LAWS! What age is a minor?

13photography

13photography

Messages
117
Name
Hannah Smith-Chilton
Edit My Images
Yes
There is a 'stunning' 16 yr old girl, asking about a shoot that she wants,
Shes very revealing, but i'v told her that i can do Lingerie in a 'fashion' style...

Is a minor up to 16 or 18?
And if i was to do Lingerie, could she have in done at a glamour level or stick to fashion?

She has a dream of being a glamour model!

Hannah
x
 
Anyone under 18 is a minor, your walking into a minefield that could see you in real trouble.. just don't go there,yes even as a woman don't go there..

See this thread for a recent debate/more info on it

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=262152


In a nut shell the law was changed so no glamour for under 18's and nothing including clothed poses that could be considered as sexual in any way, most would not consider doing underwear shots unless it was for a catalogue and under the terms and conditions their shoots are conducted.

Just as a footnote, remember the myspace type pics etc are only gotten away with as they are hosted in the USA and fall under US law which is different.
 
Last edited:
Ooo ok thankyou,
If i were to say i can strictly do fashion only, would she still need a guardian present?
Or just someone over the age of 18, or even alone?

Hannah
x
 
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.

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.
 
Exactly what Ian said.

Also its perverted in itself that Ian suspects that he might be seen as a pervert because of his age, yet im 28 and i've been a pervert for as long as i can remember.:lol:

So 16 eh?....Nice...
 
Best to have her mum there in my opinion, but then she (the model) will be less inclined to pose more naturally perhaps? :shrug:
 
We'd refuse to shoot her under any circumstances unless she was with her parents/legal guardian. If you say an adult is acceptable, she could turn up with one of her 18 year old friend. This is a very gray area and we'd alway air on the side of caution and rather loose a client then open ourselves up to possably litegation.

Ian
 
I'd probably pass on the job personally but if you absolutely have to go ahead with it then I'd want at least one parent or preferably both present, not a mate or an Aunt etc.
I'd want someone known to me to be present, (preferably female) and I'd likely record the whole event. Make sure she has somewhere safe and private to change and be absolutely there is nothing that could be construed as sexy or raunchy. Too much hassle for too little gain for me I think.
 
Hmmmm...
She can definately come along with a 20 yr old...Cousin? I know the cousin personally,

Shall i agree?

Surely i couldnt get in trouble for a natural (clothed) shoot...

Hannah
x

And Adey.....Tut!
 
13photography said:
Ok...I'm gonna say yes but strictly with an adult present and upto Fashion

Do they have to be related?
Click to expand...

Nobody has to be present and nobody has to be related.. its just common sense to have someone in the room then you cant be accused of doing/saying anything you could be held liable for later...

however I am another of the dont do it brigade..
 
Me too, but i know i can keep it to a level of 'not getting into trouble'

Really don't want to, but tempted as she seems so desperate just to have that 'one' shoot :(


X
 
Adey said:
Exactly what Ian said.

Also its perverted in itself that Ian suspects that he might be seen as a pervert because of his age, yet im 28 and i've been a pervert for as long as i can remember.:lol:

So 16 eh?....Nice...
Click to expand...

When I was in my 20's I was never looked upon as a pervert. Since reachin 40 and above I've been called a p****/pervert for just taking photos of my own children in a public place. :shrug: Admittedly, didn't help when my son, then 7, on one occaission decided to do a moony. :lol:
 
Last edited:
13photography said:
Me too, but i know i can keep it to a level of 'not getting into trouble'
Click to expand...

But its not a matter of getting into trouble on the day... If you did the shot she originaly wanted... or you do a fashion shoot and are tempted to do anything remotely like what she originaly asked.... Its what will happen later that you would need to worry about.. You will have no control who sees the pictures or what context or publication they will be used in with your name attached... 16yo girls and photography dont mix too well.. even less so if the pictures can be seen to be ..hmmmmm

Just my personal thoughts nothing more :) and good luck with whatever you decide :)
 
You know there must be a huge market for this type of photography, because 90% of folk say they would not do it :)
 
KIPAX said:
Nobody has to be present and nobody has to be related.. its just common sense to have someone in the room then you cant be accused of doing/saying anything you could be held liable for later...

however I am another of the dont do it brigade..
Click to expand...


