ethics... lingerie and age

Dave Stone said:
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!
Click to expand...

Lol!
 
odd jim said:
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.
Click to expand...

For arguments sake do you have a link to it written in clear terms what exactly is the law surrounding this? Because all of the links so far are written in a way that is very confusing and open to interpretation.
 
neil_g said:
For arguments sake do you have a link to it written in clear terms what exactly is the law surrounding this? Because all of the links so far are written in a way that is very confusing.
Click to expand...

It's all covered under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Dave quoted the protection of children act but that has now been absorbed into the newer Sexual Offences Act.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
It's all covered under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Dave quoted the protection of children act but that has now been absorbed into the newer Sexual Offences Act.
Click to expand...

Right but those are what we're linked to earlier right? The ones which could say for sure what indecent were? Like I say it's all a bit grey with what a person would consider "indecent", "pornographic" or "sexually arrousing". The cps suggests that would be what I would consider hardcore, in my personal opinion.
 
POAH said:
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.
Click to expand...

No not necessarily, I agree. It's about context.
 
For reference I have never shot or intend to shoot anything like this for anyone of this age or indeed anyone of older ages.

I'm trying to explain or grasp how much of a grey area the laws around consent and risqué images of people between that age and 18.
 
This is a quote from the CPS website:

The test to be applied in respect of indecent images of children is whether or not it is indecent. 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.
Click to expand...

So it depends on the Jury/Magistrate I guess.
 
neil_g said:
Right but those are what we're linked to earlier right? The ones which could say for sure what indecent were? Like I say it's all a bit grey with what a person would consider "indecent", "pornographic" or "sexually arrousing". The cps suggests that would be what I would consider hardcore, in my personal opinion.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression the link was the Protection of Children Act?

Indecent is broad. For example, sex offenders have been known to paste a childs head on the image of a fully grown adult. Neither image in itself was indecent or pornographic, but in the context it was used it was an indecent image of a child! Case law as well as legislation needs to be looked at for a full understanding as it shows how the *courts* interpret the legislation.

I think it's just easier to say, as a photographer, let's just steer clear of scantily clad under 18's and we should just leave it at that, lol!
 
Dave Stone said:
This is a quote from the CPS website:

So it depends on the Jury/Magistrate I guess.
Click to expand...

Dave, you beat me to the case law part!
 
The law is an ass, but just to be on the safe side, keep on the right side of the law in case it decides to kick you.;)
 
POAH said:
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.
Click to expand...
However, should some puritan be offended by and consider it indecent, then you'll be investigated as if it is indecent.

The whole "indecent image" thing is an absolute minefield, which is why I can't say outright whether I would or wouldn't take the shot.
If I believed that all involved were comfortable, that there was no intention of it being considered provocative or indecent, and their was a big wodge of cash involved, then I might. Chances are for me to accept such a situation, there'd be a higher source for any flak to get thrown at.

"I just pressed the button, guv'nor".
 
Dave Stone said:
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!
Click to expand...

In certain bits of Swindon she probably would have been 15 with two kids and said she was 24...
 
I thought we'd had this discussion on here before. Wasn't someone asked for glamour shots of a 17 year old and the general consensus was to wait until she was 18?
 
Byker28i said:
In certain bits of Swindon she probably would have been 15 with two kids and said she was 24...
Click to expand...

Fortunately her passport and driving licence backed her up :)
 
HMansfield said:
However, should some puritan be offended by and consider it indecent, then you'll be investigated as if it is indecent.

The whole "indecent image" thing is an absolute minefield, which is why I can't say outright whether I would or wouldn't take the shot.
If I believed that all involved were comfortable, that there was no intention of it being considered provocative or indecent, and their was a big wodge of cash involved, then I might. Chances are for me to accept such a situation, there'd be a higher source for any flak to get thrown at.

"I just pressed the button, guv'nor".
Click to expand...

No I'd not there is absolutely nothing indecent about that image. When the girl asked me to shoot her I explained about the law to her.

I've got no problem shooting the under 18's. However if I was asked to shoot a girl in stockings etc I would decline and say come back when you are 18.
 
This section of the Sexual Offences Act is bad law, because it fails to define the key element of 'indecent' - or even offer any guidance - but it is the law, and we have to live with it unless it is amended.

The whole issue hinges on the interpretation of indecent, and our personal opinions about teenage behaviour, the age of consent for sexual relations and what constitutes pornography is irrelevant. It's all going to come down to a court, and possibly a jury, if you're charged with contravening the section. It's risky, and there's a high price to pay if it goes against you.
 
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...

