underage models

Status
Not open for further replies.
jonbeeza said:
There was an article that I read some years ago, about a photographer who was living with his sixteen year old girlfriend. He took some bikini shots of her, and he was arrested not for having sex with her, but for taking the photos :shrug: While she was old enough to have a relationship, she was not old enough to pose for photos !

Not sure if he was ever prosecuted.
Click to expand...

im sure they probably werent just bikini shots if thats true, if there isnt anything indecent in the photo then its not illegal.
 
neil_g said:
im sure they probably werent just bikini shots if thats true, if there isnt anything indecent in the photo then its not illegal.
Click to expand...

Hi Neil, what I meant was it's Sixteen for a sexual relationship and eighteen for modeling ( adult obviously ) . I know slightly off topic but it's a strange one :thinking:
 
daugirdas said:
Let's imagine it is similar (no 'worse') to this http://www.flickr.com/photos/walterarce/4682552560/
(not my photo, but nice work - NSFW just in case you got in trouble)
What would you say in such case? Remember, I cannot risk getting in trouble.
Click to expand...

What! That's it? This is what all the fuss is about? There is NOTHING wrong with that. If anyone wants to find something sexual from it, that's them that's deranged, not the image. :shrug:

As I said before, relax. There really is nothing to worry about.

Out of curiosity, the parents signed a release, but were they present at the time of the shoot, or saw the images?
 
What is the difference between bra and knickers and a bikini?

A woman will happily parade around in a bikini but will be more cautious about doing the same in underwear. It is societies fault and those bleedin' Victorians!
 
tiler65 said:
What is the difference between bra and knickers and a bikini?

A woman will happily parade around in a bikini but will be more cautious about doing the same in underwear. It is societies fault and those bleedin' Victorians!
Click to expand...

I've said this sooo many times....

Family holidays abroad when I was in my early/mid teens, my Mum would go topless around the pool. I didn't have any problem with that, lots of other women were doing it and was pretty much the norm.

However, when we got back in the appartment said breast were safely holstered and completely hidden from view :lol:

Like the subject of these pictures, context plays a big part.

If you took a picture of a teenage girl kneeling on a studio floor, knees apart in a bikini it could be viewed as indecent, however change the studio for a beach and have her building a sand castle then all in the garden is rosey!
 
tiler65 said:
What is the difference between bra and knickers and a bikini?

A woman will happily parade around in a bikini but will be more cautious about doing the same in underwear. It is societies fault and those bleedin' Victorians!
Click to expand...

Like that advert on telly, a woman walks into the room thinking only her friend is there, but there is also two other women sitting there. The woman in the bikini then tries to cover herself up, but relaxes after the other women applaud her. I don't understand why, well if she is prepared to wear it at the beach or the pool :thinking:
 
jonbeeza said:
Like that advert on telly, a woman walks into the room thinking only her friend is there, but there is also two other women sitting there. The woman in the bikini then tries to cover herself up, but relaxes after the other women applaud her. I don't understand why, well if she is prepared to wear it at the beach or the pool :thinking:
Click to expand...

Don't try to understand them, that route leads to maddness. :D
 
tiler65 said:
What is the difference between bra and knickers and a bikini?
Click to expand...

Ask me that question again when after you go into the water with your underwear on and come out with it sagging between your knees...
 
Big Andy said:
Don't try to understand them, that route leads to maddness. :D
Click to expand...

Dontargue.jpg


:shrug:
 
sunnyside_up said:
Ask me that question again when after you go into the water with your underwear on and come out with it sagging between your knees...
Click to expand...

My underwear copes fine thank you very much!

Even G string knickers? (if you can call G stings knickers that is)

Most of the women/girls on a beach do not even go in the sea. Your response is pointless.
 
You asked a question, I gave you an answer. Nuff said.
 
jonbeeza said:
Hi Neil, what I meant was it's Sixteen for a sexual relationship and eighteen for modeling ( adult obviously ) . I know slightly off topic but it's a strange one :thinking:
Click to expand...

The law takes a different view of 'indecency' if the photographer and the model are married or living together as partners - providing she is at least 16 - and the proscription doesn't apply.
 
MartynK said:
The law takes a different view of 'indecency' if the photographer and the model are married or living together as partners - providing she is at least 16 - and the proscription doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

I think it may have been the photographer was trying to publish photos in a magazine maybe.
 
tiler65 said:
What is the difference between bra and knickers and a bikini?
Click to expand...

Not much in the amount of skin they cover.
However, there will be differences in the makup/material structure. Bikinis are more 'structurally secure' than underwear (for want of a better phrase).
More importantly though, is the intended use of the garments.

Underwear is exactly that, designed to be wore under clothing and not shown. Swimwear is not.
That's why some bras are see-through, etc etc and no bikini tops are.

