ethics... lingerie and age

mininut

mininut

Messages
767
Name
Meo
Edit My Images
No
A question of ethics, would you shoot swimwear/lingerie with a 17year old girl?

I'm not talking about the cutesy teddy bear bra and briefs here. I ask because today i saw a portfolio image MM of a 17 year old girl wearing stocking and suspenders :eek:

M.
 
I think I'd want to know what the images were for, and that they had their parent's approval. I'd ask my wife for advice first.
 
Was it a catalogue type shot? If so, no problems.

If it was more of style that was clearly sexualised, then no. Unless I was getting paid loads to do it.
 
This may help, or confuse! one of the two. LINK

What constituted indecent?

45 Indecent photographs of persons aged 16 or 17

(1)The Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) (which makes provision about indecent photographs of persons under 16) is amended as follows.
(2)In section 2(3) (evidence) and section 7(6) (meaning of “child”), for “16” substitute “ 18 ”.
(3)After section 1 insert—
“1AMarriage and other relationships

(1)This section applies where, in proceedings for an offence under section 1(1)(a) of taking or making an indecent photograph of a child, or for an offence under section 1(1)(b) or (c) relating to an indecent photograph of a child, the defendant proves that the photograph was of the child aged 16 or over, and that at the time of the offence charged the child and he—
(a)were married, or
(b)lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship.
 
Dave Stone said:
This may help, or confuse! one of the two. LINK

What constituted indecent?

45 Indecent photographs of persons aged 16 or 17

(1)The Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) (which makes provision about indecent photographs of persons under 16) is amended as follows.
(2)In section 2(3) (evidence) and section 7(6) (meaning of “child”), for “16” substitute “ 18 ”.
(3)After section 1 insert—
“1AMarriage and other relationships

(1)This section applies where, in proceedings for an offence under section 1(1)(a) of taking or making an indecent photograph of a child, or for an offence under section 1(1)(b) or (c) relating to an indecent photograph of a child, the defendant proves that the photograph was of the child aged 16 or over, and that at the time of the offence charged the child and he—
(a)were married, or
(b)lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship.
Click to expand...

Now i'm confused! i knew there was a reason i didn't do law at uni! lol
 
Dave Stone said:
This may help, or confuse! one of the two. LINK

What constituted indecent?

45 Indecent photographs of persons aged 16 or 17

(1)The Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) (which makes provision about indecent photographs of persons under 16) is amended as follows.
(2)In section 2(3) (evidence) and section 7(6) (meaning of “child”), for “16” substitute “ 18 ”.
(3)After section 1 insert—
“1AMarriage and other relationships

(1)This section applies where, in proceedings for an offence under section 1(1)(a) of taking or making an indecent photograph of a child, or for an offence under section 1(1)(b) or (c) relating to an indecent photograph of a child, the defendant proves that the photograph was of the child aged 16 or over, and that at the time of the offence charged the child and he—
(a)were married, or
(b)lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship.
Click to expand...

that site gives me a headache.

so basically unless youre living and in a relationship with someone 16-18 you cannot take an "indecent" (definition of indecent?) photo?

so you can legally have sex with someone who is 16/17 outside of a longterm relationship but you cannot take a photo of them? thats a little contradictory isnt it? surely in that case the age of concent should be raised to 18 (another debate altogether)
 
I think, If you take photos that could be deemed "sexual" of a child of 16 or 17 and you are Married or lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship there is a defence.

What is deemed "sexual/indecent" is subjective.
 
just to confuse matters:

"The word 'indecent' has not been defined by the PCA 1978, but case law has said that it is for the jury to decide based on the recognized standards of propriety"

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/#a02

edit - ah here we go:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/prohibited_images_of_children/#an03

"1. That the image is pornographic;
2. That the image is grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene character; and
3. That the image focuses solely or principally on a child's genitals or anal region, or portrays any of the following acts.."

"The Act defines a 'pornographic image' as one which must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal. "
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
"The Act defines a 'pornographic image' as one which must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal. "
Click to expand...

Ugh. That's so nebulous and open to problems. My own personal definition of pornography is a photo or film which depicts an explicit sexual act - ie penetration, masturbation, etc. The definition above could theoretically be used to argue that a photo of a dog, for example, may have been taken solely for the purpose of sexually arousing a zoophile with a penchant for canines.

Society really needs to get over the notion of nudity automatically implying sex.
 
I would never shoot under 18s in lingerie/swimwear etc or allow it in my studio. The law is vague enough that I wouldn't be confident that it's not illegal or moral. I would question why she wants the photos. Unless commissioned by a catalogue or similar steer clear and play safe.
 
onona said:
Ugh. That's so nebulous and open to problems. My own personal definition of pornography is a photo or film which depicts an explicit sexual act - ie penetration, masturbation, etc. The definition above could theoretically be used to argue that a photo of a dog, for example, may have been taken solely for the purpose of sexually arousing a zoophile with a penchant for canines.

Society really needs to get over the notion of nudity automatically implying sex.
Click to expand...

hey, im with you its about as useful a definition as a chocolate teapot. but thats from the CPS website.

i just dont get the whole 16 is the age of concent for sex but you cant take anything classed as risque of anyone under 18 unless youre in a long term relationship.. daftness.

not that i'll ever have this problem, i just hope looking at all these definitions of innapropriate photos of children etc hasnt blackflagged me :lol:
 
i just hope looking at all these definitions of innapropriate photos of children etc hasnt blackflagged me
Click to expand...

