Make U Model wrote:
I know they cannot do any nude art or topless art images.  But how about the age limit to do glamour photos? And what is the rule and regulations in UK?

I don't know about England, but that is not true in the US.

Though I suspect very soon some will come in here saying it is illegal, and how it would ruin a photographer's reputation.

Make U Model wrote:
Hi I have been contacted by some model to help them to take some images for their profile.  They already members of the MM. As I understand some of the requirement is to try some glamour images.

They are already registered on MM declaring the age and genres as glamour. But my concern is some of them are age 16 and 17 girls.

I know they cannot do any nude art or topless art images.  But how about the age limit to do glamour photos? And what is the rule and regulations in UK?

As a photographer what will be my responsibility? And what would be the responsibility of the model?

It would be  grateful if somebody could advice me.

Pose these questions to a lawyer in your area. Asking here on MM is not wise. You will only go away from this posting more confused than you are now. Every opinion you get here will be different and every person will think they are correct.

Make U Model wrote:
Hi I have been contacted by some model to help them to take some images for their profile.  They already members of the MM. As I understand some of the requirement is to try some glamour images.

They are already registered on MM declaring the age and genres as glamour. But my concern is some of them are age 16 and 17 girls.

I know they cannot do any nude art or topless art images.  But how about the age limit to do glamour photos? And what is the rule and regulations in UK?

As a photographer what will be my responsibility? And what would be the responsibility of the model?

It would be  grateful if somebody could advice me.

In the UK according to the Protection of Children Act 1978 taking just one "indecent" photo of a person under 18 (defined as a child) is an offence for which you can be jailed and put on the sex offenders register.

However, the definition of "indecent" is NOT legally known and would depend on the whim of the judge or jury members at your trial, so any image - even fully clothed - that they deemed "indecent" on that day could send you to jail.

My advice: if you're shooting glamour or anything like it, find a model over 18.



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Stefano Brunesci wrote:

In the UK according to the Protection of Children Act 1978 taking just one "indecent" photo of a person under 18 (defined as a child) is an offence for which you can be jailed and put on the sex offenders register.

However, the definition of "indecent" is NOT legally known and would depend on the whim of the judge or jury members at your trial, so any image - even fully clothed - that they deemed "indecent" on that day could send you to jail.

My advice: if you're shooting glamour or anything like it, find a model over 18.



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

UK laws are different than USA laws... listen to Stefano

Greg Kolack wrote:
I don't know about England, but that is not true in the US.

Though I suspect very soon some will come in here saying it is illegal, and how it would ruin a photographer's reputation.

Even though is not illegal in US. They don't allow Nudes, Topless or implied of under 18 models on MM.

It's a new rule that I didn't know about but was inform by a mod/admin not so long ago.

Paul Something wrote:
Good rule of thumb: If you have to ask strangers on a public forum about legal questions, it's best to skip that project and do something else.

lol wow

Good rule of thumb: there is usually a way to get around ANY legal hurdle

Angela Michelle Perez wrote:

Even though is not illegal in US. They don't allow Nudes, Topless or implied of under 18 models on MM.

It's a new rule that I didn't know about but was inform by a mod/admin not so long ago.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that's a new rule. I've been here since the beginning and I think it always been that way.

But - I could be wrong.

Angela Michelle Perez wrote:
Even though is not illegal in US. They don't allow Nudes, Topless or implied of under 18 models on MM.

It's a new rule that I didn't know about but was inform by a mod/admin not so long ago.

Greg Kolack wrote:
I could be wrong, but I don't think that's a new rule. I've been here since the beginning and I think it always been that way.

But - I could be wrong.

The rule isn't new, but it wasn't an original rule either.  I came into being a year or so after they started.  I remember when they started to declare and enforce it.

It has been around long enough, though, that it could seem like it was here from the beginning.

Photographie Inc wrote:
I follow one simple rule:  I don't shoot ANYONE under 18 period..

Every photographer that does Senior Portraits and Family sittings thanks you profoundly.

OP: The biggest concern, and rightfully so, is that someone will come after you after the fact claiming that something "inappropiate" happened, be it pictures taken or something else. The best thing to do is first, use common sense, and protect yourself from that possibility.

