Photographing under 18's

treeman

treeman

Messages
4,094
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
I've just had a slightly bizarre conversation with a colleague of mine. It came about because he wants to borrow my lights to shoot some art nudes of a guy who's only 17. I said "You can't do that cos he's only 17", he said "oh yes I can", (this went on for a while). Basically he's saying as long as the images are not sexually provocative in any way, then it's ok, I'm not so sure. Anyway why go down the road of doing something that is subject to opinion, which if taken wrongly, would land you in a lot of trouble :shrug: my advice is to walk away, and for his own sake I won't lend him my lights.

Anyway a coffee and a chocolate muffin later, I'm starting to wonder if I'm correct or not? I know the laws changed in 2003, but does anyone know where I can find the actual written law stating what is and isn't acceptable?
 
I don't think really you can do much. You have warned him, and not lending lights is just going to sour your relationship.

I would warn him again, even call him stupid, but he will just find alternative lights if he is convinced?

I would explain that it's not up to him to decide whether or not the images are sexually explicit too - surely the law decides, and maybe he needs to understand how embarrassing a legal issue would be, even if he ends up being right?

Gary.
 
If hes arguing that hes right, and is very definate in justifying himself, id be asking if there was an ulterior motive? Especially if hes arguing that the images arent going to be sexually provocative.

Ive often found that people who will continuously argue their point, and try to justify what they want to do are hiding something.

If he wanted to borrow something for shooting a bowl of fruit and you refused, I imagine he would probably ask why not and drop it, not try and start justifying why he wants to shoot a bowl of fruit.
 
faddius said:
If hes arguing that hes right, and is very definate in justifying himself, id be asking if there was an ulterior motive? Especially if hes arguing that the images arent going to be sexually provocative.

Ive often found that people who will continuously argue their point, and try to justify what they want to do are hiding something.

If he wanted to borrow something for shooting a bowl of fruit and you refused, I imagine he would probably ask why not and drop it, not try and start justifying why he wants to shoot a bowl of fruit.
Click to expand...

Are you saying he wants to see this boy naked?
 
Well thats besides the point, im not trying to come across as homophobic, but personally I wouldnt take pictures of something I didnt want to see.

If I had the opportunity to go and take some photos of a hospital surgery in progress I wouldnt, because I dont particularly want to see what happens there in great detail.
 
faddius said:
Well thats besides the point, im not trying to come across as homophobic, but personally I wouldnt take pictures of something I didnt want to see.

If I had the opportunity to go and take some photos of a hospital surgery in progress I wouldnt, because I dont particularly want to see what happens there in great detail.
Click to expand...

Just because you don't want to see male art nude doesn't mean there's anything suspicious going on!

Just for the record, I've absolutely no doubt that his intentions are honourable. I've done a little searching and technically he may be correct. But it's all down to whether someone interprets the images as sexualising a minor in some way. Sadly some people will say any nude body is sexual, but that's another discussion.

I'm sticking to my advice that he should walk away.:)
 
EdinburghGary said:
I don't think really you can do much. You have warned him, and not lending lights is just going to sour your relationship.

I would warn him again, even call him stupid, but he will just find alternative lights if he is convinced?

I would explain that it's not up to him to decide whether or not the images are sexually explicit too - surely the law decides, and maybe he needs to understand how embarrassing a legal issue would be, even if he ends up being right?

Gary.
Click to expand...

I would disagree - sorry I wouldn't lend him the lights. Sorry - if he wants to be a fool thats his issue, but personally I would have no part whatsoever. The association would be bad enough
 
faddius said:
Well thats besides the point, im not trying to come across as homophobic, but personally I wouldnt take pictures of something I didnt want to see.

