Shooting under 18 in underwear....

Status
Not open for further replies.
AdamPearcey said:
Bottom line is it's illegal. I've done some shots of my girlfriend and she's only 17 but none are nude, topless or in her underwear.
Until the model is 18 it's illegal in the UK and I think it's 21 in the US.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this not true, the law intervenes if the images are indecent and nude, topless or in her underwear does not in itself constitute that.
 
There's some sense & some non-sense in this thread, but I'm sure the OP has realised this is a can of worms. Simple answer - take the photos & dependant on content, no amount of model release forms will save you from 'the legal process' (arrest etc) if it comes out. There may be a court appearance & conviction, or everything goes 'well' nothing will happen.
MMMMMM tough one, reputation damaged, convictions, implications with any future contact with kids,,,,,,,,,,,,,,some underwear shots for the model..... Let me think. It's not illegal, but it's a big risk.
 
Oh BTW there would be little chance of being prosecuted for anything if he just had consensual sex with her. (No matter how old he is. No photos allowed.) Of course he could marry her then take all the lewd pictures he wanted........... Oh no he could still be done.:LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
STOWITBELOW said:
Oh BTW there would be little chance of being prosecuted for anything if he just had consensual sex with her. (No matter how old he is. No photos allowed.) Of course he could marry her then take all the lewd pictures he wanted........... Oh no he could still be done.:LOL::LOL::LOL:
Click to expand...

FWIW, no. Marriage or living with the other party in a steady relationship is a statutory defence.
 
Quite right Martyn, though I was being foolish (& inaccurate) I doubt the photographer shall be marrying her to take the shots. I hadn't I seen that marriage was a defence.
So between us we've bottomed it, marry her & you won't be convicted. You may still suffer arrest etc in the course of investigation, but no court should convict
:D​
 
iancandler said:
I'd be much happier my 14 yr old sleeping with a 17 yr old than I would my 16 yr old sleeping with a 40 yr old. </snip>
Click to expand...

That really is a strange thing to say .... :shrug: I think I understand the meaning, but the first is illegal and the second is not! .. not that the law is the deal breaker here!

A 24 year difference doesn't actually mean that much as they get older, but again it's not really the point, I hate to say this but in the first case it's a child having sex ... in the second .. it's not!
 
I didnt know the age had changed from 16 to 18 with regard to images, strange to think that if what happened in the link below happened now, the total readership of the Daily Sport would be on the sex offenders register, as well as the tog!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linsey_Dawn_McKenzie

"In early 1994, when McKenzie was 15, she sent sample glamour photographs to local modelling agencies. She was soon invited for professional photoshoots, and began her career by doing clothed glamour and swimsuit work, intending to progress to topless modelling when she turned 16 later that year."
 
Splog said:
That really is a strange thing to say .... :shrug: I think I understand the meaning, but the first is illegal and the second is not! .. not that the law is the deal breaker here!

A 24 year difference doesn't actually mean that much as they get older, but again it's not really the point, I hate to say this but in the first case it's a child having sex ... in the second .. it's not!
Click to expand...

Reaching the age of consent for sex isn't the same as reaching the age of majority/adulthood, to my mind someone is still technically a child until they reach 18.
Of more concern to me is the age gap, plenty of 14 yr olds are having sex, we all know that, and yes its illegal but it doesn't stop them and as long as there isn't a huge age gap, coercion, abuse or similar factor the law turns a blind eye to it.
Of course you can try to take steps to prevent things but short of locking them in their room, you can't, it has to be based on mutual trust, but hormones seem to win over trust from a parent in the end.
These are just some of the reasons why I said legalise, but with the mandatory age gap till 18, then you have clear cut guidelines and definitions that the law cannot ignore, then maybe once a few 18-30 yr olds have done 6 months for their pleasure they will start thinking of saying no instead of us relying on the girl saying no the majority of the time.