These are just suggestions but... There are lots of "glamour" shots you can do with an underage model that are perfectly fine. Just know your limits going into the shoot so that none of the poses are taken "too far", have a parent or legal guardian present at all times for every picture taken, and have someone "on your side" present as well, a MUA or assistant that could later vouch for your behavior during the shoot.

Of course it doesn't hurt to check up on the exact laws either, but there's no reason to just not do it just because they're under 18. Do it... just do it right.

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:
lol wow

Good rule of thumb: there is usually a way to get around ANY legal hurdle

Thats probably the most fucking idiotic thing Ive ever seen posted in a question about laws on these forums.

And Ive seen some stupid and made up shit.

Youre kidding right? You do realize youre putting forth the mentality of "Go ahead and do whatever you want, you can surely weasel your way out of it later" right? Thats even worse than pretending you know anything about local or foreign laws. Pauls advice was sound advice, especially for someone posing questions here, where they will surely get really stupid suggestions.


OP: whos 'requirement' are you talking about? Do you require every shoot to include glamour shots? Are the models youre speaking to insisting on glamour work? Or are you under the false impression that MM requires you to shoot glamour?

Regardless, you dont have to shoot anything with anyone that you dont want to. Personally Id skip anything glamour-ish and go for something else. Shoot glamour with 18+ The intention of most glamour work is to look sexy, I dont need to be taking sexy photos of a child and have mommy and daddy find her MM (that they probably didnt even know about) open on her computer while shes in Bio class one afternoon and come knocking on my door pissed at me.

Photographie Inc wrote:
I follow one simple rule:  I don't shoot ANYONE under 18 period..

you and others dont know what you's are missing out on

my best work is with models aged 15 (agency fashion models)

as long as parents consent's and everyone around them is happy then there is no real issue

taking pictures of anyone under 18 in a sexual way , nude way is considered a 'no go' area

Maja Stina wrote:
They can do glamour.

And here in the UK 16 and 17 year olds can have sex, so making them sexy isn't really an issue here...

yes they can legally have sex over the age of 16

yes they can pose for nude work / sexy work if their parents are happy to do so but its the police and government that could interpret this as un social behavior/ dodgy behavior which can end up in the guardians and photographer in jail and on a register. once the youngster is and adult in their own right (18) they can do what they like with in reason as they are deemed responsible for their own behavior

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:

lol wow

Good rule of thumb: there is usually a way to get around ANY legal hurdle

True. Just ask the lawyers that got me out of almost 15 traffic violations.

Maja Stina wrote:
They can do glamour.

And here in the UK 16 and 17 year olds can have sex, so making them sexy isn't really an issue here...

I dont know about in the UK, but here each state has differing laws on 'age of consent'. For example one state is 18 years old, but there is a leniency of 4 years (so a senior in highschool could date, and have sex with their freshman partner without being accused of statutory rape, which makes sense because theyre of the same age group)

That still doesnt mean that a 16 year old posing in a gstring falling out of her pushup bra on a bed with her ass in the air giving the camera a "come get me" look making her best o-face is okay. Even with parental consent, both the photographer and parents could be hit with any number of things depending on whos looking at the photos and passing judgement.

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
In the UK according to the Protection of Children Act 1978 taking just one "indecent" photo of a person under 18 (defined as a child) is an offence for which you can be jailed and put on the sex offenders register.

However, the definition of "indecent" is NOT legally known and would depend on the whim of the judge or jury members at your trial, so any image - even fully clothed - that they deemed "indecent" on that day could send you to jail.

My advice: if you're shooting glamour or anything like it, find a model over 18.



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

I agree with Stefano and other people. Ask yourself these simple questions:

Q: Is it really worth being forced to register yourself as a sex offender JUST to shoot a few images of some girls under 18?

Q: Is it really worth going to jail and having to take a shower with a buff steroid using guy named BuhBuh from D Block that happens to love the dropped soap theory?

Q: Are there any pretty girls over 18 in your area you can shoot with?

If you've answered NO to 2 of these questions... It's reeaallly not worth it.
If you've answered YES to 2 of these questions... You reeallly like trouble.

lol

Maja Stina wrote:
They can do glamour.

