photoimager wrote:
As I've posted here before:
The OP is in the UK. Comments from outside of the UK that encourage people to think it is OK to take all sorts of images of under 18s please put your comments in another thread. Comments from outside the UK that reflect an insight to the issue and have useful and connected points, please keep going if they will help the op.

(snip)

Please therefore, no more comments of disbelief or ridicule. You are not here, you are not the ones who will face any consequences of the OP falling foul of the law.

16 Year old glamour in the UK - NO, do not do it.

Keep the clothes on, not just a bra on top with jeans but an actual top. Avoid any poses / expressions that might be misconstrued. Then go ahead with the 'shoot, with a parent there.

What about all the Brit's that always chime in on these threads when they are US based ?

The laws are basically the same. The Dost test is the standard (started in the US) adopted around the world. It's funny how people in these forums always say how uptight & repressed the US is, when compared to the EU nations, but the Brit's here seem to be indicating that the UK is the most oppressed nation on the planet...

I will add, you won't be facing any consequence for the op's actions either (unless that's another UK legal idiocy)...

Paul

safe as houses wrote:

It must be said that you statement is stupid. what you said is not true. please post a case where this has happened in the U.K. and I'll give you your might but until then you're not well informed.

Oh dear!, in what way is my statement either stupid or 'not true' - the law in the UK is such that it is up to a judge and jury to decide what is or isn't indecent and as there are no guidelines what-so-ever then how are you to say what, on a particular day, will or will not be found to be indecent. Given that photographers are 'hassled' by police and officials on an almost daily basis for taking entirely innocent photographs of fully clothed children, then assuming common sense from 12 randomly selected jurors isn't a certainty.

Paul Brecht wrote:
The laws are basically the same. The Dost test is the standard (started in the US) adopted around the world. It's funny how people in these forums always say how uptight & repressed the US is, when compared to the EU nations, but the Brit's here seem to be indicating that the UK is the most oppressed nation on the planet...

The Dost factors may be relevant in an examination of images in the US, but they are NOT a feature of UK jurisprudence. Some line of reasoning such as the Dost factors might be suggested here in a court as a means to reach a conclusion, if a particular judge will allow it, but they carry no legal weight here and would never be part of a jury's instructions.

Yes, in this singular area of law, the UK may indeed be the most repressed country on earth. Why do you think we Brits keep telling the OP NOT to do what they asked about.

Paul Brecht wrote:
I will add, you won't be facing any consequence for the op's actions either (unless that's another UK legal idiocy)...

Paul

It doesn't affect me/us so I/we should just let the OP commit a possible criminal act when they could be advised in advance that it would likely be so? Or worse, tell them, as the US contingent here seems to do, to just go ahead and do it anyway. Oh... now that's nice. That must be the reggae approach to advice: Don' worry... be happy! Unfortunately we're not in Jamaica.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
The Dost factors may be relevant in an examination of images in the US, but they are NOT a feature of UK jurisprudence. Some line of reasoning such as the Dost factors might be suggested here in a court as a means to reach a conclusion, if a particular judge will allow it, but they carry no legal weight here and would never be part of a jury's instructions.

Yes, in this singular area of law, the UK may indeed be the most repressed country on earth. Why do you think we Brits keep telling the OP NOT to do what they asked about.

It doesn't affect me/us so I/we should just let the OP commit a possible criminal act when they could be advised in advance that it would likely be so? Or worse, tell them, as the US contingent here seems to do, to just go ahead and do it anyway. Oh... now that's nice. That must be the reggae approach to advice: Don' worry... be happy! Unfortunately we're not in Jamaica.

Studio36

The OP left the room a long time ago...

How is this advising her to do a possible criminal act ? I've gave examples of "glamour" images that are deemed acceptable in the western world, unless you guys don't allow child/teen pageants either. I guess you can't ever take pictures of kids in the UK (according to you guys) because it might be deemed illegal...

Paul

Paul Brecht wrote:
How is this advising her to do a possible criminal act ? I've gave examples of "glamour" images that are deemed acceptable in the western world, unless you guys don't allow child/teen pageants either. I guess you can't ever take pictures of kids in the UK (according to you guys) because it might be deemed illegal...