If I had the opportunity to go and take some photos of a hospital surgery in progress I wouldnt, because I dont particularly want to see what happens there in great detail.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between him wanting to take some artistic shots and finding this boy sexually attractive
 
there iss nothing to stop him its just he can't store the images on his hard drive and the model can't show them toi anyone. however, thats only if the images are indicent which is the problem who is to say what is indicent or not.
 
surely if there was any shadow of doubt on the legality of doing this, he would just look for a model who was 18 or over? no issues whatsoever then is there.
 
perhaps its the model who wants to use his services, rather than him wanting to photograph a nude model
 
treeman said:
Just because you don't want to see male art nude doesn't mean there's anything suspicious going on!
Click to expand...

Agreed, I dont mind seeing it, its just as interesting as female art nude images. However the point im trying to make, is if he (the chap who wants to borrow the equipment) saw nothing wrong with what he wanted to do, wouldnt he actually go to the effort of trying to justify it to someone else instead of letting it go?

I dont know, I wasnt there to hear what words were exchanged at the end of the day, and 2 hours sleep isnt helping my muddled mind either.

But yes, I wouldnt lend him the lights, if he kicks up a fuss over something like that then its his choice.
 
I wouldn't lend my lights to anyone ever anyway (had too much stuff returned damaged over the years...) but if you would usually lend them, what has the subject matter got to do with anything? You'd lend them so he could shoot fruit, but not a nude? That's crazy...and refusing to lend them 'for his own sake' is very patronising. Who are you to decide what he can or cannot shoot? I'm sure he's big enough to make his own decisions....cor, people do like to get involved with things that are not their concern, don't they?
He asked you for lights, not advice...and how does lending your lights implicate you?

Tell him you think it's a bad idea, and could cause problems...after that, it's his choice

(FWIW I don't know if it's legal or whatever...but it's not my business. It's not yours either)


Faddius - are you for real? Ulterior motive??? He's a photographer...they take pictures, of all sorts of things. Does he have an ulterior motive for everything he shoots, or just young naked males? I find your insinuations insulting.
 
faddius said:
However the point im trying to make, is if he (the chap who wants to borrow the equipment) saw nothing wrong with what he wanted to do, wouldnt he actually go to the effort of trying to justify it to someone else instead of letting it go?
Click to expand...

Of course he would...he wants to borrow the lights!!!
 
treeman said:
Anyway a coffee and a chocolate muffin later, I'm starting to wonder if I'm correct or not?
Click to expand...
It is only a criminal offence to take an indecent photograph of a child under the age of 18.

But I think you are prejudging what the photographs will be - and that perhaps says more about you than your colleague.
 
I find this conversation incredable. I really think the Uk is reverting back to the puritanical Victorian era! We'll soon be covering up naked statues in parks, and chair and piano legs!
 
gabe said:
I find this conversation incredable. I really think the Uk is reverting back to the puritanical Victorian era! We'll soon be covering up naked statues in parks, and chair and piano legs!
Click to expand...

whatever you may or I may think, taking nude/glamour images of under 18's is a bad idea - and is very likely to be interpreted as illegal.
 
boyfalldown said:
whatever you may or I may think, taking nude/glamour images of under 18's is a bad idea - and is very likely to be interpreted as illegal.
Click to expand...

nude/glamour? where did you get the glamour part from?

This thread is like chinese whispers and is revealing some very interesting personality traits from particular people
 
So what is the law?

I have some pics of my son in the bath and playing around all totally starkers (aged between a few months and around a year old) with everything on show! I am sure that someone somewhere would probably find these images sexually arousing!!!

Have to agree with the poster who said we are heading back to Victorian times!!! I was at the park with my boy the other day with my 70-200 on and felt like a right p****!!!

Going a bit off topic, but why does the law choose 18, seeing as you can legally have sex and even marry and have kids, why can you not be photographed naked?
 
If he was trying to hide something then he would have asked to borrow the lights not gone into any detail about who he was photographing. The fact that he has explained the subject matter means he has nothing to hide. Sounds like he wants to create some artistic images and is being unfairly accused of all sorts of nonsense.
 