I was just thinking the same. I'll probably get a knock on the door tomorrow :)
 
neil_g said:
legally the girl can be sexually active so i dont see the problem
Click to expand...

If the girl is under 18 and the images are even in the slightest bit sexualised or provocative (purposefully) it's an indecent image if a child.

That's the law in a nutshell! Age of consent doesn't come into it!

Avoid!!
 
Last edited:
Dave Stone said:
I think, If you take photos that could be deemed "sexual" of a child of 16 or 17 and you are Married or lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship there is a defence.

What is deemed "sexual/indecent" is subjective.
Click to expand...

Thats not a defence at all. Far from it. The only defence is if you **believed** them to be 18 over.
 
I would not touch this shoot with a barge-pole. Reputations are hard to build but so very easy to loose.

Ian
 
this model is 17 and wearing underware

5967486693_7343723637_b.jpg
 
odd jim said:
If the girl is under 18 and the images are even in the slightest bit sexualised or provocative (purposefully) it's an indecent image if a child.

That's the law in a nutshell! Age of consent doesn't come into it!

Avoid!!
Click to expand...

Well no, the law is not very clear from the links and text mentioned earlier. As said indecent images of children are classes as "pornographic" which their definition states means its content meaning to be sexually arousing. Which is about as grey as an English winter.
 
odd jim said:
Thats not a defence at all. Far from it. The only defence is if you **believed** them to be 18 over.
Click to expand...

I didn't write my answer very well. It's certainly no defence for a photographer.
 
neil_g said:
Well no, the law is not very clear from the links and text mentioned earlier. As said indecent images of children are classes as "pornographic" which their definition states means its content meaning to be sexually arousing. Which is about as grey as an English winter.
Click to expand...

I think the links point to separate offences.

The first relates to photographs or pseudo photographs where the test seems to be "indecency". This has to be decided by the court or jury on the existing mores of impropriety.

The second link relates to non photographic images where the tests are much more prescriptive. One of these tests is the pornography test.
 
neil_g said:
Well no, the law is not very clear from the links and text mentioned earlier. As said indecent images of children are classes as "pornographic" which their definition states means its content meaning to be sexually arousing. Which is about as grey as an English winter.
Click to expand...

Dave Stone said:
I didn't write my answer very well. It's certainly no defence for a photographer.
Click to expand...

Guys I'm just explaining the law as fact for the OPs benefit, what I said isn't even open to debate as I've given the clear facts, as the law, when you know it, is VERY clear on this subject and I don't need links to tell you this.

Dave as for what you stated, It's no defence full stop, photographer, boyfriend, whoever. Indecent means indecent, it's subjective. There is only one legal defence which I have given and again, the law is clear on that.
 
Last edited:
Hi jim

I'm absolutely sure you're right. In my post with the quote, what does the last paragraph mean. The section after the (1)?
 
Dave Stone said:
Hi jim

I'm absolutely sure you're right. In my post with the quote, what does the last paragraph mean. The section after the (1)?
Click to expand...

I was of the opinion that sexual photos of anyone under 18 was illegal. This last paragraph has confused me!
 
Sorry Dave which bit do you mean?
 
If you look at the link in my post. It's under "marriage and other relationships" section (1) & (2).

All very confusing!
 
Dave Stone said:
If you look at the link in my post. It's under "marriage and other relationships" section (1) & (2).

All very confusing!
Click to expand...

Ah sorry Dave I see what you mean. I was talking purely in respect of this context. Yes indeed, the photographer won't be guilty of the offence of making or possessing indecent images if the person is over 16 and has consented and as you say, is either married or can prove they are in a lasting relationship with that person.

However, and this is key, they CANNOT show the image to anyone or publish / distribute it as they are then guilty of distribution (it then becomes irrelevant if they are partners etc). So this applies to portfolios, web etc.

So yes you were right with what you quoted but in *this context* it's dodgy ground still, as then the offence of distributing indecent images might very well apply!
 
Last edited:
POAH said:
Point of what is?
Click to expand...

Posting and distributing an image of an underage girl in her knickers.
 
odd jim said:
Ah sorry Dave I see what you mean. I was talking purely in respect of this context. Yes indeed, the photographer won't be guilty of the offence of making or possessing indecent images if the person is over 16 and has consented and as you say, is either married or can prove they are in a lasting relationship with that person.

However, and this is key, they CANNOT show the image to anyone or publish / distribute it as they are then guilty of distribution! So this applies to portfolios, web etc.

So yes you were right with what you quoted but in *this context* it's dodgy ground still, as then the offence of distributing indecent images might very well apply!
Click to expand...

Yep, that's how I read it. As you say, as a photographer taking a "indecent" photo of a child (under 18) is completely against the law. I I.D. All models even if being brought in by a tog hiring my studio. The last one looked about 15. She turned out to be 24 with 2 kids!
 
odd jim said:
Posting and distributing an image of an underage girl in her knickers.
Click to expand...

She is not underage for that kind of image which is the point I was making. Just because a model is only wearing pants does not make the image indecent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top