Chr1stof said:
I didnt know the age had changed from 16 to 18 with regard to images, strange to think that if what happened in the link below happened now, the total readership of the Daily Sport would be on the sex offenders register, as well as the tog!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linsey_Dawn_McKenzie

"In early 1994, when McKenzie was 15, she sent sample glamour photographs to local modelling agencies. She was soon invited for professional photoshoots, and began her career by doing clothed glamour and swimsuit work, intending to progress to topless modelling when she turned 16 later that year."
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if it was her or not but I remember one paper decades ago doing a pictorial countdown until the girl was 16 and her boobs appeared on page 3, then I believe the day of her birthday or the day after they published the picture..kind of cheap and tacky to my mind.
 
iancandler said:
I'm not sure if it was her or not but I remember one paper decades ago doing a pictorial countdown until the girl was 16 and her boobs appeared on page 3, then I believe the day of her birthday or the day after they published the picture..kind of cheap and tacky to my mind.
Click to expand...

Yes it was her, its documented in that wiki link. It was 1994, not decades ago although it the early 90's does seem a long time ago now :)

My point was they published images of a 15 year old in an obviously sexual manner, no way it would be considered now even if the law hadnt changed. All very "Brass Eye" I suppose.
 
Last edited:
iancandler said:
Reaching the age of consent for sex isn't the same as reaching the age of majority/adulthood, to my mind someone is still technically a child until they reach 18.
Of more concern to me is the age gap, plenty of 14 yr olds are having sex, we all know that, and yes its illegal but it doesn't stop them and as long as there isn't a huge age gap, coercion, abuse or similar factor the law turns a blind eye to it.
Of course you can try to take steps to prevent things but short of locking them in their room, you can't, it has to be based on mutual trust, but hormones seem to win over trust from a parent in the end.
These are just some of the reasons why I said legalise, but with the mandatory age gap till 18, then you have clear cut guidelines and definitions that the law cannot ignore, then maybe once a few 18-30 yr olds have done 6 months for their pleasure they will start thinking of saying no instead of us relying on the girl saying no the majority of the time.
Click to expand...

I really do understand your point .. but can't agree! ... If you make it legal at 14? but illegal at 13 then it becomes socially acceptable at 12 :shrug: so lets make it okay at 12 then it's 10 etc, etc, etc! ... To me the idea that under age sex is happening so let's accept it is wrong. Parents, teachers, doctors et al have got it wrong ... these are children and should be treated and protected as such i.e. they are not old / knowledgeable enough to understand and make a rational decision.
 
I honestly cant see anyone accepting it as socially acceptable at under 13, though I am sure kids under 13 still mess around, of course this could be helped by raising the current limit of 13 yrs where it is classed that someone is incapable of giving or implying any kind of consent.
At present if the younger person is under 13 it effectively becomes rape as the courts will not accept any defence based on mistaken age, consent, implied consent or the younger pursuing the older for sex.
Raising that to under 14 and backing it with heavy prison sentences with a starting point in excess of 5 yrs should see older lads back off.
I just really want to see that 3 yr rule and it extended to 18..
 
iancandler said:
I honestly cant see anyone accepting it as socially acceptable at under 13, though I am sure kids under 13 still mess around, of course this could be helped by raising the current limit of 13 yrs where it is classed that someone is incapable of giving or implying any kind of consent.
At present if the younger person is under 13 it effectively becomes rape as the courts will not accept any defence based on mistaken age, consent, implied consent or the younger pursuing the older for sex.
Raising that to under 14 and backing it with heavy prison sentences with a starting point in excess of 5 yrs should see older lads back off.
I just really want to see that 3 yr rule and it extended to 18..
Click to expand...

Extending it to 18 would require lots of laws changing. How can 2 people get married at 16 and then not allow them to have sex? There are European states that have a consent age of 14 and I cannot see the age ever being increased.
 
Your not increasing the age of consent, just limiting the age of partners to a 3 yr age gap, marriage to a partner with parents consent, lets remember that for most of the country you still need parents consent, could be given an exemption given that an adult has the final yay or nay on it.
You are raising the age at which a defence based on mistaken age or consent of some kind is used or used as a mitigating circumstance by 1 yr, it just means changing the numbers in the relevant act.