Paul

Within certain vague guidelines it is not illegal to photograph children. It is just that there are some things that it is not worth risking having your life destroyed over.

Paul Brecht wrote:
I guess you can't ever take pictures of kids in the UK (according to you guys) because it might be deemed illegal...

Paul

There HAVE been attempts to prohibit ALL photographs of children on some local government levels, e.g. in public parks, playing fields, swimming pools, public areas around schools, and playgrounds. Even of parents taking photos of their own children. Some of which restrictions are indeed in place, and enforced, in certain areas of the country in certain circumstances.

Studio36

Paul Brecht wrote:
.... I guess you can't ever take pictures of kids in the UK (according to you guys) because it might be deemed illegal...

Paul

Now you're getting it, exactly the situation we find ourselves in, what is perfectly normal and innocent to most 'might' be jumped on by some officious so and so who believes that it is illegal and unfortunately in some circumstances this could lead to a police investigation.

There are some signs that the current Government might try and rectify this to some degree.

Linux99 wrote:

"So lets get this straight - explain to me like I am a 5 year old - she's 16 and you took glamour photos, I repeat glamour , not portrait, not lifestyle, not fitness, but glamour photographs of her?

Now isn't glamour what they call NUTS, FHM, Playboy? All those magagazines, Glamour Magazines they put on the top shelf so children cant see them? Kids of 16, who are still children, cant see these pictures, cant buy these picturs but you thought it was OK to have them star in them? These "Glamour" photographs of yours?

Explain to me, and take all th time you need, how you thought this was OK?"

oooohhhhhhh - you better hotp you have terrence rattigan writing the defence for that one.

WTF...??  Over-reaction much???

I don't think the OP was planning to submit any pictures to any of those publications.....This is the UK....you can keep your self-righteous moral outrage over there, thanks.

Paul Brecht wrote:
I guess you can't ever take pictures of kids in the UK (according to you guys) because it might be deemed illegal...

Paul

I thnk that is exactly what they are saying.  Their position is that the statute is so vague that virtually any image of a minor could be deemed "indecent" and thus, the most innocent of photos could potentially put you in jail.  Needless to say, you and I disagree.

ei Total Productions wrote:
I thnk that is exactly what they are saying.  Their position is that the statute is so vague that virtually any image of a minor could be deemed "indecent" and thus, the most innocent of photos could potentially put you in jail.  Needless to say, you and I disagree.

How convenient that you are located outside the UK then!

FWIW, I wouldn't bother photographing under 18s until the law is clarified either.

RWP.

ei Total Productions wrote:

I thnk that is exactly what they are saying.  Their position is that the statute is so vague that virtually any image of a minor could be deemed "indecent" and thus, the most innocent of photos could potentially put you in jail.  Needless to say, you and I disagree.

That is exactly what we are saying.

We have suffered 14 years of intrusive, control freak government that has brought us more CCTV cameras per head than any other country, and lost civil liberties that had been in place for centuries.

Read that last sentence again before advising the Brits...

No matter how bad you think the Bush years were, they were nothing to Blair.

ei Total Productions wrote:
I thnk that is exactly what they are saying.  Their position is that the statute is so vague that virtually any image of a minor could be deemed "indecent" and thus, the most innocent of photos could potentially put you in jail.  Needless to say, you and I disagree.

Hugh Alison wrote:
That is exactly what we are saying.

Hugh Alison wrote:
No matter how bad you think the Bush years were, they were nothing to Blair.

I do, completely, believe that.  Actually, I understand it totally because we had our own ridiculous shift to the right here, and the world has paid for it with the deepest recession since the Great Depression.  I've seen draconian child porn laws here that have made our life miserable.  So I have no doubt that you guys are sincere, that it is the pits there and there are crazy things happening, I just believe that there is a lower limit on where these things will go.  I just don't see your run of the mill bikini shot being in their sites.

Hugh Alison wrote:
That is exactly what we are saying.

We have suffered 14 years of intrusive, control freak government that has brought us more CCTV cameras per head than any other country, and lost civil liberties that had been in place for centuries.

Read that last sentence again before advising the Brits...

No matter how bad you think the Bush years were, they were nothing to Blair.

