LAWS! What age is a minor?

Musicman said:
Because under the law it's the creation and/or possession of the image that is the offence.

It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove intent to secure a conviction, nor is lack of intent a defence (except in very limited circumstances).
Click to expand...

That's exactly right - he'd have had no option but to plead 'Guilty' and wouild have been advised so by his barrister. After that it doesn't matter what his brief said by way of mitigation, there's only one outcome, although I'm sure his brief did a stirling job of damage limitation.

To the O.P. You really shouldn't touch this with a barge pole given her age! If I read your original post correctly she wants revealing shots taken, so there's already conflict between what she wants and what you're prepared to do.

Some years ago I arrested a boudoir photographer following an allegation of indecent assault by a teenage girl during a boudoir session.She'd initially approached him for explicit nude shots "For her boyfriend" which he flatly refused to do and she agreed to the usual lingerie/boudoir shots. The tog's wife was presnt during the session up to the point where she had to leave the studio to deal with a customer.

At this, the girl chucked off all her kit and demanded that he take some very explicit nude shots, which he declined to do, and called his wife straight back into the studio, whereon the girl claimed he'd indecently assaulted her by squeezing her breasts and her bum.

The tog was frantic with worry as you might imagine being carted off to the nick. The girl was an obviously precocious nasty bit of work and I didn't believe a word of it, but she remained firm with her allegations for several days before she eventually admitted it was a load of rubbish but not before it had caused the guy a lot of stress and anxiety.

OK, you're female which removes one obvious difficulty, but you're rather young too if you don't mind me saying so and you'd be well advised to have nothing to do with this at all. There are plenty of 18 year old hopeful models about without risking this. Tell her to come back when she's 18.
 
Jelster said:
Actually, I would have put it round the other way...

If somebody said to me "She's stunning..." I would have thought a very attractive/photogenic female.

On the other hand, someone saying "She's a stunner..." would make me think that there was a sexual attraction.

That's how life is, what one man says is taken differently by different people.

Steve
Click to expand...

Again, i agree.

Gritty shaker:
"Such sad times we live in, when a bloke can't recognise, or pass comment that a 16 year old girl is stunning. People need to realise that because one thinks a minor is pretty it doesn't mean one is sexualising them."

True, but lets be frank, most men looking at a "stunning" 16 year girl, are gonna feel some sexual attraction to some degree or another.

Whether people like it or not its a fact, and dont anyone try and tell me its not so, men think with there d***s and thats just the way we are, has nothing to do with paedophilia either.

Seems people are so scared of accusations that they we go the complete opposite extreme just to clarify to everyone there level of sexual normality.

That comment isnt aimed at you grittyshaker, it was a sweeping generalisation.
 
Last edited:
Adey said:
True, but lets be frank, most men looking at a "stunning" 16 year girl, are gonna feel some sexual attraction to some degree or another.

Whether people like it or not its a fact, and dont anyone try and tell me its not so, men think with there d***s and thats just the way we are, has nothing to do with paedophilia either.
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking it would be ephebophilia, but let's not split hairs.

My point was more that whomever it was that I quoted earlier feels they would be labeled a perv for saying a 16 year old was stunning, and some people would probably be happy to label one that way. That is the result of a change in what is considered to be socially acceptable. And it's a shame. :thumbsdown:

Remember when Charlotte Church won "Rear of the Year" in 2002, very shortly after she turned 16? D'you think they would get away with that now? :thinking:
 
Adey said:
True, but lets be frank, most men looking at a "stunning" 16 year girl, are gonna feel some sexual attraction to some degree or another.
Click to expand...

Of course they do. I'm sure a lot of women "notice" good looking, well toned, younger guys too! This is all perfectly natural behaviour and nothing to be ashamed of or embarrassed about.
 
it does if he wants to use it for comercial use. he can't sell it to a company for them to use as an advert.

MartynK said:
No, it doesn't. The release is irrelevant in UK law, so the question of the girl's legal capacity doesn't come into it.
Click to expand...
 
