state that they think such an image is NOT "indecent", especially if the type of photo is anything even slightly approaching a glamour shot as the OP was suggesting.

Please refrain from repeating this misinformation in the forums in future.


Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

+1

Some quick research will inform you that the law was changed a little over five years ago.  The models have to be 18 or older.

"Ignorance is never an excuse for breaking the law."

Jake Garn wrote:
There are a lot of fear mongers on MM that actually don't have much experience shooting girls under 18.  You absolutely can.  If you're worried about it talk to a lawyer about the precautions you need to take.

A couple hour meeting with a lawyer about it in my area cost a mere $300 and now I'm all set.

That said, there are some risks associated with it, but there are risks associated with EVERY single activity you can imagine doing... don't listen to the fear mongers.

:-)

Let's not lose sight of the original topic.  The OP is worried about the repercussions of shooting an "indecent" glamour session with someone that is under 18 in England.

Lawyers are hired sometimes to give legal advice intermixed with a bit of opinion.

Sometimes they're right, and nothing happens...

Sometimes they're wrong, and another lawyer is hired to try to remedy the situation.

iMn Photography wrote:
There doesn't even seem to be a decent definition for "indecent."

That is why I find the statute itself to be indecent!

ei Total Productions wrote:
That is why I find the statute itself to be indecent!

You have pretty decent work

photoimager wrote:

If you are going to get historical and go back to the days of the Pilgrim Fathers then, historically you would be correct.

Aside from that, the OP is in the UK so opinions that run contrary to UK law are meaningless. Opinions from overseas that advise caution, moderation and sensibility are meaningful.

So you're saying that the OP should disregard cautionary warnings?

Regarding opinions that run contrary to UK law (or any law), they are opinions.  As mentioned very early on in this discussion: this is not a legal forum.

OP: Caveat Emptor.  In this case, "You get what you pay for."

Robert Winn Photography wrote:
The laws in the UK allow you to shoot a 16 year old model nude if you wish.

These people often don't have a clue to what the law actually is.

I don't know where you think you got that from but on balance it is correct ONLY IN SO FAR as the resulting images are not "indecent". And as rightly pointed out by another poster above the law does not offer any definition or guidance on exactly what is and is not "indecent." You will not find out until the end of your trial.

A business acquaintance of mine imports into the UK nudist videos as part of his business, quite ordinary depictions of the nudist lifestyle, often depicting families w/ children. Now, videos run here in PAL format at 50 frames per second. He had a master video seized by UK Customs over 2 frames involving children climbing on a fence [count 'em TWO frames that were visible on screen for NOT MORE THAN 1/25th of a second] within a video where Customs declared that those two frames were "indecent" images of someone under 18. He wound up in court, at substantial personal expense to him, over that.

Studio36

iMn Photography wrote:
Let's not lose sight of the original topic.  The OP is worried about the repercussions of shooting an "indecent" glamour session with someone that is under 18 in England.

Lawyers are hired sometimes to give legal advice intermixed with a bit of opinion.

Sometimes they're right, and nothing happens...

Sometimes they're wrong, and another lawyer is hired to try to remedy the situation.

Why did you put indecent in quotes?  The OP never mentioned that he was planning on creating an 'indecent' glamour session... why are you putting words in their mouth?

Your fearmongering is not helpful...

Kid Yosh Media wrote:
i really think it comes down to how suggestive the images are. TrueTeenBabes I thought was shut down before. But when it comes to glamour I always tell myself..."there's a reason Maxium hasn't plaster Miley Cyrus on the cover in her undies yet. She's not 18 and nor do they want to come under fire for it. If you lived in the UK where the rules are a little different I'd say go for it. While she may be related to you that isn't the issue. It's other people. Let someone see the photos and flip out over her age and start calling you a "pervert photographer" you're never gonna get a job again if that spreads.

but better safe than sorry if you feel iffy about it don't do it, or get  a laywer

Owner of TrueTeenBabes was cleared of ALL charges (which is why the site is back up).  Huge hassle for him no doubt, but the revolutionary war was also a pretty big hassle... if you want to keep your rights then sometimes you have to stand up for them.  :-)

Jake Garn wrote:

iMn Photography wrote:
Let's not lose sight of the original topic.  The OP is worried about the repercussions of shooting an "indecent" glamour session with someone that is under 18 in England.

