This thread was locked on 2011-12-22 20:28:05
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
291 wrote:
it certainly takes the right mindset in approach, specifically not correlating nudity with sexuality. it seems those opposed to such an assignment can't readily do that as it would traverse the comfort zone and for them i would suggest taking a pass. there ya go...agreed 100%
Retoucher
Bethany Retoucher
Posts: 84
London, England, United Kingdom
Unless you're in Scotland where a minor is considered under 16. It's up to the courts and law in the end to interpret if they see it as indecent. It seems like a huge risk.
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
phil_M wrote:
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. You use an attorney to clear up the legal side, not the MM forums, of all places.
Did you read the previous posts, or just see what you wanted to see?
The family isn't/won't be your problem.
Retoucher
Bethany Retoucher
Posts: 84
London, England, United Kingdom
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
so we can take your post into consideration, can you cite an actual law? There was a previous thread on MM asking about shooting minors, the laws changed in 2003 making it tough to photograph them, it seems it's very 50/50 and depends on what the court sees as indecent.
The Protection of Children Act 1976; in combination with the Sexual Offences Act 2003 are the laws the UK has in place for minors.
I'd certainly seek legal advice. Just in case.
EDIT: here's a good post from Stefano on an old thread https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st14051933
Photographer
129 Imaging
Posts: 438
Jacksonville, Florida, US
This is deff an interesting and heated debate. I am torn on the subject, as a father to 3 girls it would be hell to the no for them, but I am not a nudist.  If the image is souly a record image for the family and the daughter to keep for herself, AND SHE is wanting the image taken. I think it is ok as long as it is done only in a portrait way. I wonder is it any diferent than the many images we see in National Geographic etc of young nude girls in there home setting, like aboriginees (excuse my bad spelling) or tribes in Africa or anywhere, remote islands. I am sure in some mag stories some in the images were "under age" and I am sure they did not have ID to verify. The images are not taken sexualy cuz the intent is just to record them at that time, even though they are printed and seen by millions. Like I said I dont know what the real deal on this job is, but the debate is interesting.
Photographer
blacquejack
Posts: 299
Charles Town, West Virginia, US
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? I call that child poronography
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
blacquejack wrote:
I call that child poronography a perfect example of whats wrong with out societies...the inability to disassociate nudity with pornography...
thanks for the great example.
Photographer
129 Imaging
Posts: 438
Jacksonville, Florida, US
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? I am talking about as a portrait not a "tasteful topless/ art nude"
Model
UGLY
Posts: 567
London, England, United Kingdom
blacquejack wrote:
I call that child poronography no it isn't
i do not understand how not wearing clothes makes
stuff automatically inapropriate .
Photographer
DoubleDare Studios
Posts: 977
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, US
I wouldn't want a topless pic of my daughter at any age...
Photographer
docD
Posts: 213
Toledo, Ohio, US
DoubleDare Studios wrote:
I wouldn't want a topless pic of my daughter at any age... ...and I think it was not about your daughter. Actually it's about what the parents of that girl want to hire the OP for.
@the OP:
If in doubt, don't. Period.
doc.
Photographer
DoubleDare Studios
Posts: 977
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, US
docD wrote:
...and I think it was not about your daughter. Actually it's about what the parents of that girl want to hire the OP for.
@the OP:
If in doubt, don't. Period.
doc. No shit? I must have missed that part. Hell, I thought they wanted images of my 16 yr old daughter, topless. Thanx for clearing that up...
Photographer
MLRPhoto
Posts: 5766
Olivet, Michigan, US
DoubleDare Studios wrote:
I wouldn't want a topless pic of my daughter at any age... Hard as it may be to believe, different families make different choices on all sorts of matters.
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
PhotoshopBliss wrote:
A girl under 18 in the UK is considered a minor and it's illegal to take nude photographs. Unless you're in Scotland where a minor is considered an under 16 year old. Wrong.
It's not illegal to take nude photos of a minor - it's illegal to take 'indecent' photos. Of course, the fact that the word 'indecent' has no legally accepted meaning in UK law and that most people would consider nude photos of a 16 year old girl (whether her family are naturists or not) indecent, kind of muddies the water.... just a bit.
Basically, it's not illegal per-se but it's such a potential legal minefield that no photographer in his/her right mind would contemplate volunteering to be the 'test case'.