GrittyShaker said:
Strictly speaking it would be ephebophilia, but let's not split hairs.

My point was more that whomever it was that I quoted earlier feels they would be labeled a perv for saying a 16 year old was stunning, and some people would probably be happy to label one that way. That is the result of a change in what is considered to be socially acceptable. And it's a shame. :thumbsdown:

Remember when Charlotte Church won "Rear of the Year" in 2002, very shortly after she turned 16? D'you think they would get away with that now? :thinking:
Click to expand...

I agree completely on both your points;)

And on the subject of charlotte Church, i would say probably not. Although a few years ago Chris Moyles was on the Charlotte Church show where he admitted that when he met charlotte (aged 15) that he had offered to take her viginity when she turns 16, and i dont remember any tabloid backlash. And Charlotte seemed quite non-perplexed herself about the whole thing.

But going back to your second paragraph, say someone is called a perv for saying a 16 yr old is stunning. Would that person be offended because they think their own statement was misinterpreted as sexual or because they dont feel its wrong to find a 16 yr old sexually attractive, and feel that that does not constitute being a perv?

See, we are discussing whether or not its appropriate to use the word "stunning" to describe a 16 yr old in a non sexual way, where as im trying to find out if it is wrong too find a 16 yr old sexually attractive?

If it is wrong, then i guess to a lot of people i am a perv. But i would never dream of seducing a 16 year old, i appreciate the beauty and blossoming womanhood, but the idea of spending any amount of time with a teenager on any personal level make me wince.
 
Last edited:
Adey said:
I agree completely on both your points;)

And on the subject of charlotte Church, i would say probably not. Although a few years ago Chris Moyles was on the Charlotte Church show where he admitted that when he met charlotte (aged 15) that he had offered to take her viginity when she turns 16, and i dont remember any tabloid backlash. And Charlotte seemed quite non-perplexed herself about the whole thing.

But going back to your second paragraph, say someone is called a perv for saying a 16 yr old is stunning. Would that person be offended because they think their own statement was misinterpreted as sexual or because they dont feel its wrong to find a 16 yr old sexually attractive, and feel that that does not constitute being a perv?

See, we are discussing whether or not its appropriate to use the word "stunning" to describe a 16 yr old in a non sexual way, where as im trying to find out if it is wrong too find a 16 yr old sexually attractive?

If it is wrong, then i guess to a lot of people i am a perv. But i would never dream of seducing a 16 year old, i appreciate the beauty and blossoming womanhood, but the idea of spending any amount of time with a teenager on any personal level make me wince.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything wrong with finding a 16 year old sexually attractive. However, as soon as a 16 year old these days opens their mouth it's enough to put one off quite quickly. "Innit". :D

I think the crux of it is that, on account of the media and such, people are worried about how they are perceived, so a blanket "I don't find anyone under 18 attractive" appears to be a safer (albeit BS) option.

As you say, I wouldn't dream of attempting to seduce a 16 year old, but it wasn't a million years ago when it was perfectly normal/acceptable. It's only peoples' perceptions and expectations of what is considered "normal" that has made it taboo or "pervy".
 
Last edited:
POAH said:
it does if he wants to use it for comercial use. he can't sell it to a company for them to use as an advert.
Click to expand...

I doubt if the OP had any intentions of selling the images, but it doesn't matter anyway. You don't need a release for commercial use in the UK. The only issue that can arise is the model objecting to the way she is portrayed - that it is insulting, demeaning or disparaging etc - and a release won't protect you from a civil action unless it specifically states what the model agreed to.

The only reason stock agencies and others ask for releases is that it makes sense for them commercially, and may be necessary for international sales, but it is not a legal requirement in the UK.
 
While I don't know the specifics of this young woman, nor your relationship to her and to her dream, I would advise you to be careful about this for a variety of reasons.