And here in the UK 16 and 17 year olds can have sex, so making them sexy isn't really an issue here...

WRONG Do not misslead people with incorrect information.

The age of consent for sex is not a relevant factor.

SoCo n Lime wrote:
yes they can pose for nude work / sexy work if their parents are happy to do so

A parent is unable to give consent to break a law.

SoCo n Lime wrote:
but its the police and government that could interpret this as un social behavior/ dodgy behavior

No It is the courts that make these decisions, and "un Social behaviour / Dodgy behaviour"is not the correct term.

Maja Stina wrote:
They can do glamour.

And here in the UK 16 and 17 year olds can have sex, so making them sexy isn't really an issue here...

Having sex is fine - taking a single photo that could be considered "indecent" by some random judge or jury is illegal and could land the photographer in jail.

By definition "glamour" (as it's understood these days) is about being sexy, so the potential for creating a photo that some uptight do-gooder might see as "indecent" is pretty high if you're doing it right.

If there was an accepted legal definition of "indecent" in the UK then things might be a bit clearer, but the definition is deliberately vague and subject to interpretation because the intention of the law is to deter people from going anywhere near "the line" by making that line as woolly as possible. And they have succeeded.

Personally, I only shoot under 18 models if it's a fashion test or editorial approved in advance by their agency. Unrepresented models under 18 are not worth the potential hassle IMHO and I'm a fashion photographer not a glamour "tog" - with glamour the whole idea is to be sexy so the danger of shooting something potentially "indecent" is obviously far greater.


Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Steveba wrote:
A parent is unable to give consent to break a law.

course they can .. if they dont know the law then how could they know until the police show up?

just because there is speeding restrictions on roads (by law) doesn't mean people dont knowingly break the law either

SoCo n Lime wrote:
but its the police and government that could interpret this as un social behavior/ dodgy behavior

Steveba wrote:
No It is the courts that make these decisions, and "un Social behaviour / Dodgy behaviour"is not the correct term.

so who sends the people to the courts in the first place? procurators fiscal give evidence to the prosecutors in courts but they have too get the research first (through police gathering evidence for them)

the government make the laws in the first place

correct term or not layman's terms are used to help simplify things

Stefano Brunesci wrote:

Having sex is fine - taking a single photo that could be considered "indecent" by some random judge or jury is illegal and could land the photographer in jail.

By definition "glamour" (as it's understood these days) is about being sexy, so the potential for creating a photo that some uptight do-gooder might see as "indecent" is pretty high if you're doing it right.

If there was an accepted legal definition of "indecent" in the UK then things might be a bit clearer, but the definition is deliberately vague and subject to interpretation because the intention of the law is to deter people from going anywhere near "the line" by making that line as woolly as possible. And they have succeeded.

Personally, I only shoot under 18 models if it's a fashion test or editorial approved in advance by their agency. Unrepresented models under 18 are not worth the potential hassle IMHO and I'm a fashion photographer not a glamour "tog" - with glamour the whole idea is to be sexy so the danger of shooting something potentially "indecent" is obviously far greater.


Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

I definitely agree with this. But I was merely giving an answer to a question. I wouldn't work with minors for any project if I were a photographer. Or rather, I won't when I start doing it. That's just my personal preference because a lot of my work will contain nudity...and it will probably suck big time!

Steveba wrote:
WRONG Do not misslead people with incorrect information.

The age of consent for sex is not a relevant factor.

I remember about five years ago there was a girl in the UK with really big boobs. She was 15 and when she turned 16 she did a shoot for The Sun...topless. That was years ago, though.

So, I don't know what was WRONG about my answer. Just saying.

-----------

I was trying to respond to this thread with true facts, as opposed to my personal opinion on the matter. My personal opinion is really not relevant because the OP is probably not shooting to try and please or displease me. So yeah, just saying.

Maja Stina wrote:
I remember about five years ago there was a girl in the UK with really big boobs. She was 15 and when she turned 16 she did a shoot for the sun...topless. That was years ago, though.

You do not see it today and laws are updated, the update of 2003 would mena that most papers would not today risk such images.

Maja Stina wrote:
And the age of consent IS a relevent factor when discussing laws and suchlike. .