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Photographer
DoubleDare Studios
Posts: 977
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, US
MikeRobisonPhotos wrote:
Hard as it may be to believe, different families make different choices on all sorts of matters. Wow! All this genius-level education I'm getting today is a little overwhelming!
Photographer
dirk olsen
Posts: 1338
Memphis, Tennessee, US
Photographer
129 Imaging
Posts: 438
Jacksonville, Florida, US
DoubleDare Studios wrote:
Wow! All this genius-level education I'm getting today is a little overwhelming! There is a statement we can all agree on!
Photographer
Yves Duchamp - Femme
Posts: 24436
Virginia Beach, Virginia, US
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? I see no problem with it either. The shots do not sound like they will be sexual in nature. However, check the laws in your area just to be absolutely sure that you're not doing anything illegal.
Photographer
rfordphotos
Posts: 8866
Antioch, California, US
blacquejack wrote:
I call that child poronography I am constantly amazed at the ability of folks who think as you do...
You can judge an image as pornographic---without ever seeing it, and before it is even taken.
Amazing skill? or closed mind? The latter I think.
OP--- you have been offered sound advice, if you choose to pursue this project, I would think legal advice from someone with actual experience in this area would be a smart move.
Photographer
Neil Snape
Posts: 9474
Paris, Île-de-France, France
Stefano Brunesci wrote:
Wrong.
It's not illegal to take nude photos of a minor - it's illegal to take 'indecent' photos. Of course, the fact that the word 'indecent' has no legally accepted meaning in UK law and that most people would consider nude photos of a 16 year old girl (whether her family are naturists or not) indecent, kind of muddies the water.... just a bit.
Basically, it's not illegal per-se but it's such a potential legal minefield that no photographer in his/her right mind would contemplate volunteering to be the 'test case'.
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com Stefano is correct I think. MAny threads have been here before on this. Anyone considering shooting sexy pictures of 16 year olds clothed or not will be risking scrutiny.
I doubt very much that the OP is asking or thinking to do that.
Also true David Hamilton shot a lot of models from France in France. Sorry to say but reason still exists here, meanwhile we've never had page 3 girls, ever.
Photographer
Dark Shadows
Posts: 2269
Miami, Florida, US
10 years ago, maybe even 5, I would have said go for it.
Today there is heightened sensitivity around anyone under 18. I wouldn't do it. I just read about a guy who was arrested for taking videos of kids showering in those public showers at the beach.
Photographer
Michael Fryd
Posts: 5231
Miami Beach, Florida, US
Parental permission doesn't protect you.
If the images were indecent, then parental permission doesn't protect you, it merely makes them an accessory to the crime.
As others have pointed out, there is no clear definition of what constitutes indecent. In the US, nudity is not a requirement for a photo to be indecent.
Out of an abundance of caution, some photographers choose to avoid shooting nudes involving minors, or even avoid shooting minors entirely.
My recommendation, is that before shooting a topless minor, you have a chat with an attorney to find out what the local laws really are. I then suggest you be very careful to make sure you are well within the law. Charging a photographer with child pornography makes the local government more popular with the public, even if the accusation turns out to be false.
Photographer
Sleepy Weasel
Posts: 4839
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
blacquejack wrote:
I call that child poronography Calling it what you want doesn't make it so. But I guess without people thinking the way you do, the rest of us open-minded free thinkers wouldn't have anyone to compare our views to.
DoubleDare Studios wrote:
I wouldn't want a topless pic of my daughter at any age... The point you're missing about this post is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the OP's question. Take that into consideration with the rest of the education you've just received today.
Photographer
Rik Williams
Posts: 4005
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
You only need ask two questions:
What's the best that could happen?
What's the worst that could happen?
Choose wisely.
Photographer
DoubleDare Studios
Posts: 977
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, US
Sleepy Weasel wrote:
blacquejack wrote:
I call that child poronography Calling it what you want doesn't make it so. But I guess without people thinking the way you do, the rest of us open-minded free thinkers wouldn't have anyone to compare our views to.
The point you're missing about this post is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the OP's question. Take that into consideration with the rest of the education you've just received today. I missed another point in this post?!
*re-reads OP* "Any thoughts out there?"
...nope. Guess I didn't miss a thing...
Model
Faith EnFire
Posts: 13514
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
photodorset wrote:
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 oh that is a smart idea... (imo)
Model
Faith EnFire
Posts: 13514
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
blacquejack wrote:
I call that child poronography so if someone takes a picture of their kid in the bath...that's pornography? cuz they're naked
Photographer
129 Imaging
Posts: 438
Jacksonville, Florida, US
DoubleDare Studios wrote:
I missed another point in this post?!