So all the law would do is drop the age of consent to 14 and add on a 3 yr maximum age gap until 18, it would also bolster the offence of underage sex, elevating it to a more serious offence with harsher penalties.

The emphasis is not so much on punishing more people as it is decriminalising some and protecting all young people whilst at the same time taking a firm stance on something that is a major problem in this country.
 
It's illegal, you wouldn't be asking about it if you didn't already know that.

And as for releases. They do have some standing in the UK, otherwise you wouldn't have UK stock companies requiring you to have a release with the photo your uploading.
Also, I was once asked to photograph in a Skatepark (think it was in Kent but not sure) and they also made it clear that I couldn't shoot anyone without a release, even if I had no intention of selling them.
 
AdamPearcey said:
And as for releases. They do have some standing in the UK, otherwise you wouldn't have UK stock companies requiring you to have a release with the photo your uploading.
Click to expand...

no they don't. the stock agencies ask because they sell worldwide
 
AdamPearcey said:
It's illegal, you wouldn't be asking about it if you didn't already know that.

And as for releases. They do have some standing in the UK, otherwise you wouldn't have UK stock companies requiring you to have a release with the photo your uploading.
Also, I was once asked to photograph in a Skatepark (think it was in Kent but not sure) and they also made it clear that I couldn't shoot anyone without a release, even if I had no intention of selling them.
Click to expand...

You appear to be making assumptions about things without basing them on legal fact.

Model releases are not required in the UK, but I get them signed to make it clear to the model where they stand and also the stock agencies ask for them which is their prerogative.

Just because someone in a skatepark says something, it does not make it law.
 
Last edited:
Anybody see whats 'wrong' with this pic?

http://www.freemans.com/Buffalo-Pac...rItem&Nu=P_MasterItem&Ns=P_Colour|0||P_Size|0

Does the girl really need to be grabbing hold of her top in that glamour model style pose?
To me the girl is being sexualised. And theres no way thats just my mind seeing it that way. It was i assume a professional shoot done in a studio, the tog or someone else would of had to specifically ask her to do that, even if the girl did it voluntarily, it should of been noted, and deal with, i.e asking her not to do it.

Maybe someone should 'have a word'.
 
I've been reading through this thread and am now starting to worry about a shoot I have planned in the next couple of weeks.

I'm due to shoot a 17 year old girl with a male model friend of hers in a 'couple' kind of shot that could be used for my portfolio for portraits and engagement shoots (as they both look significantly older). There will be nothing raunchy or indecent, just the norm for couple shoots, hugging, laughing etc.

I have had an email from her mother who was quite encouraging of the shoot saying it will boost her confidence but do you think I need to get anything written/have the guardians there or not even do the shoot at all?
 
If they're keep their kit on and they're hugging, laughing etc I wouldn't be even slightly worried
 
AGE ?? you can get married at 16 have baby's at 16 you can do so much at 16 ?
The age of consent in the UK is currently 16 In the 1860s the age of consent was twelve years old 1875 the House of Commons agreed to raise the age of consent to thirteen Campaigners were not satisfied with this change and continued to argue for further reform. Parliament in 1885 passed the Criminal Law Amendment Act that raised the age of consent from thirteen to sixteen
 
Personally I think I'd sooner starve rather than put myself in the firing line for the grief this sort of thing could cause me, it's the type of mud that sticks forever even if any allegations are found to be totally unfounded. As for the retailer type shoots, I don't really see why kids underwear can't just be shot as a product and not modelled, it'd make life easier all round.
 
dont know if this is any help i will try and get the source in the new year but when at my local camera club i spotted a letter asking the same things about shooting under 18's and this was a letter to yorshire camera society or something lol

basically what they said was is that taking pictures of under 18's in any form of a unclothed matter ie even with under wear it is classed as child pornography and is not allowed

how ever if you want to shoot under 18's fully clothed this is fine with consenting adults there aslong as they are dressed

like i said i will try and find the source and the full letter and post it up

please dont rip in to me it is just something i spotted while in my local club
 
Last edited:
rgrebby said:
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.
Click to expand...
there are 2 things to consider - the law, and reputation. the law is clear.