There were some recent stats published on the Blair/Brown years - they added over 3000 new criminal laws onto the books, supposedly more than all the other previous British Governments (ever) added together

ei Total Productions wrote:
I just believe that there is a lower limit on where these things will go.  I just don't see your run of the mill bikini shot being in their sites.

You may believe that there is a lower limit; we here in the UK know there is not.

http://newgon.com/wiki/Indecent_images_of_children

Indecent images of children - In-depth study of British Laws governing "Child Porn".

Defintion of a child

A child was originally defined as a person under the age of 16, however the Sexual Offences Act (2003) raised the defintion of "child" to a person under the age of 18.

---

Indecency

The decency of an image is an objective test; that is, it is decided by the jury. Indecency is considered to be a question of fact.

Interpretation

In order to judge whether an image is indecent, the jury must "apply[..] the recognised standards of propriety." (R v Graham-Kerr, 1988) ...

... Put simply, a photograph or pseudo-photograph is judged to be indecent if the jury believes that it would offend the majority of the population of the United Kingdom.

---

Important Notes

   * Any image may technically be indecent under UK law.
    * Even if an image has been declared as decent by one jury, it may be still be declared indecent by another jury.
    * Despite precedents stating that the context of an image does not affect indecency, a jury may be more likely to rule that an image is indecent if they believe that the defendant is attracted to children.
    * Previous interpretations of the indecency suggest that "indecency" has a lower threshhold than "pornography", so what is "indecent" (and therefore illegal) is not necessarily "pornographic".

---

OBSERVE for the UK context the first point in the -Important Notes- part immediately above - - -

ANY image may TECHNICALLY be indecent under UK law.

If a jury says it is then it is, even your run of the mill bikini shot.

---

OBSERVE for the UK context the second point in the -Important Notes- part immediately above - - -

EVEN IF an image has been DECLARED AS DECENT BY ONE JURY, it MAY STILL BE DECLARED INDECENT BY ANOTHER JURY

A point I, and others, made much earlier in this thread. This is our very own version of "Contemporary Community Standards" as such is applied in the US. On the very same image you could be acquitted in London and convicted in Leeds, or vice versa.

Or --- Someone could be convicted on Monday by jury "A"; and in the same court and the same case on the very same image could be acquitted by jury "B" on Tuesday.

---

It's absolutely peverse, but, in the UK, it is what it is.

Studio36

ei Total Productions wrote:

I thnk that is exactly what they are saying.  Their position is that the statute is so vague that virtually any image of a minor could be deemed "indecent" and thus, the most innocent of photos could potentially put you in jail.  Needless to say, you and I disagree.

Although, from their case being made, I get the impression that in the UK, you shouldn't even own a camera. Everyone in the UK should either throw their cameras into the sea, or ship them to me... ...

Seriously, that's the case being presented here...

If taking pictures is so illegal, then Big Brother (the public camera system) would by the same definition, breaking the same laws, because there are children being videotaped in public. In the same sense, then downloading images off the internet should be illegal as well. No pageants for UK, because people might have "obscene" imagery of those teens...

Why anyone would choose to live in a society like that is beyond me...

Paul

Paul Brecht wrote:
Although, from their case being made, I get the impression that in the UK, you shouldn't even own a camera. Everyone in the UK should either throw their cameras into the sea, or ship them to me... ...

Seriously, that's the case being presented here...

If taking pictures is so illegal, then Big Brother (the public camera system) would by the same definition, breaking the same laws, because there are children being videotaped in public. In the same sense, then downloading images off the internet should be illegal as well. No pageants for UK, because people might have "obscene" imagery of those teens...

Why anyone would choose to live in a society like that is beyond me...

Paul

Funny you should say that. If I recall correctly, there was a big flap in the UK about children going through airport scanners because the people operating them would run afoul of child porn laws. When I have time I'll try to find a link. Now, I'm going to bed.


Here it is: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 … -porn-laws

ImagesByEd wrote:
Funny you should say that. If I recall correctly, there was a big flap in the UK about children going through airport scanners because the people operating them would run afoul of child porn laws. When I have time I'll try to find a link. Now, I'm going to bed.