'ignorantia legis neminem excusat' Ignorance of the law is not a defence. to 'believe' or 'presume' dosn't always cut it either in the Law Courts. The law is complicated and there is not a 'one size fits all' answer. For example if you are in fear of you life and believe you are in mortal danger you can use reasonable force to protect yourself. There are contradictions in law, but case law sets the standard, a stated case is therefore the benchmark for advocates.

However, In England, Wales and in Northern Ireland a minor is a person under the age of 18. At the age of 18 you become an adult. The law is the law (ipso facto) like it or not.

If you are in doubt of someones age and think they may be under the age of of 18 then it is reasonable to ask them to produce some evidence that they are 18. There are a few cases whereby former model 'mother' has supported daughter. If there is a legitimate reason for this work to be carried out then parents, guardian should be onboard and present.

Yes, it goes on, underage girls do pose but it's a question of ethics and professional / personal judgement. What happens when the protective father finds out that their demure little girl has posed? What happens if she is an attention seeker, alleges assault etc etc?. All it takes is one word to ruin your reputation, which in most case is important to people. Mud sticks and people love a good scandal.

Lots to think about and as adults we have a legal and moral duty to protect minors. I think you need to do a lot more research here and certainly ask a few questions.

Personally, I would avoid but that's just my opinion. Let us know how you get on and what the outcome is?
 
Blank_Canvas said:
'ignorantia legis neminem excusat' Ignorance of the law is not a defence. to 'believe' or 'presume' dosn't always cut it either in the Law Courts. The law is complicated and there is not a 'one size fits all' answer. For example if you are in fear of you life and believe you are in mortal danger you can use reasonable force to protect yourself. There are contradictions in law, but case law sets the standard, a stated case is therefore the benchmark for advocates.

However, In England, Wales and in Northern Ireland a minor is a person under the age of 18. At the age of 18 you become an adult. The law is the law (ipso facto) like it or not.

If you are in doubt of someones age and think they may be under the age of of 18 then it is reasonable to ask them to produce some evidence that they are 18. There are a few cases whereby former model 'mother' has supported daughter. If there is a legitimate reason for this work to be carried out then parents, guardian should be onboard and present.

Yes, it goes on, underage girls do pose but it's a question of ethics and professional / personal judgement. What happens when the protective father finds out that their demure little girl has posed? What happens if she is an attention seeker, alleges assault etc etc?. All it takes is one word to ruin your reputation, which in most case is important to people. Mud sticks and people love a good scandal.

Lots to think about and as adults we have a legal and moral duty to protect minors. I think you need to do a lot more research here and certainly ask a few questions.

Personally, I would avoid but that's just my opinion. Let us know how you get on and what the outcome is?
Click to expand...

"Belief" does form a defence in a lot of uk law. The term *belief* is a strong legal term and goes way beyond presuming! Ignorance being no defence doesnt apply when the legal term of belief comes into play.

An example of *belief* would be the person showing id preporting them to be over 18, then subsequently finding out the id was a good fake. As such the photographer acted in good faith, took steps to ensure he/she was taking steps to conform with the law but was duped. As I say, far beyond simple presumption or ignorance!

It's also a term that has implications on the use if police powers.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
"Belief" does form a defence in a lot of uk law. The term *belief* is a strong legal term and goes way beyond presuming! Ignorance being no defence doesnt apply when the legal term of belief comes into play.

An example of *belief* would be the person showing id preporting them to be over 18, then subsequently finding out the id was a good fake. As such the photographer acted in good faith, took steps to ensure he/she was taking steps to conform with the law but was duped. As I say, far beyond simple presumption or ignorance!

It's also a term that has implications on the use if police powers.
Click to expand...

Absolutely - but it is very complex !
 
I would be more likely to follow POAH's thinking, rather than a blanket you under 18 NO.

Just use your common sense, you know if it's indecent to the general population or not.
 
Metal God said:
For me, probably not. I won't do anything that has the potential of damaging my reputation. If they are aged 18 or over, no problem.
Click to expand...

Same here accept they would have to be a lot older and a lot more obviously over 18... double safe :)
 
mininut said:
A question of ethics, would you shoot swimwear/lingerie with a 17year old girl?
Click to expand...

Everyone is arguing about the law. Can't see anyone that understands or tries to answer your question...

me.. No because I don't feel right about it on many levels and wouldn't do it in a month of sundays.. But thats just me and I wouldn't expect a lot of people to understand or feel the same.. neither would I want or expect them to.. each to there own... ethical? if there is nothing wrong with somehtign then it should be ethical to do.. for me its a personal call...
 