There's no laws about who has to be present but what's important here is how much your reputation is worth to you.... you need to safeguard proportionally.
 
13photography said:
There is a 'stunning' 16 yr old girl, asking about a shoot that she wants,
Shes very revealing, but i'v told her that i can do Lingerie in a 'fashion' style...

Is a minor up to 16 or 18?
And if i was to do Lingerie, could she have in done at a glamour level or stick to fashion?

She has a dream of being a glamour model!

Hannah
x
Click to expand...

Do it! .... Get a model release form .. signed! Then it's all legal............ :D
 
13photography said:
Hmmmm...
She can definately come along with a 20 yr old...Cousin? I know the cousin personally,

Shall i agree?

Surely i couldnt get in trouble for a natural (clothed) shoot...

Hannah
x

And Adey.....Tut!
Click to expand...

Dont worry Hannah , i sometimes have the compulsion to come out with wild statements just to break the monotony of everyday life.

But if we are gonna...y'know....open a can of worms, then you were the one that said she was stunning. Not accusing you or trying to suggest anything about you, i think it was a perfectly natural thing for you to say, but if i'd said it, or heaven forbid Mr Candler had said it, it would have a completely different complexion to it.

I know you never asked for this debate, and i dont feel you even have to acknowledge what im saying now (its your thread). But all this stuff all the time about the politics and morals and rights and wrongs, i get tired of it, i wish the world was more simple where common sense is used, rather than all this PC, postulating BS.

See, even what im saying now is just the same old rubbish.

Didnt realise i felt so bitter today:shrug:

Anyway good luck Hannah, if you do decide to do it, stick to your game plan and be as professional as you can, im sure it'll be fine.:D
 
then you were the one that said she was stunning. Not accusing you or trying to suggest anything about you, i think it was a perfectly natural thing for you to say, but if i'd said it, or heaven forbid Mr Candler had said it, it would have a completely different complexion to it.
Click to expand...
Now that's a thought.... Hannah you are female and if that's you in your avatar, I'm guessing mid twenties age wise. It's perfectly OK for you to recognise a stunning 16 year old female but if it was me, male over 40 then I'm a perv!
 
Sorry, it's a tiny picture and when you are my age the eyesight isn't as good anymore.

Good luck and happy shootin'.
 
Musicman said:
FYI: A Fairy Story
Click to expand...

Passing sentence he added: 'You always acted perfectly properly and their parents were perfectly law-abiding, sensible people who cared for their children.
'What is clear is that you had no base motive, no sexual motive and there was not any question of deriving sexual gratification from what you were doing.'
Click to expand...

Why the hell did he get sentenced then? Retarded system. Anyway, moving on...
 
Jayst84 said:
Why the hell did he get sentenced then? Retarded system. Anyway, moving on...
Click to expand...

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).
 
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...


Where possession is proved it becomes what's known as an absolute offence, ie there is no defence in law, if you didn't know its tough luck.
 
does not help when people cant give the law correct. It is illegal to photograph a minor (under 18) in an indecent pose etc. The problem is because the use of the word indecent can be ambigious depending on who you ask which is why the advice is to say come back when you are 18.


iancandler said:
Anyone under 18 is a minor, your walking into a minefield that could see you in real trouble.. just don't go there,yes even as a woman don't go there..

See this thread for a recent debate/more info on it

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=262152


In a nut shell the law was changed so no glamour for under 18's and nothing including clothed poses that could be considered as sexual in any way, most would not consider doing underwear shots unless it was for a catalogue and under the terms and conditions their shoots are conducted.

Just as a footnote, remember the myspace type pics etc are only gotten away with as they are hosted in the USA and fall under US law which is different.
Click to expand...
 
iancandler said:
In a nut shell the law was changed so no glamour for under 18's and nothing including clothed poses that could be considered as sexual in any way
Click to expand...

and yet girls of 16 are allowed to be sexually active and have babies :cuckoo:
 
so what of "art" photos, there was a discussion on here about an "artist" who's work was withdrawn by a british gallery that had been shown around the world..(as it happens i didn't like the shot in question...nothing redeeming about it and it only had shock value).
when does art become indecent?
 