I am concerned that her parents aren't to be involved in the process at all. Why is it that it would be her cousin and not a parent coming to act as chaperone? I can understand that she might not want to tell her parents that her career goal is to be a glamour model but if you agree to do the shoot without a parent present then you are setting up a precedent for her and for her friends, whom she will no doubt tell, that it is OK to find a photographer when you are sixteen and approach them and ask to have photos taken without talking to another responsible adult. OK, she might have a well-meaning cousin wise enough to keep her safe, but not all her friends will. Luckily, this young woman found you; but not all her friends could be so lucky.

Also, if you start encouraging her ambition before she is old enough to follow it through you may well encourage her to take it further, with the risk that she will encounter a less scrupulous 'photographer' who will take the photos that she wants that you won't do - and maybe worse!!! As the responsible adult in this scenario it is up to you to keep her safe by not encouraging her at this age to follow a dream that is only suitable for ADULTS.

Even if you do this as a 'fashion-only' shoot, you are taking a HUGE risk - one even slightly provocative or seductive picture puts you at risk of prosecution. I think it is very difficult to shoot a 16 year old "stunner" without some element of sexuality being perceived by someone. I think that the risk of her this backfiring on you is even greater if the parents aren't involved because they are likely to be peeved that you helped their 16 year old daughter without their knowledge or consent. If the photos are any good I can't see her hiding them under the matress until she is 18 and then saying "oh, by the way mum, look how good these are, think I'll go and be a glamour model now". Even 10 years from now the fact of the matter will be that you took photos of a minor without her parents knowledge or consent.

And what happens if the photos aren't what she wanted? What if she is disappointed? It will be you in the firing line.

Do you really want to put your future career and reputation at risk for this?

At 16 I believe that she IS too young to be making informed decisions about such a future and you have a responsibility to protect her rather than encourage her; not because it might get you into trouble if you do it - but because it might get her into 'trouble' if you do.

If she wants some pictures taken then perhaps a portrait shoot with her parent's participation and consent would be better.
 
iancandler said:
I would honestly not do it myself, but then I'm a guy and the wrong side of 40 so automatically a pervert in the eyes of most these days.
Click to expand...
Your mug shot doesn't help matters either! :lol:

iancandler said:
If you do shoot her then yes I would have at least a responsible adult, preferably a guardian present, it will stop her trying to push you to allow her to go further.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point. You also should check with your local authority as to the requirements of a chaperone and work permit. If they are still within Secondary School you may be required to get one as they would be a model, there would also be limitations on their working hours.

Splog said:
Do it! .... Get a model release form .. signed! Then it's all legal............ :D
Click to expand...
I really hope that was in jest, model releases, like any contracts, can't ignore statute. The law says it's illegal to create indecent images of children, you are a child until you reach 18.

13photography said:
Not at all as i don't wish to have a release form signed as she won't have a parent/guardian with her..
Click to expand...
Model releases have the same legal standing as contracts. A 16 year old can sign them, but no matter who signs them, a judge can still rule against one.

The general rule is, unless you are restricted from taking photographs (which clearly you won't be) then you are free to publish the images.

::EDIT::
b****r it, I can't be bothered to quote people any more in this thread. I leave it with this comment:

Model Releases are normally considered contracts, therefore UK Contract Law applies to them as an offer has been made, and by signing, accepted. Under UK law, there is a test of competency, a judge would decide whether the parties were able to sign and agree to the contract and understood what it meant. Having said the above, model releases carry the same weight as any other contract, in that a judge can still find against the contract and consider it null and void, in part or in total.

I'd also like to point out that while it makes it difficult to sell stock images without a model release as some countries (parts of the US) do require them, it dose not make it illegal to do so. The only recourse I see (feel free to correct me) is through libel laws and defamation of character. An example would be taking an image of someone and inferring or stating they had a sexually transmitted disease when in fact they didn't or didn't know that would be said of them. In that case, even with a model release saying that the photograph would be published, a judge could find it libellous or an attack on one's character.
 
Last edited:
RIng up Nuts magazine and tell em you've got pictures of a 16 yr old and see if they want em!!