Surely if the young guy is willing then its not technically abuse. Am I also right in thinking that leagally women can take topless shots at 16 when given certain consents? Having said that there is a difference between baps and sausages.
 
voodoochild529 said:
Surely if the young guy is willing then its not technically abuse. Am I also right in thinking that leagally women can take topless shots at 16 when given certain consents? Having said that there is a difference between baps and sausages.
Click to expand...

You can't beat a good sausage sandwiched in a bap.
 
joescrivens said:
nude/glamour? where did you get the glamour part from?

This thread is like chinese whispers...
Click to expand...

Indeed - someone up there doesn't want to seem 'homophobic...' LMAO!! Who mentioned anything about either the model or the tog being gay? :thinking: Next the guy will be getting called a p**** because the model is only 17...


I'd want a parent present - but I'd want that if I was shooting a minor fully clothed. As far as legality goes...does anyone actually know the law, or are we all just guessing what we think it may be?


Taking artistic nude shots of a 17 year old may indeed be a bad idea in your opinion (FWIW, I agree, I wouldn't go near it myself, too much potential grief) but if the model is OK with it, the parents are OK with it, and the tog is OK with it...well, where's the problem? It's a 17 year old we are talking about here, not a 6 year old...let's all try and keep it in perspective.
 
joescrivens said:
nude/glamour? where did you get the glamour part from?

This thread is like chinese whispers and is revealing some very interesting personality traits from particular people
Click to expand...

what interesting traits - sorry nude/glamour was just another way of saying 'artist nude' as per the OP
 
There is a world of difference between artistic nudes and 'glamma'

I'd expect that here, of all places, that's understood.
 
treeman said:
Anyway a coffee and a chocolate muffin later, I'm starting to wonder if I'm correct or not? I know the laws changed in 2003, but does anyone know where I can find the actual written law stating what is and isn't acceptable?
Click to expand...

The word in legislation is "indecent" which is not at all helpful as it entirely subjective. It's in the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 if you want to google it, the entire text is available online from government websites.

I know of no official guidelines for what constitutes "indecent." It would be interesting to see them, if only to find out if the people that have the nudes of me aged under 18 would be considered to be breaking the law.
 
onomatopoeia said:
The word in legislation is "indecent" which is not at all helpful as it entirely subjective. It's in the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 if you want to google it, the entire text is available online from government websites.

I know of no official guidelines for what constitutes "indecent." It would be interesting to see them, if only to find out if the people that have the nudes of me aged under 18 would be considered to be breaking the law.
Click to expand...
Simple - it is up a a court to decide.

In reality, short of creating and publishing outright pornography I would doubt that the OP's colleague would have any problem at all. And nor should they.
 
cambsno said:
So what is the law?

I have some pics of my son in the bath and playing around all totally starkers (aged between a few months and around a year old) with everything on show! I am sure that someone somewhere would probably find these images sexually arousing!!!

Have to agree with the poster who said we are heading back to Victorian times!!! I was at the park with my boy the other day with my 70-200 on and felt like a right p****!!!

Going a bit off topic, but why does the law choose 18, seeing as you can legally have sex and even marry and have kids, why can you not be photographed naked?
Click to expand...

The lunatics are taking over the asylum...
 
Having read the OP and the web page linked to in message 4 of this thread my opinion is that it would be illegal to take the pictures.
 
joescrivens said:
glamour is another way of saying 'artist nude'?

wow :shrug:
Click to expand...

FFS its only semantics - there is a nudes/glamor thread over here remember (edit) and as far as I can see thats full of artistic nudes. Just for the record as I said in my post its more than likely to be interpreted as illegal anyway and if you want to argue that in a court feel free, but I wouldn't. Just to be very clear I'm making no comment on the morality or anything else of actually shooting this
 
joescrivens said:
glamour is another way of saying 'artist nude'?

wow :shrug:
Click to expand...

Why wow?
We are photographers, artitsts in a way. We understand that there is a difference.