NigelPaul said:
Now that's a thought.... Hannah you are female and if that's you in your avatar, I'm guessing mid twenties age wise. It's perfectly OK for you to recognise a stunning 16 year old female but if it was me, male over 40 then I'm a perv!
Click to expand...

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. :cuckoo:

My friends daughter, aged twelve, has lovely blond curls and striking blue eyes, and I have passed comment that she is a stunner in the past. She's just a pretty, photogenic little girl. It doesn't mean I want to sleep with her, FFS. :bang:
 
Stunner and Stunning IMO are word with two different meanings.
Yes, I understand they are derived from the same word, but socially they mean different things.

Stunner is more innocent, but stunning is often loaded with connotations.
Stunner indicates appreciation of beauty, while stunning indicates desire.
 
Marcel said:
Stunner and Stunning IMO are word with two different meanings.
Yes, I understand they are derived from the same word, but socially they mean different things.

Stunner is more innocent, but stunning is often loaded with connotations.
Stunner indicates appreciation of beauty, while stunning indicates desire.
Click to expand...

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
 
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...

Too true.

I must admit that the comment about her being a stunner was aimed at her mum, who I knew would take it as intended.

Oddly enough, her mum (grandmother of stunner) married a 39 year old at the age of 16. Of course, it was socially acceptable back then. How things change. :)
 
An anecdote. A month or two back a studio lighting training day at a photo studio in Llantrisant (hope that's the correct spelling) was arranged through the meetings board here. The studio arranged a model who was about 5'11", drop dead gorgeous, stunning, whatever word you want to use. She turned up without a chaperone and happily posed all day (fully clothed) while the studio owner demonstrated the lights and we all took photos in turn, then she signed releases at the end. At which point we learned she was 17.

No-one got arrested, but reading the posts here suggests that was far too dangerous and if we'd have known her age at the start we should have sent her away?

I haven't even copied the raw files from my CF card yet, my house move has interefered with everything over the last couple of months. Perhaps when I unearth that card I should just delete them all without downloading them. Certainly sounds like it reading some of the responses on here.
 
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...

I read Marcels post and was in two minds. I mean on the one hand I think along the lines of when you see a friends newborn baby and you say things like wow look at her gorgeous eyes, doesn't she look like her Dad, she's a little stunner ent she! blah blah
But then my boss likes to call any attractive girl a PTS...page three stunner :thinking::naughty:
 
onomatopoeia said:
An anecdote. A month or two back a studio lighting training day at a photo studio in Llantrisant (hope that's the correct spelling) was arranged through the meetings board here. The studio arranged a model who was about 5'11", drop dead gorgeous, stunning, whatever word you want to use. She turned up without a chaperone and happily posed all day (fully clothed) while the studio owner demonstrated the lights and we all took photos in turn, then she signed releases at the end. At which point we learned she was 17.

No-one got arrested, but reading the posts here suggests that was far too dangerous and if we'd have known her age at the start we should have sent her away?

I haven't even copied the raw files from my CF card yet, my house move has interefered with everything over the last couple of months. Perhaps when I unearth that card I should just delete them all without downloading them. Certainly sounds like it reading some of the responses on here.
Click to expand...

It's not an offence to take photographs of a 17 year old girl or boy, or any other minor for that matter. It is an offence to take, or be in possession of, indecent photographs of a minor. The law doesn't define indecent as such, and therein lies the rub.

It's not a matter of what we may or may not consider indecent - that can be pretty subjective too - but how the police, prosecution services and a court view the photographs. There can be a lot of personal, and reputational/professional damage too, even if there is no prosecution or conviction.

It's bad law, and repugnant. There is a basic principle that the law must be sufficiently clear to enable a reasonable man (person?) to comply with it, and to avoid contravening it through confusion or by mistake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top