Shooting under 18 in underwear....

Status
Not open for further replies.
rgrebby

rgrebby

Messages
2,835
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
Just for clarification, its not me that wants to do this but I was chatting to a friend who is trying to get into photography and he just got his first paying job with a 16 year old girl who wants some shots done.

Fair enough I said, but make sure a guardian comes along and just do normal family / fashion type stuff.

He told me that the girl said she might want to do a few underwear shots as well, I basically told him to say no chance and just do the normal shots, even explain to the girl that its not possible.

Im not totally sure on the rules myself and just stay clear of such things but I was wondering what people think.
 
Rules are that if the shots could be inferred as anything remotely sexual by pretty much anyone, then you could be charged with taking offensive photos of a minor (or whatever it actually is). Your advise is right, have them have a chaperone, tog to have a chaperone, pref of opposite sex, and don't do anything that could be taken even slightly the wrong way.
 
yes, its a very grey area and can cause a whole heap of crap.

Personally, I wouldn't do it. If I was going to however, i'd request that she have a friend with her, and you have a female with you. I'd even consider recording the hour show as 'evidence' with the person permission of course.

get a clothes catalogue and check out kids underwear/swimwear. stick to that type of stuff and he could be ok.

Just not worth the risk!
 
as far as taking the job to shoot her I dont see the problem as long as its appropriate photos. I personally have done family shoots where ive taken pictures of the kids for the family and under 18's should really be treated the same way.

Ive told him to explain the rules to the girl and say what he can and cant do.
 
rgrebby said:
as far as taking the job to shoot her I dont see the problem as long as its appropriate photos. .
Click to expand...

How can you do appropriate shots of a 16 yo girl in underwear?

Addy on bit.. not asking.. making a statement..
 
Last edited:
The trouble here are no clear cut definitions in law as to what constitutes CP, it is left to the police to decide whether they "think" an offence may have been committed, the CPS to decide if they "think" they have a reasonable chance of a result and ultimately the courts to decide the matter.
Of course by then the person who took the shots, even if found innocent of all charges, is already ruined both on professional and personal level's.
I would honestly run in the other direction and fast.

Also remember that a young person can be fully clothed yet if any of her poses or gestures are considered overtly sexual in nature you can still find the photographer facing charges.

Just a footnote, it used to be that a girl had to be 16 to pose topless (back in the 70's) but I'm pretty sure later sexual offences acts knocked that on the head, so do not take it as fact if someone starts trying to tell you its legal, ignore them and refuse.
Even just a straight shoot I would insist she has a responsible adult chaperone with her cos teens always want to push the boundaries as can be seen by half the shots plastered all over social networking sites.
 
Last edited:
Good stuff ian, im going to suggest that he gets a chaparone to tag along and even get a parent to sign a guardian release form.
 
I still wouldn't do it with a guardian there. Remember the guy who made the fairy photos with little girls, the parents new about them and were present and the guy still got hauled over the coals for it?

It doesn't matter if you're mate has the parent's permission, it will still most likely be an illegal offence, if it was that serious it could end up with you're mate in chokey and the parents getting a visit from social services for allowing it to happen.

Tell the girl who won't do it and if she takes all of her business elsewhere then at least he lives to fight another day.
 
Possibly, it's not how I read it, but it could be what they meant.
 
Personally I would not do it at all, but it can be legal done there is no doubt about that at all.

Just look at catalogue shopping they have kids in underwear and I doubt the togs have been locked up, but there must have been safeguards put in place.

Freeman's online catalogue Kid in Underwear
 
What exactly does she mean by "underwear" shots?
If you're talking anything with the remotest hint of glamour about it then it absolutely has to be a no-go. However, I could see how "fashion type" shots (like you'd see in clothing catalogues of children of all ages) would be deemed appropriate.

Probably quite a thin line, and thankfully not a dilemma I'm ever likely to find myself in. Safest answer would be "no", but if he really wants to do it then the suggestions about a female chaperone for him and having one of her guardians present would seem to be the minimum precaution.
 
Nope!!! No way!!! If he values his name and any future in photography he will stay well away. People have a long memory and the media even a local paper are quick to bandy about words such as p*** and pervert and don't mind filling in the extra collumn inches with anything that could beef a story up.

Im gessing if the girl wants some underwear shots whe will be going for the glamour look too, as has been said how do you take a an innocent picture of a half naked 16yo :thinking::nono:

Why does your mate even want to consider this?
 
Better to just do some normal fashion type shots for her and show her the type of quality he can come up with and explain if she would like underwaear type shots to come back in a few years and he will happily oblige.
 
personally I'd stay well away. Its an offence under the sexual offences act to make 'indecent photos' of a minor, and a minor for the purposes of that act is an under 18.

There is no clear definition of whats indecent, but it wouldn't be you who decided, so I wouldn't wish to potentially bring that down on my head. Far to much hassle

Hugh
 
I think it's all been said already but just to add my view in. Just say NO. Unless you can speak with the guardians and get a feeling that they are of sound mind even for a basic shoot I'd be running a mile. As a father, there's no way I'd let this happen. It could be that your 16 yo has ideas above her age and her folks know nothing about it.
 
I think the general consencus here is about right :nono:

You have to be seriously careful. Catalogue etc have been reported previously so if they can have problems you sure can and pedophile is about the last label anyone wants to get. Absolutely forget it till they are 18 with proof.
 
nothing illegal about shooting people in their underware its if the image it indecent


I would have no problem doing it but the images would be very boring and not what she probably wants.
 
Last edited:
POAH said:
nothing illegal about shooting people in their underware its if the image it indecent
Click to expand...

there is lots illegal about shooting a 16 yr old in underwear if the shot is indecent.