A lot of people are neither, and most of those folk do not recognise that distinction. What we will see as an art nude they will see as glamour - or worse.
 
Wobbler said:
(FWIW I don't know if it's legal or whatever...but it's not my business. It's not yours either)
Click to expand...

Ahh right, so when you see a colleague who's about to potentially make a massive mistake, you'd do nothing about it? Nice bloke...

Suppose someone complained about the shoot, maybe the model didn't like the images, maybe his partner complained, who knows, the fact is, that my or anyone else's opinion on whether it's correct to photograph under 18's is completely irrelevant to this thread. Our opinions are not taken into account when you're up in front of the judge!

Up until 2003 the age limit for nudes was 16yrs old, now it's 18, but you can shoot nudes between 16 and 18 if it is not in a sexual way, and that would only be interpreted by whoever was the judge on that day in court. Personally I wouldn't want to test what is and isn't sexual.

FWIW he's seen sense, and whilst correctly saying he's perfectly entitled to shoot a nude 17yr old, he understands that it could turn nasty and not worth risking your reputation on.

If we want to have a discussion on the stupidity of the law change in 2003 please start a new thread :)
 
boyfalldown said:
Just for the record as I said in my post its more than likely to be interpreted as illegal anyway and if you want to argue that in a court feel free
Click to expand...


With the greatest of respect...having not seen the shots, how can you possibly have the first clue about how they may be interpreted?
 
Wobbler said:
With the greatest of respect...having not seen the shots, how can you possibly have the first clue about how they may be interpreted?
Click to expand...

and I will reply with the greatest of respect.....how can you honestly believe in the current climate in this country nude photos (be it artistic, 'glamma' or anything else) of a child (and at 17 you are legally a child) would be interpreted any other way but against the 2003 act?
 
treeman said:
Ahh right, so when you see a colleague who's about to potentially make a massive mistake, you'd do nothing about it? Nice bloke...
Click to expand...

erm...I don't think that's what I said, is it?

me said:
Tell him you think it's a bad idea, and could cause problems...after that, it's his choice
Click to expand...

No, I definately didn't say I'd do nothing about it.
 
RichardtheSane said:
Why wow?
We are photographers, artitsts in a way. We understand that there is a difference.

A lot of people are neither, and most of those folk do not recognise that distinction. What we will see as an art nude they will see as glamour - or worse.
Click to expand...

wow because I'm shocked someone sees glamour and art nude as the same thing
 
boyfalldown said:
and I will reply with the greatest of respect.....how can you honestly believe in the current climate in this country nude photos (be it artistic, 'glamma' or anything else) of a child (and at 17 you are legally a child) would be interpreted any other way but against the 2003 act?
Click to expand...


Well, (and I know assumption is the mother of all f'ups) I would assume that any shots taken of a naked 17 year old 'child' (describing a 17 year old as a child is not strictly accurate, is it? This 17 year old child can legally have sex...it's not quite the same as a 6 year old, is it?) will not be the model, legs akimbo, his party sausage in his hand etc...the tog would be on potentially very shaky ground with this shoot, and I would assume (again) that he would tread very carefully with this client.
 
Wobbler said:
Well, (and I know assumption is the mother of all f'ups) I would assume that any shots taken of a naked 17 year old 'child' (describing a 17 year old as a child is not strictly accurate, is it? This 17 year old child can legally have sex...it's not quite the same as a 6 year old, is it?) will not be the model, legs akimbo, his party sausage in his hand etc...the tog would be on potentially very shaky ground with this shoot, and I would assume (again) that he would tread very carefully with this client.
Click to expand...

You're still a minor though at 17 so its 100 % accurate to describe them as a child, at least in the eyes of the law. There's a pretty strong legal definition of a child and no matter what you think at 17 you are still one in the eyes of the law and the courts.


You still didn't answer my question - would you want to risk testing your opinion in court, in the current climate in the UK and why would you chose to do so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top