Lawyers are hired sometimes to give legal advice intermixed with a bit of opinion.

Sometimes they're right, and nothing happens...

Sometimes they're wrong, and another lawyer is hired to try to remedy the situation.

Why did you put indecent in quotes?  The OP never mentioned that he was planning on creating an 'indecent' glamour session... why are you putting words in their mouth?

Your fearmongering is not helpful...

I assure you that the UK courts will apply a criteria, though it is not formalised it exists, to the determination of "indecent" very much like the US applies the Dost factors:

DOST FACTORS - US

   1. whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area

   2. whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity

   3. whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of a child

   4. whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude

   5. whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity

   6. whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

Further, as followed in US v. Knox, the UK courts have never held that nudity is a required lement of "indecency" in an image of someone under [currently] the age of 18.

But here's the bottom line to this thread - ANYONE - in the US trying to advise a UK photographer - the OP - on UK law is talking out of your ass. The difference between UK and US law and practice on this subject is vast.

British lawyers can not answer the question either because there is no answer in law available. If asked they will invariably give the best advice they can - and that would be that the OP  steer well clear of doing it.

Studio36

Jake Garn wrote:
Why did you put indecent in quotes?  The OP never mentioned that he was planning on creating an 'indecent' glamour session... why are you putting words in their mouth?

Your fearmongering is not helpful...

The elephant in the room is not whether the OP is working with a minor, or even whether the OP is shooting glamour with a minor.  The real dilemma is whether the glamour work shot with a minor will be considered "indecent."

It is very easy for you and others to tell others not to warn someone about possible legal trouble, because you are not the one taking the risks.

Indecent is in quotes, because I was not quoting the OP.  If I were quoting the OP, I would have put "indecent" in brackets.

It's all about reading between the lines.  Glamour photography is not illegal, but it is very easy to cross the line of propriety if you are inexperienced.

Indecency and its definition is what everyone seems to be avoiding in this discussion, and I think it has to do with the fact that Britain leaves it up to the jury-of-the-moment to decide what is and isn't.

It is the probability that the OPs work can be interpreted as such, which is the issue at hand.

Jake Garn wrote:
Why did you put indecent in quotes?  The OP never mentioned that he was planning on creating an 'indecent' glamour session... why are you putting words in their mouth?

Your fearmongering is not helpful...

iMn Photography wrote:
The elephant in the room is not whether the OP is working with a minor, or even whether the OP is shooting glamour with a minor.  The real dilemma is whether the glamour work shot with a minor will be considered "indecent."

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.

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.

The problem is that the UK statute is soooooo vague that the OP, or anyone else, will never know if any particular image meets the indecency test that will be applied until they are standing in front of a judge.

The purpose of the shoot will not matter; the state of the mind of the photographer, his intent, will not matter [mens rea or not]; artistic merit will not matter. None of these will count as mitigating. Only the image in and of itself, and in isolation, is considered.

That's how it works here, and it is intentional.

Studio36

ei Total Productions wrote:

Jake Garn wrote:
Why did you put indecent in quotes?  The OP never mentioned that he was planning on creating an 'indecent' glamour session... why are you putting words in their mouth?

Your fearmongering is not helpful...

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.

Honestly there's a fine line beween "glamour" and "indecent". Who wants to be the test case for where that line is drawn? At one time it used - famously - to be "would you let your wife or servants be exposed to this?", it's moce now but no on really knows where to. The law is a mess.

ei Total Productions wrote:

Jake Garn wrote:
Why did you put indecent in quotes?  The OP never mentioned that he was planning on creating an 'indecent' glamour session... why are you putting words in their mouth?

Your fearmongering is not helpful...

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.

Read her posting once again.  It is very clear to me that she thinks she needs some legal way out of a possible hassle.

At the time this thread was begun, I don't think Stacey (the OP) had done any preliminary research regarding the legality of her actions.

And I quote:

"...a 16 year old, (close relative) wants me to photograph her glamour...But is it allowed, even with mothers consent?"

She talks about attire, but doesn't mention much regarding the posing aspect.

Anyone that has shot glamour or whatever knows that the release form protects the photographer, but when it comes to minors the courts go after the adults, and rightfully so.