*re-reads OP* "Any thoughts out there?"
...nope. Guess I didn't miss a thing... The education you really need today is all the rules that produce a properly exposed, composed, and well conceptualized image. Instead of taking pot shots without articulating and argument of any kind to advance the debate may I suggest watching one of many youtube vids on basic photography and work on your port.
Photographer
Rik Williams
Posts: 4005
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
blacquejack wrote:
I call that child poronography Wtf?
Photographer
MKPhoto
Posts: 5665
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Reputation:
It is enough that someone says "Phil_m took nudes of an underage girl". Nuff said...IMO
Photographer
Adain At
Posts: 361
Los Angeles, California, US
It's not illegal. Lets all give the OP the benefit here and assume he's not going to rape the girl.
Wardrobe Stylist
Dave the design student
Posts: 45198
Detroit, Michigan, US
Madcrow Photographics 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. The terrorists won.
Adain At wrote:
It's not illegal. Lets all give the OP the benefit here and assume he's not going to rape the girl. That's quite a leap. After all, he owns a camera.
Photographer
Adain At
Posts: 361
Los Angeles, California, US
Dark Shadows wrote:
Today there is heightened sensitivity around anyone under 18. I wouldn't do it. I just read about a guy who was arrested for taking videos of kids showering in those public showers at the beach. That and creating art work with a 16 year old and her parents are apples and the moon.
Photographer
129 Imaging
Posts: 438
Jacksonville, Florida, US
MKPhoto wrote:
Reputation:
It is enough that someone says "Phil_m took nudes of an underage girl". Nuff said...IMO Valid point. The court of law is one worry, as we can see the court of public opinion could do more damage. With no burden of proof.
Photographer
JA Sanchez
Posts: 6830
Miami, Florida, US
Dave the design student wrote:
Madcrow Photographics 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. The terrorists won.
That's quite a leap. After all, he owns a camera. I wouldn't say they won, but yeah, they're winning. We've given up a lot of rights in the name of security.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
phil_M wrote:
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. I hope you are not interpretting this to mean that it is "OK" to do it. You are getting a lot of commentary from photographers in the U.S. who know little about UK law. For that matter, they probably know little of U.S. law as well.
You have already been given the right answer twice.
camerawerk wrote:
First thing, taking topless/nude pics of 16 year olds isn't illegal in the UK but taking indecent pictures is and there isn't a clear defiinition of indecency. Perhaps we need someone to test the boundries but do you want to be that person, especially if you lose?
. Stefano Brunesci wrote:
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. Unless and until the UK courts start giving guidance as to what "indecent" means, the whole matter is a crap shoot. I will give you an example, it used to be that many of the "Page 3" girls were sixteen or seventeen years old. When was the last time you saw a model under 18 on page three? Indeed, did you notice that they have removed all shots of models under 18 from the archives on the website?
My advice, be careful. Things are very murky in the UK right now.
Photographer
Adain At
Posts: 361
Los Angeles, California, US
blacquejack wrote:
I call that child poronography I call you a pervert then.
I love how the presentation of "A 16 year old topless" leads some to instantly think of porn.
I'd be a pervert if I said "Animal Poop Porn" every time a dog took a shit on my lawn.
Photographer
DoubleDare Studios
Posts: 977
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, US
129 Imaging wrote:
The education you really need today is all the rules that produce a properly exposed, composed, and well conceptualized image. Instead of taking pot shots without articulating and argument of any kind to advance the debate may I suggest watching one of many youtube vids on basic photography and work on your port. That's a very good point! I'll be in Jax, FL. this weekend (I went UNF, we're having a get-together there). I'd like you to teach me. Mind telling me where I could find you?
Photographer
129 Imaging
Posts: 438
Jacksonville, Florida, US
DoubleDare Studios wrote:
That's a very good point! I'll be in Jax, FL. this weekend (I went UNF, we're having a get-together there). I'd like you to teach me. Mind telling me where I could find you? Well, u r consistant.
Photographer
DoubleDare Studios
Posts: 977
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, US
129 Imaging wrote:
Well, u r consistant. As are you...
|
If the image is souly a record image for the family and the daughter to keep for herself, AND SHE is wanting the image taken. I think it is ok as long as it is done only in a portrait way. 