I'm assuming you meant decent above - but you wouldn't get to decide if your images were decent or not.

I don't understand why people would risk the damage to themselves that fallng foul (or just being investigated) under that law (sexual offences act) would do to them?
 
boyfalldown said:
there is lots illegal about shooting a 16 yr old in underwear if the shot is indecent.

I'm assuming you meant decent above - but you wouldn't get to decide if your images were decent or not.

I don't understand why people would risk the damage to themselves that fallng foul (or just being investigated) under that law (sexual offences act) would do to them?
Click to expand...

I think you've misread it he said its not illegal taking picture of under 18s in their underware ITS IF THE IMAGE IS INDECENT (with a slight typo).

This is true but the question of whether it is or is not indecent is down to a jury or three old people with virtually no legal training usually.
 
cowasaki said:
I think you've misread it he said its not illegal taking picture of under 18s in their underware ITS IF THE IMAGE IS INDECENT (with a slight typo).
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right.Sorry Ross, misread you there. I'll stick by the rest of my comments though
 
I wouldn't take the job if she is 16. There are just too many potential problems.
 
boyfalldown said:
there is lots illegal about shooting a 16 yr old in underwear if the shot is indecent.
Click to expand...

Actually, there isn't. If she is 16 she has reached the legal age of consent. It would not be illegal, but it would be foolish.

As everyone else has said, it isnt worth the bother.
 
Just to add to that, whilst it isnt illegal, it could lead to someone suggesting that he has been taking indecent photographs which would possibly lead to an investigation by the Police. Now it is likely (assuming all the shots were OK) that the investigation established that there was no cause for concern, would you want to go through the trauma associated with that? I can't think of anyone that would.

Boyfalldown said:
Its an offence under the sexual offences act to make 'indecent photos' of a minor, and a minor for the purposes of that act is an under 18.
Click to expand...

16 in the main, given that the age of consent is also 16, but there are measures that do apply to u18s within the Sexual Offences Act.
 
Auwyn said:
Actually, there isn't. If she is 16 she has reached the legal age of consent. It would not be illegal, but it would be foolish.

As everyone else has said, it isnt worth the bother.
Click to expand...

I agree not worth the bother, but for someone who works in child protection to state that at 16 she has reached the age of consent, while the sexual offences act (which certainly applies here) specifically states the age of a minor is 18 is somewhat surprising

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/#a02

edit and it also specifiically states that making indecent pictures of a child is illegal

Auwyn said:
16 in the main, given that the age of consent is also 16, but there are measures that do apply to u18s within the Sexual Offences Act.
Click to expand...

No 18 years as per the sexual offences act and its very specific comments about age
 
Last edited:
Auwyn said:
Actually, there isn't. If she is 16 she has reached the legal age of consent. It would not be illegal, but it would be foolish.

As everyone else has said, it isnt worth the bother.
Click to expand...

This statement is wrong, since 2003 the definition of a child was raised from 16 to 18 for photos. The problem with photographing under 18's is the definition of "Indecent"... this is of course easy to see when the photos are perverted, but not so clear as you reach the margins around "glamour".

Check this CPS link out... it cuts out a lot of the hear say around the subject. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/

EDIT: LOL... I was righting this before the post above appeared... will leave it in even though it's similar.
 
Last edited:
Rearrange these words

Pole don't a with touch barge
 
Gordon Scott said:
This statement is wrong, since 2003 the definition of a child was raised from 16 to 18 for photos. The problem with photographing under 18's is the definition of "Indecent"... this is of course easy to see when the photos are perverted, but not so clear as you reach the margins around "glamour".

Check this CPS link out... it cuts out a lot of the hear say around the subject. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/

EDIT: LOL... I was righting this before the post above appeared... will leave it in even though it's similar.
Click to expand...

There is the problem, many people would see any pictures that even was close to glamour of a 16yo would deem it perverted. Its all about protecting chldren for as long as possible the laws are there to try and protect children, not that it works on occasion.

On another note, I would say alot of people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between some girls say in the 15-18 age group.
 
Last edited:
BandyQuill said:
on the same subject but slightly off topic... does it happen that the girl (or boy i wont discriminate) ever say there 18 and you doubt they are, would you ask for ID or still ask for a guardians permission, odd one, just a thought :)
Click to expand...

I'd ask for ID. You're protecting yourselve and not them remember
 
Donki said:
On another note, I would say alot of people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between some girls say in the 15-18 age group.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with this. I shot a few photos at a free music festival, and some of the shots included a girl who I would have guessed was in her 20s. I gave her my Flickr address (as I did with a lot of people there) so she could have a look later, and discovered after she nicked a couple of shots for her Facebook that she was only 15. :eek:
 
A BIG NO NO guys...

I work within prosecution/defence work (computer forensic investigations). I deal with a massive amount of indecent images of children. There are levels associated with each type of image, now the images this friend is mentioned could be seen as level 1 images, although not too bad they are still illegal, and could lead to prosecution by the police.

There's no justification for taking images of a minor - even under the age of 18. Your just getting into a world of hurt.

Regards

:)
 
GrittyShaker said:
Absolutely agree with this. I shot a few photos at a free music festival, and some of the shots included a girl who I would have guessed was in her 20s. I gave her my Flickr address (as I did with a lot of people there) so she could have a look later, and discovered after she nicked a couple of shots for her Facebook that she was only 15. :eek:
Click to expand...

yep, again there's alot of issue's with what we do, we actually check the work the police have done and ensure that the images they have graded are correctly done so, on so many occasions we've found that the images they have classed as children are actually adults, or its been impossible to tell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top