William Westerhoff wrote:
As long as mom is at the shoot no problem.

Hmmmmm - 'cept there was a case in the UK where a couple who had sex in a hot tub with their 1 year old infant lying on a blanket nearby - they were convicted and now live a Sex Offenders on the register.

Mom present is zero defence in the UK.

glam·our   /ˈglæmər/ Show Spelled[glam-er] –noun
1.
the quality of fascinating, alluring, or attracting, esp. by a combination of charm and good looks.
2.
excitement, adventure, and unusual activity: the glamour of being an explorer.
3.
magic or enchantment; spell; witchery.

The only thing that makes one "underage" is the inability to enter contracts, or if the ending subject depiction makes it illegal for the person to perform, such as a minor in porn. I've shot glamour with 16yo models before. Here's one:

http://pbprophoto.net/lauratft01.jpg

Her mom brought her to me like this...

How do people shoot Miss Teen pageant images if they aren't shooting glamour images ? Do they shoot Kmart/WalMart/Sears style ? Or do they shoot glamour ?

People who think everything glamorous is T&A/nude, needs to get their minds out of the gutter...

Paul

iMn Photography wrote:
Indecency and its definition is what everyone seems to be avoiding in this discussion, and I think it has to do with the fact that Britain leaves it up to the jury-of-the-moment to decide what is and isn't.

It is the probability that the OPs work can be interpreted as such, which is the issue at hand.

And this is so right an observation, that it is not impossible in the UK to be convicted in one court of making an indecent image and in another court on the same image to be found not guilty.

Studio36

William Westerhoff wrote:
As long as mom is at the shoot no problem.

ROTFLMAO - you are talking out of your ass as well - in the UK mom, if she allowed it and consented to it whether she was present or not, could be charged with permitting an indecent image, if an image is found to be so, to be made.

Studio36

Paul Brecht wrote:
It's funny how when words like "glamour" & "underage"  (or 16/17yo) get used in the same thread, how the spread of fear & mass insinuations about motive get thrown out of proportion...

Most people on this site don't know what glamour is. They think it's synonymous with tits & ass or nude modeling. What does it mean to be glamorous ? T&A/nude ? I think not. Unfortunately, the internet world has decided that nude people loitering in front of a camera is now glam. How unfortunate that small minds have changed the understanding of a generation...

From dictionary.com:

The only thing that makes one "underage" is the ability to enter contracts, or if the ending subject depiction makes it illegal for the person to perform, such as a minor in porn. I've shot glamour with 16yo models before. Here's one:

http://pbprophoto.net/lauratft01.jpg

Her mom brought her to me like this...

How do people shoot Miss Teen pageant images if they aren't shooting glamour images ? Do they shoot Kmart/WalMart/Sears style ? Or do they shoot glamour ?

People who think everything glamorous is T&A/nude, needs to get their minds out of the gutter...

Paul

Read my post above. Glamour is whatever the lawyer trying to put you down can convince the jury it means.

Sadly you wouldn't be tried by a set of photographers but by 12 people chosen pretty much at random.

Linux99 wrote:
Read my post above. Glamour is whatever the lawyer trying to put you down can convince the jury it means.

Sadly you wouldn't be tried by a set of photographers but by 12 people chosen pretty much at random.

Not so. You are now trying to equate glamour with the word indecent. They are 2 separate terms with 2 different meanings...

I've never heard of anyone being tried for glamorous images of a minor...

Paul

Fur Elise wrote:
Does it have to be glamour? When one thinks of glamour they generally think... well... playboy/maxim style.


Some people get all worked up about the context of sexualizing children... I am one of these. Yeah, I care not for the Polanskis' of the world. I am not from the bible-belt... I am actually pagan.


Some people get all worked up because they don't see the problem w/ sexualizing children... anything I have to say about these people... well.. read between the dots.

As an aside:  Your choice of username is one of my favorite classical music pieces.

Paul Brecht wrote:
It's funny how when words like "glamour" & "underage"  (or 16/17yo) get used in the same thread, how the spread of fear & mass insinuations about motive get thrown out of proportion...

The OP is in the UK and in the UK the "motive" counts for nothing at all. Only the image counts.

This is entirely a question of UK law and practice, and only UK law and practice.

Studio36

Paul Brecht wrote:
Not so. You are now trying to equate glamour with the word indecent. They are 2 separate terms with 2 different meanings...