We are talking about laws relating to photographs, it has nothing to do with having sex, your link between the two is purely your link and not relevant to the topic.

Steveba wrote:

you do not see it today and laws are updated, the update of 2003 would mena that most papers would nto today risk such images.


We are talking about laws relating to photographs, it has nothing to do with having sex, your link between the two is purely your link and not relevant to the topic.

I omitted that part, realising that something else was being got at. My bad. :p You're right, it's not relevant!

You say "risk", though, suggesting that it's not a complete no-no? I would personally never shoot a minor topless or anything like that because even if it WAS cool here in the UK, it wouldn't be okay to put on the internet.

I guess what it comes down to is last I was aware of is that it's okay to shoot 16-17 year olds in a glamour theme (which is pretty freaking general if you ask me, and doesn't have to include nudity).

BlackArts - Jenna Black wrote:
It is not actually illegal to photograph minors nude in the US, but it IS illegal to photograph them in overtly sexualized positions, garments, or situations. Photographing a minor in lingerie is a big danger zone, because there's no redeeming artistic value in putting a child in sexy underwear, but that IS a staple of spank banks. What they mean by "glamor" really determines what you can and can't do. If they mean boudoir/men's magazine stuff, obviously you should steer clear. If they mean stylized, maybe slightly sexy jeans ad kind of work, you might be ok.

This is kinda what it's about. You need to decide on the appropriate levels for things like this. Miley Cyrus, for example, has shot glamour. Oh AND in her Can't be Tamed video her booby nearly falls out of her top...

Maja Stina wrote:
You say "risk", though, suggesting that it's not a complete no-no?

It would be for the court to decide if the image was indecent and thus broke the law, as such papers / photographers / publishers etc are rightly reluctant to test the matter.

As it was mentioned earlier in the thread the law is deliberately "wooly" in this area.

BlackArts - Jenna Black wrote:
It is not actually illegal to photograph minors nude in the US, but it IS illegal to photograph them in overtly sexualized positions, garments, or situations. Photographing a minor in lingerie is a big danger zone, because there's no redeeming artistic value in putting a child in sexy underwear, but that IS a staple of spank banks. What they mean by "glamor" really determines what you can and can't do. If they mean boudoir/men's magazine stuff, obviously you should steer clear. If they mean stylized, maybe slightly sexy jeans ad kind of work, you might be ok.

He's not in the US, so totally irrelevant

Steveba wrote:

It would be for the court to decide if the image was indecent and thus broke the law, as such papers / photographers / publishers etc are rightly reluctant to test the matter.

As it was mentioned earlier in the thread the law is deliberately "wooly" in this area.

That's quite annoying, because that essentially means that they can pick and choose who they take action against...



Public sex is legal here, though. Let's all celebrate!

Maja Stina wrote:
That's quite annoying, because that essentially means that they can pick and choose who they take action against...

That's a point you need to discuss with your MP

Steveba wrote:
That's a point you need to discuss with your MP

Oh lordy, I don't know who my MP is, less how to go about talking to him.

I'm not into politics. Well, I am. I'm just not interested in involving myself, is all.

I found out two weeks ago that Gordon Brown is not prime minister. Apparently we now have a coalition government and I know more than most about those...But eh. I don't have  TV or read the papers (except online when people post links and I click them, unless it's about X Factor).

Maja Stina wrote:
Public sex is legal here, though. Let's all celebrate!

http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmoney/ … exinpublic

Steveba wrote:

http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmoney/ … exinpublic

Yep, so if you have sex in public and you offend a passer-by, you can get in trouble. So it might as well be illegal. It doesn't make much difference.

Steph A-list wrote:
I'm going to "act" as lawyer right now since you want advice...

If a model under 18 wants some pics (sexy or not) run. Have you ever watched the show "to catch a preditor"?

If not, watch this and tell us your decision after watching.

Don't think you want Chris Hansen showing up at your shoot

I haven't seen Chris Hansen going after senior portrait photographers or the photographers who take the photos of kids in catalogs for toys and children's clothes.

You are trying to put photographers who take those shots in the same category as perverts who attempt to arrange sexual encounters with minors.

Photography isn't limited to porn/glam/nude - not even here on the MM forums.