Reputation is something that needs to be looked at 2 ways. What is the reputation of the target (i.e. M&S catalogue = high reputation, sleazy knickers r us = low reputation). The second thing is the reputation of the photographer

The thing that delineates this is teams. The M&S shoot will be done by a team - a reputable photographer, reputable MUA, team of people looking after and handling the children, and a team looking after the clothes & presentation etc.. and a artistic director. The other end of the scale is the lone photographer, who isnt interested in working in a team

The big question to ask is "why". Why is the shoot being done? Why does it need to be underwear? if the answer is "she wants to be a model", then you need to think - where will these images be used? Any self respecting model agency, taking on a minor wont be wanting underwear shots
 
POAH said:
actually the law is far from clear, if it was there would not be so much discussion on it.
Click to expand...


That's very true but it's been set up lke that deliberately, if the law was clear cut then it would be easier for peadophiles to stay on the right side of it or find loopholes etc. The legislation seems to be open to the interpretation of the person enforcing it in each particular case, while this leaves a huge grey area for a photographer it may make it easier to deter people with less than honourable intent. For a phototgrapher the decision looks pretty easy to me, it has to be based on the risk and what you're likely to gain. If someone absolutely has to have very young girls in underwear in their portfolio then surely there are enough young looking girls that are 18 or over.
 
iancandler said:
I would actually photocopy the ID and keep a copy for future reference



Initially the police following their guidelines, then the CPS following theirs, but ultimately it is the courts who decide whether or not an image is indecent.
As said though, by the time you get that far its to late, the damage is already done.

I find it disconcerting that an adult of any age can have sex with a 16 yr old, so see her in the flesh naked, etc etc.
They commit no offence whether they be 16 or 60 yrs old, yet if the same people posses an image of her naked they can be arrested and tried as a paedophile.

Our laws are outdated and an ass, they need updating starting with the age of consent and moving on from there.
If the law gave the age of consent as 14 but with a maximum age gap of 3 yrs between partners until the age of 18 it would make things easier to enforce all round, it would decriminalise teenage sex and could have a clause written in that repealed simple possession of an image for those under 18, distributing would still be an offence.It would then set a clear cut point of 18 for an adult to both sleep with and photograph a younger woman, something that to me seems like common sense whilst also allowing the easier prosecution of those having sex with minors.
We also need the law changing so that the age of responsibility where someone is deemed an adult by the police at the age of 16 in respect to criminal charging etc, equalised with the age of majority (18).

With all these differing ages for different things its a minefield full of loopholes that some exploit and lack of knowledge that leads to some togs ending up in hot water.
Oh and remember the same could apply if you lend your camera to someone and unknown to you illegal material is left on it.
Click to expand...


There already is I think its known as the Juliet clause as long as one partner is over 13 and the other under 18. I used to work for child services and its something myself and my boss discussed.

I am female and in my early 20's and no I would not take pictures of a 16 year old in her underwear.

Wasnt there a case last year where a girl of 16/15 was charged because she sent people pictures of herself in her underwear?
 
The question everyone should ask themselves is, would YOU be happy if someone was taking these sort of pictures of a family member under the age of 16?

Personally, i wouldn't.
 
The Greek said:
The question everyone should ask themselves is, would YOU be happy if someone was taking these sort of pictures of a family member under the age of 16?

Personally, i wouldn't.
Click to expand...

OP had an age of 18 stated though, not sure where 16 came from.
 
rgrebby said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
rgrebby said:
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.
Click to expand...
The problem is not what the model is using but the meaning.
There are many photos and videos of under 18yd underwear publicity.

If it doesn't have any sexual content/meaning and if the parents are together in the shoot, there is nothing to be afraid of.

But check what the law says just in case...

Otherwise, there are many bikinis that look like underwear.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top