Here it is: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 … -porn-laws

Lol... I've been watching documentaries on the Beatles (Lennon/McCartney) & it's funny how much they had fought over the years to reside here in the US, when the law was constantly after them for pot, etc...

I can see why. I wonder why so many Americans want to be like the UK ? (silly lib's)

Paul

ei Total Productions wrote:
I just believe that there is a lower limit on where these things will go.  I just don't see your run of the mill bikini shot being in their sites.

studio36uk wrote:
You may believe that there is a lower limit; we here in the UK know there is not.

http://newgon.com/wiki/Indecent_images_of_children

Indecent images of children - In-depth study of British Laws governing "Child Porn".

Defintion of a child

A child was originally defined as a person under the age of 16, however the Sexual Offences Act (2003) raised the defintion of "child" to a person under the age of 18.

---

Indecency

The decency of an image is an objective test; that is, it is decided by the jury. Indecency is considered to be a question of fact.

Interpretation

In order to judge whether an image is indecent, the jury must "apply[..] the recognised standards of propriety." (R v Graham-Kerr, 1988) ...

... Put simply, a photograph or pseudo-photograph is judged to be indecent if the jury believes that it would offend the majority of the population of the United Kingdom.

---

Important Notes

   * Any image may technically be indecent under UK law.
    * Even if an image has been declared as decent by one jury, it may be still be declared indecent by another jury.
    * Despite precedents stating that the context of an image does not affect indecency, a jury may be more likely to rule that an image is indecent if they believe that the defendant is attracted to children.
    * Previous interpretations of the indecency suggest that "indecency" has a lower threshhold than "pornography", so what is "indecent" (and therefore illegal) is not necessarily "pornographic".

---

OBSERVE for the UK context the first point in the -Important Notes- part immediately above - - -

ANY image may TECHNICALLY be indecent under UK law.

If a jury says it is then it is, even your run of the mill bikini shot.

---

OBSERVE for the UK context the second point in the -Important Notes- part immediately above - - -

EVEN IF an image has been DECLARED AS DECENT BY ONE JURY, it MAY STILL BE DECLARED INDECENT BY ANOTHER JURY

A point I, and others, made much earlier in this thread. This is our very own version of "Contemporary Community Standards" as such is applied in the US. On the very same image you could be acquitted in London and convicted in Leeds, or vice versa.

Or --- Someone could be convicted on Monday by jury "A"; and in the same court and the same case on the very same image could be acquitted by jury "B" on Tuesday.

---

It's absolutely peverse, but, in the UK, it is what it is.

Studio36

You are so over-reading this to make it suit your means.

ei Total Productions wrote:
You are so over-reading this to make it suit your means.

Down here at dirt level I assure you I am not. If I am, than so are all the other Brits in this thread who have independently offered similar observations and an abundance of caution. We can't all be wrong.

Studio36

ei Total Productions wrote:

You are so over-reading this to make it suit your means.

I think you might be mixing up the question of legality with that of the likelihood of punishment. You made a sensible inference about hte content of the shots the OP would make, but as I pointed out, even if one out of 500 shots is indecent, simply because of the pose the model adopts, she will have committed a criminal offence.

Aoxomedia wrote:
My avatar is of a 16 year old.

She's a great model.

There is nothing illegal in the UK about what you're proposing.

But you'll already have learnt that there's a transatlantic difference in thinking on this topic fuelled by a real paranoia amongst our US colleagues.

PM if you want to discuss further.

Perhaps you could take her out for a slap up meal she looks like she needs it

Davepit wrote:
I think you might be mixing up the question of legality with that of the likelihood of punishment. You made a sensible inference about hte content of the shots the OP would make, but as I pointed out, even if one out of 500 shots is indecent, simply because of the pose the model adopts, she will have committed a criminal offence.

she
the photographer;
any person in possession of that image;
any person who distributes or publishes that image;
any person who permitted that image to be made e.g. a parent giving permission for that purpose;
will have committed a criminal offence.

There, I fixed that for you Dave.

Studio36

Chanel Rene wrote:
A 16 year old in swimwear.... oh no! Does this mean I'm going to jail?

Not for the swimwear but for shooting her with those socks.... maybe.