She cannot do anything with raunchy photos, so there is no point in taking them. By all means do clothed shoots, fashion etc.

If she id that stunning, then get a shoot booked on her 18th birthday, a photo of her passport, one of her holding that days paper and then go for your life.

Just have a chaperone each as suggested.

BTW, having grown up in loughborough, does the town have many "stunning" ladies? Never did when I was there!
 
Musicman said:
Because under the law it's the creation and/or possession of the image that is the offence.

It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove intent to secure a conviction, nor is lack of intent a defence (except in very limited circumstances).
Click to expand...

boyfalldown said:
probably cause he pleaded guilty, for whatever reason, leaving the court no choice.
Click to expand...
Auwyn said:
Because he pleaded guilty, presumably.
Click to expand...

CT said:
That's exactly right - he'd have had no option but to plead 'Guilty' and wouild have been advised so by his barrister. After that it doesn't matter what his brief said by way of mitigation, there's only one outcome, although I'm sure his brief did a stirling job of damage limitation.
...
Click to expand...

He pleaded guilty I'm guessing like CT said, because he felt / was told he had no choice. That equals in my book, a retarded system. He should've been able to challenge it, and the court should've upheld it and had the laws changed.

I know it's not that simple, but laws change all the time. The courts are there for the sake of challenging things, not blindly applying ill-considered, archaic laws.
 
Jayst84 said:
He pleaded guilty I'm guessing like CT said, because he felt / was told he had no choice. That equals in my book, a retarded system. He should've been able to challenge it, and the court should've upheld it and had the laws changed.

I know it's not that simple, but laws change all the time. The courts are there for the sake of challenging things, not blindly applying ill-considered, archaic laws.
Click to expand...

but its not that simple :D. If nothing else it depends on which court he was tried in......a magistrates court, and with a guilty plea there's not even a trial, just off to sentancing. No chance of changing the law in one of the lower courts
 
boyfalldown said:
but its not that simple :D. If nothing else it depends on which court he was tried in......a magistrates court, and with a guilty plea there's not even a trial, just off to sentancing. No chance of changing the law in one of the lower courts
Click to expand...

Courts in themselves aren't there to "change" laws as such, but they can provide "Case Law" to determine future judgments under existing laws. The courts cannot challenge parliament by saying "This is rubbish, we won't uphold it".

At the highest levels, things can be deemed incompatible with each other, but when judges offer comments on the law (outside of a case) it usually causes uproar in the profession, with little discernible result.
 
boyfalldown said:
but its not that simple :D. If nothing else it depends on which court he was tried in......a magistrates court, and with a guilty plea there's not even a trial, just off to sentancing. No chance of changing the law in one of the lower courts
Click to expand...

Well the link refers to Judge Lawler QC passing sentence so you can safely say it was Crown Court not magistrates. As Photo Plod said, judges can't change the law - in fact they're bound by the letter of it whether they agree with it or not.
 
The sex of the photographer makes no difference, it's the photos & what you do with them that makes the offences. Neither do chaperones or model release forms. As a court decides the nature of the pictures............. so that means if anyone sees the pictures & feels they are indecent, reports them, the chances are a court appearance will ensue to resolve it. That may not result in a conviction, but the process of investigation would not be good. Obviously the chaperone (parent or guardian) & release forms go some way to showing a legitimate shoot, but it's the pictures that count.
 
GrittyShaker said:
Strictly speaking it would be ephebophilia, but let's not split hairs.
Click to expand...
As well as enjoying photography I really enjoy having the 'mot juste' . I don't know how I've missed this one, but thanks Grittyshaker ephebophilia has now entered my vocabulary.
Other than talking about myself, to elicit sympathy (many will think it's a health condition - 'Yes Mrs Codsworth, I'll keep an eye on your 16 year old daughter - I promise not to let my ephebophilia cause a problem. How's your steatopygia by the way?) I doubt I'll see much cause to use it.

:clap::clap::help::clap::clap:​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top