As long as you don't take indecent pictures there would be no 'testing in court' needed.
I hope everyone is not so cowardly to want to avoid standing up for their rights as individuals to go about any of their legal business unhindered.
Photographing under 18's
- Thread starter treeman
- Start date
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm no coward thanks, just have a low tolerance for fools, and tbh your coming across as a big one. What part of this legislation http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030042_en_1 do you have any wish to test in court.
Answer the question - in the current climate, and considering as the legislation specifically gives extra protection to 16 and 17 year-olds, would you wish to debate with a judge, the police and with the impact it would have on you if your nude photo of a 17 year old was artistic or indecent
- Messages
- 4,225
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm with Wobbler on this one.
OP
- Messages
- 4,094
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
This is what you said
And that in my book looks like someone who's not prepared to intervene when they see someone else is about to make a mistake.
In court they are treated the same, however stupid you may feel it is.
- Messages
- 585
- Name
- Dan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yeah, I'd be fine with that. I regularly shoot babies nude. The shots are (I think) absolutely beautiful, there's no bits on display at all, maybe a bum here or there...the parents love the shots, but they could never ever be described as sexual.
I'm a photographer, I'm paid to take pictures. If I think I have the ability, and the subject is not offensive to me, and I want to do it, surely the question is why wouldn't I shoot it? :shrug:
- Messages
- 2,207
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
FFS - this is starting to sound like the wedding threads did!!
Why can't people refrain from putting their tuppence worth in when they haven't even seen the images and don't know the background to it.
Some very saaaad individuals about and IMO some of the posts here does beg questions of some of the posters.
Why can't people refrain from putting their tuppence worth in when they haven't even seen the images and don't know the background to it.
Some very saaaad individuals about and IMO some of the posts here does beg questions of some of the posters.
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
exactly,
some very interesting personality traits coming out from some posters, shame on them
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
as a general point not, but fine with it or not wouldn't you think that
maybe any sort of nude photos of a 17 year old is likely to land you in heaps of
??, or atleast hang over you for a long, long, time and it doesn't matter if you point out a 17 and a 6 year old is not the same - the law says they are - no matter what you or I think
- Messages
- 585
- Name
- Dan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've already said I'd give him my opinion on it - if by 'intervene' you mean 'tell him what to do' then no, I wouldn't.
Whilst the legal definition may be the same, it is absurd to suggest that a 5 year old and a 17 year old would be treated the same - they simply wouldn't. Not as a victim and not as an offender.
- Messages
- 585
- Name
- Dan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
as a general point not, but fine with it or not wouldn't you think that
maybe any sort of nude photos of a 17 year old is likely to land you in heaps of
To be honest, I'd probably swerve the 17 year old if they wanted nude - just for an easier life, potential problems etc...but if I really wanted to do it, and everyone relevant gave consent, there's no reason not to do it that I can see.
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
as a general point not, but fine with it or not wouldn't you think that
maybe any sort of nude photos of a 17 year old is likely to land you in heaps of
why would a nude photo of anyone, no matter what age hang over you for a long, long time if the photo you were taken wasn't in a sexual context?
OP
- Messages
- 4,094
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Ok, agree to disagree
No, I sincerely hope they wouldn't be treated the same, but technically they could be, so as I said earlier, it would be down to the judge.
My original question has been slightly lost, but the thread has raised another issue.
I think it may be good (or possibly not) to have the debate about why the law was changed from 16yrs to 18yrs?
Maybe save that for Monday, I'll be doing loads of editing then, and probably in the mood for a good ruck
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
mmmmm taking nude photos of children - that has no potential to come back and bite ever.
Seeing as you seemed to miss it from my earlier posts, can I remind you again that I was just pointing out that taking actions that could lead to you having to defend yourself against the sex offences act wouldn't be clever and I wasn't making any moral, or ethical statements at all
- Messages
- 585
- Name
- Dan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ok, agree to disagree
Agreed!
No, I sincerely hope they wouldn't be treated the same, but technically they could be, so as I said earlier, it would be down to the judge.
My original question has been slightly lost, but the thread has raised another issue.
I think it may be good (or possibly not) to have the debate about why the law was changed from 16yrs to 18yrs?
Maybe save that for Monday, I'll be doing loads of editing then, and probably in the mood for a good ruck
haha, sounds like a plan!
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
mmmmm taking nude photos of children - that has no potential to come back and bite ever.
Seeing as you seemed to miss it from my earlier posts, can I remind you again that I was just pointing out that taking actions that could lead to you having to defend yourself against the sex offences act wouldn't be clever and I wasn't making any moral, or ethical statements at all
Totally depends on the context. Taking photos of my daughter in the bath at 6 months old. I'm pretty sure its not going to hang over me, ever.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
The context was 'artistic nudes of a 17 year old' - not babies or 6 month olds.
Although you were demanding others explain how they would justify themselves in an idiotic hypothetical situation (of your construct) to make them for you....
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
Although you were demanding others explain how they would justify themselves in an idiotic hypothetical situation (of your construct) to make them for you....
err did you read the thread? or was that bit to much for you
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
and yet you are the one saying that it doesn't matter their age they are still all children in the law, when you make a point trying sticking to it instead of flipping from one side to the next. I'm not even sure you know your own point let alone the rest of us
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
I've given you a link to the act, my point is and always has been that any nude shots of a 17 year old child (as the law stands) would in the current climate be likely called to account to explain or not as indecent - thats not a difficult concept.