KIPAX said:
Everyone is arguing about the law. Can't see anyone that understands or tries to answer your question...

me.. No because I don't feel right about it on many levels and wouldn't do it in a month of sundays.. But thats just me and I wouldn't expect a lot of people to understand or feel the same.. neither would I want or expect them to.. each to there own... ethical? if there is nothing wrong with somehtign then it should be ethical to do.. for me its a personal call...
Click to expand...

Exactly, ethics and the law are two different things.
 
KIPAX said:
Everyone is arguing about the law. Can't see anyone that understands or tries to answer your question...

me.. No because I don't feel right about it on many levels and wouldn't do it in a month of sundays.. But thats just me and I wouldn't expect a lot of people to understand or feel the same.. neither would I want or expect them to.. each to there own... ethical? if there is nothing wrong with somehtign then it should be ethical to do.. for me its a personal call...
Click to expand...

I think we were concerned the op overlooked the legal aspect that could potentially be damaging.
 
malo50 said:
Exactly, ethics and the law are two different things.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But in this context the law is far more important, and as per my reply to Kipax...
 
mininut said:
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.
Click to expand...

No I wouldn't, if only because I deem it inappropriate to do so
 
odd jim said:
I think we were concerned the op overlooked the legal aspect that could potentially be damaging.
Click to expand...

so two pages of answering a question he didnt ask because you presumed he was thick... and nothing answering the question he did ask.... class :)
 
acetone said:
I would be more likely to follow POAH's thinking, rather than a blanket you under 18 NO.

Just use your common sense, you know if it's indecent to the general population or not.
Click to expand...

Not always. People will have very different opinions as to what indecent is, especially with minors, therefore, so will a jury of your peers!

As I've said many times in this thread, why risk it? Over 18, fine your covered, otherwise, don't risk it.
 
KIPAX said:
so two pages of answering a question he didnt ask because you presumed he was thick... and nothing answering the question he did ask.... class :)
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with covering all aspects surely? And we're not bound to cover only a single aspect of a discussion here are we???

Oh and we didn't presume he was think so don't start chucking around insults when they wern't there to start with :)
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Indeed. But in this context the law is far more important, and as per my reply to Kipax...
Click to expand...

I agree fully, I was just trying to point out that the law, in this case, is an absolute, but we all know ethics vary from person to person, and it was ethics the OP asked about.
Personally, I wouldn't touch anything like this with a very long stick.
 
malo50 said:
I agree fully, I was just trying to point out that the law, in this case, is an absolute, but we all know ethics vary from person to person, and it was ethics the OP asked about.
Personally, I wouldn't touch anything like this with a very long stick.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. And I guess the point I'm making and Kipax I think failed to see is that if something is potentially unlawful, ethics don't (or at least shouldnt) even come into play.
 
Last edited:
Personally I'd say swimwear yes, although being careful with the positioning etc in the photos. Swimwear is designed to be seen in public so unless you do overly sexual poses I'd consider it safe.

Lingerie you're on dodgier ground. Fairly covering I may do, but I'd not do it in skimpy lingerie with suspenders and stockings, I think that's risking somebody complaining no matter how innocent the pictures are. And even if cleared I'm not sure it'd be a good thing to have been investigated for.



Right or wrong, I'm also guessing people are more likely to complain about a 50 year old man than a 20 year old woman to begin with though.
 
KIPAX said:
Everyone is arguing about the law. Can't see anyone that understands or tries to answer your question...

me.. No because I don't feel right about it on many levels and wouldn't do it in a month of sundays.. But thats just me and I wouldn't expect a lot of people to understand or feel the same.. neither would I want or expect them to.. each to there own... ethical? if there is nothing wrong with somehtign then it should be ethical to do.. for me its a personal call...
Click to expand...

KIPAX said:
so two pages of answering a question he didnt ask because you presumed he was thick... and nothing answering the question he did ask.... class :)
Click to expand...

You obviously missed all of the replies that did answer his question then.
 
KIPAX said:
so two pages of answering a question he didnt ask because you presumed he was thick... and nothing answering the question he did ask.... class :)
Click to expand...

lol, a few guys answered :D

I wouldn't do it myself as i feel it would make me uncomfortable even without any legal issue. I just wanted to see whether i was in the majority or minority... would appear I'm with the winning team :D

M.
 
KIPAX said:
me.. No because I don't feel right about it on many levels and wouldn't do it in a month of sundays..
Click to expand...

So Kipax you say NO to shooting girls in swimwear, does that mean if asked by the paper as a sports photographer to shoot the regional swimming championships you'd still say no :D :lol: :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top