I've never heard of anyone being tried for glamorous images of a minor...

Paul

Obviously a typo.  I think that Linux99 meant "Glamour" in terms of sensuality. 
I'll admit ... I'm talking out of my ass, because I can't read Linux99's mind.  I only say this, because I would prefer if we stay on topic, and not start to argue about semantics.
(I still think that Fur Elise, is a wonderful piece of music)

studio36uk wrote:

The OP is in the UK and in the UK the "motive" counts for nothing at all. Only the image counts.

This is entirely a question of UK law and practice, and only UK law and practice.

Studio36

I'm referring to the jury of peers we have here in soapbox off topic...

Paul

iMn Photography wrote:
As an aside:  Your choice of username is one of my favorite classical music pieces.

Me too... I was listening to it when I was trying to choose a name... felt right. Hopefully Beethoven doesn't mind.

Paul Brecht wrote:
I'm referring to the jury of peers we have here in soapbox off topic...

Paul

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

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.

studio36uk wrote:
The problem is that the UK statute is soooooo vague that the OP, or anyone else, will never know if any particular image meets the indecency test that will be applied until they are standing in front of a judge.

The purpose of the shoot will not matter; the state of the mind of the photographer, his intent, will not matter [mens rea or not]; artistic merit will not matter. None of these will count as mitigating. Only the image in and of itself, and in isolation, is considered.

That's how it works here, and it is intentional.

Studio36

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."

iMn Photography wrote:
Obviously a typo.  I think that Linux99 meant "Glamour" in terms of sensuality. 
I'll admit ... I'm talking out of my ass, because I can't read Linux99's mind.  I only say this, because I would prefer if we stay on topic, and not start to argue about semantics.
(I still think that Fur Elise, is a wonderful piece of music)

That's my point...

The OP says "glamour" & everyone seems to think she means Playboy/Penthouse, when people do glamour shots of teens everyday in the real world. In the US, there's a mall chain called Glamorshots. They take images of thousands of teenage girls every year & the kids walk in on their own accord, without parental consent. There are teen (& younger) beauty pageants all over the world that need glamour shots for each contestant. If these people had it their way, there would be thousands of legit working photographers locked up every day...

Paul

Glamour is whatever the lawyer trying to put you down can convince the jury it means.

If that is the case no single photographer in this world would take a single picture of a woman of less than 18 years.
I think Paul Brecht was trying to point out that YOU PEOPLE mistake glamour for nudity/ indecent pictures.
Many filmdiva's have had their glamour portreaits taken  and there was nothing indecent about them.

Paul Brecht wrote:

Not so. You are now trying to equate glamour with the word indecent. They are 2 separate terms with 2 different meanings...

I've never heard of anyone being tried for glamorous images of a minor...

Paul

Not so.

Clearly they are different.

Kippling said:

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Lawyers are professional knaves who live to trap the unwary over this type of stuff. I wouldn't try to equate glamour with indecent. But it's not me you have to worry about.

The legislation in the UK is really poorly worded and what you need to worry about is the same sort of law officers who tried to get the show on the edinburgh fringe featuring the picture of Brook Shields closed down or reported Nan Goldins pictures as obscene. That there were no successful prosecutions oin those cass is a good thing - but 1. think of the hassle involved 2. reflect on how easy it is to bend th minds of a jury who are not as familiar as you and I with the genre.

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

Linux99 wrote:
Now isn't glamour what they call NUTS, FHM, Playboy? All those magagazines, Glamour

This is glamour. FHM might as well be porn

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.

Put a teen in a Burka and have her licking a 14" plastic phallus and clawing at her crotch and you're going to go to prison in th UK.

It's not the clothes it's whether you've got the model to act in a sexualised manner - and clothes are only one (small) part of that.

Paul Brecht wrote:

That's my point...

The OP says "glamour" & everyone seems to think she means Playboy/Penthouse, when people do glamour shots of teens everyday in the real world. In the US, there's a mall chain called Glamorshots. They take images of thousands of teenage girls every year & the kids walk in on their own accord, without parental consent. There are teen (& younger) beauty pageants all over the world that need glamour shots for each contestant. If these people had it their way, there would be thousands of legit working photographers locked up every day...

Paul

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.