Its not a an explanation I'd like to make - hmmmmmmmmmmmm questioned under the sex offences act and possibly tried under the same, great :thumbsdown:
But you are happy to have asked, on this thread on several occasions, for others to do exactly that.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
But you are happy to have asked, on this thread on several occasions, for others to do exactly that.
instead of quoting me out of context why don't you go back and quote the whole question - or is doing so past your meagre resources? - and as I've already said - if you could do it in context its an explanation and a situation I would wish to avoid and I think you and others would be wise ( you get that word - right) to do the same. I've never asked anybody to answer it
edit although - for the sake of clarity I haver asked why you would wish to have to provide that explanation - that's not the same as asking for you to do so
- Messages
- 4,626
- Name
- Kevin
- Edit My Images
- No
I know of an individual that ended being registered on the sex register because he had pictures of a 15yr of step daughter semi clothed on his computer.
My understanding after speaking to a police officer (interviewed me because I knew him),
is that it is not acceptable to have semi naked pictures of anyone under the age of 18 on your computer.
I was stunned! I used the argument about child in the bath etc and she said that there are different levels of the offence and that would still come under one of the lesser ones.
This was a couple/three years ago. So i may have missed some out. But I know that he ended up being on the register.
To this day he says it was all innocent and was simply artistic shots. It was his partners daughter.
Kev.
My understanding after speaking to a police officer (interviewed me because I knew him),
is that it is not acceptable to have semi naked pictures of anyone under the age of 18 on your computer.
I was stunned! I used the argument about child in the bath etc and she said that there are different levels of the offence and that would still come under one of the lesser ones.
This was a couple/three years ago. So i may have missed some out. But I know that he ended up being on the register.
To this day he says it was all innocent and was simply artistic shots. It was his partners daughter.
Kev.
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,439
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
he sounds very naive to say the least.
I tend to argue my point because I (maybe foolishly) believe I'm right.
If you justified refusing to lend him the light because it was against the law, I imagine he'd argue (well ok, he'd think you're mental, but you get the point).
If I were taking innocent photos of something (say I was in to glamour photography), and it was within the law, and someone told me it wasn't, I wouldn't let it go, because to me, letting it go would be like saying 'yeah I know it's against the law, don't tell anyone'. What I'd want to be saying is 'hold on a minute, I'm doing nothing wrong here and I don't want anyone thinking I am'.
etc
We're all guessing right - there should be a poll, and then if this guy goes against what the poll says, we should lynch him!
If a mate asked to borrow my lights, I'd want to check the law myself to protect my mate. Although I'd like a parent to be present, a 17 year old may not want a parent present - what's on show in the images is different to what's on show while they're being taken.
To the OP, in your position first and foremost I would check the law, and if all is good, why not lend the lights?
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
no its not lol
OP
- Messages
- 4,094
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You realise that was a rhetorical question right?
- Messages
- 7,772
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
" So what constitutes an illegal image?
It means any images of children, apparently under 18 years old, involved in sexual activity or posed to be sexually provocative and include images depicting erotic posing, with no sexual activity
Only the IWF and the Police are authorised to assess and categorise such images""".
would you risk trusting either of these two organisations to make an honest judgement call ??
I wouldn't............
It means any images of children, apparently under 18 years old, involved in sexual activity or posed to be sexually provocative and include images depicting erotic posing, with no sexual activity
Only the IWF and the Police are authorised to assess and categorise such images""".
would you risk trusting either of these two organisations to make an honest judgement call ??
I wouldn't............
Naivete isn't the same as illegal, though...but you're right - what prat keeps semi-nekkid pix of his partner's (business or personal...? and if personal, then why would she allow that?) daughter on their computer?
I do agree that this is on fairly thin-ice, legally-speaking.
Yet it should be allowed if parental consent is given and there are approved chaperones at the shoot... We don't know what the images are for - in the case of taking them for his personal use, then I can't see any harm in him finding an older model or waiting a few months til the lad is over 18.
If it's for the model or his parents, then no problem, again with the above caveats...
But with the current climate being the way it is, why risk it?
- Messages
- 268
- Name
- Alex
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I remember a case years ago of the boyfriend of a celebrity who took a roll of (film) pictures of her son in the bath and then took them to Boots for developing. The staff at Boots decided they were child pornography and called in the police. The police interviewed the man, decided the photos were innocent family snaps and dropped the case.
This is the kind of situation where a degree of common sense needs to be exercised. We also need to bear in mind that child pornography can be defined not by the nature of the material but by the intent of the viewer. This is a point touched on by at least one of the above posters.
One final thought, if the police did decide that the "artistic" pictures of the 17 year old boy were indecent, then anyone who knowlingly lent equipment to the photographer could be prosecuted as an accessory to the crime.
- Messages
- 1,527
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Some people do seem to have problems distinguishing between nude and glamour (bath room and bedroom if you like). Unfortunately some of those people are police and judges so as innocent and harmless as intentions might be, one needs to be aware of the possible consequences.
In this case perhaps that would be so as treeman has already made that suggestion to his colleague. But I'm not convinced they would. Ordinarily if anyone lends kit what the other does with it without the loaners knowledge is of no consequence - for instance the owner of the car is not responsible if another driver is speeding in it. Etcetera.