As for the OP....the image in the link would be fine IMO. It's revealing, yes, in that there is skin showing. However, it is not sexually provocative. It doesn't insinuate anything sexual at all.

However, that's not a guaranteed getout (just look at the aforementioned 'fairy wings' photographer).

As for you not booking the model. I would go so far as to say that's no defense. Sure it may allow you to alleviate some of the blame, should there be a problem down the line. But ignorance is no excuse. Just because you didn't know she was underage doesn't excuse it.
You should have exercised due diligence, and that would have been at the very least asking the model her age. Just because she smoked (or you heard she smoked), isn't enough to distance yourself from any hint of her being underage.

Anyway, this all depends on *how* underage too. A couple of weeks away from her 18th birthday and it's less serious, than, say, a couple of weeks away from her 15th birthday.

As for the images. Any that are in any way sexually provocative or could be misconstrued as that....IMO you should delete them, and do not pass them to the parents/model at all.
Explain that on advice, as she was underage, then you have a legal obligation to destroy them. Offer them the safe ones only.
Don't assume that just because they promise not to do anything with them, that they won't.
The saying "Out of your hands" is applicable in more ways than one here ;)


So in a nutshell (Ive had a lot of coffee so I could be waffling on).


Delete any possibly sexual or provocative images.
Do not hand them over.
Only offer the safe photos.
Take it as a lesson learned. Cover your arse at all times and if there is any possibility of any doubt about a models age in future.....get proof and don't just trust the parents :)
 
jonbeeza said:
There was an article that I read some years ago, about a photographer who was living with his sixteen year old girlfriend. He took some bikini shots of her, and he was arrested not for having sex with her, but for taking the photos :shrug: While she was old enough to have a relationship, she was not old enough to pose for photos !

Not sure if he was ever prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Never understood that either! lol
 
Marcel said:
Not much in the amount of skin they cover.
However, there will be differences in the makup/material structure. Bikinis are more 'structurally secure' than underwear (for want of a better phrase).
More importantly though, is the intended use of the garments.

Underwear is exactly that, designed to be wore under clothing and not shown. Swimwear is not.
That's why some bras are see-through, etc etc and no bikini tops are.
Click to expand...
I see lots of bikinis that are see through and I am quite sure you could google up thousands of images straight away.

My point is why is a shot in a bikini considered OK but not one in lingerie? (how we got on to the the material difference of said items I don't know).

It boils down to our own prudishness of a couple of hundred years of being told to cover up, although I shudder when I think of my old Grandpop washing himself at the sink in his barrage balloon duds. (insert Sideshow Bob shudder)
 
jonbeeza said:
Hi Neil, what I meant was it's Sixteen for a sexual relationship and eighteen for modeling ( adult obviously ) . I know slightly off topic but it's a strange one :thinking:
Click to expand...

You can do it but you've got to have your eyes shut as watching is illegal :D

it is a daft one that, there should be a match either upwards or downwards, you can bring a life into the world legally but your deemed not mature enough to smoke or drink :bang:
 
I think you had better make the best of the safe shots that you do have and dump the ones that you think may be dodgy.

After all, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
 
jonbeeza said:
Hi Neil, what I meant was it's Sixteen for a sexual relationship and eighteen for modeling ( adult obviously ) . I know slightly off topic but it's a strange one :thinking:
Click to expand...

Your original quote was "He took some bikini shots of her, and he was arrested not for having sex with her, but for taking the photos While she was old enough to have a relationship, she was not old enough to pose for photos".
The implication is that at 16 she's not old enough to have her photo taken in a bikini.

There is no way that in the UK he was arrested for taking bikini shots of a 16 year old, be it in public or private. There would have had to have been other factors.

I'm also not sure why you needed to clarify that he wasn't arrested for having sex with her either, as she was of an age where she could legally consent.
 
HMansfield said:
I'm also not sure why you needed to clarify that he wasn't arrested for having sex with her either, as she was of an age where she could legally consent.
Click to expand...

that was kinda the point :bang: she was old enough to consent to sex, but not to have sexually suggestive photos taken... which is clearly madness
 
HMansfield said:
Your original quote was "He took some bikini shots of her, and he was arrested not for having sex with her, but for taking the photos While she was old enough to have a relationship, she was not old enough to pose for photos".
The implication is that at 16 she's not old enough to have her photo taken in a bikini.

There is no way that in the UK he was arrested for taking bikini shots of a 16 year old, be it in public or private. There would have had to have been other factors.

I'm also not sure why you needed to clarify that he wasn't arrested for having sex with her either, as she was of an age where she could legally consent.
Click to expand...

Yes, the posts like above do really confuse me and made me go through this paranoid thread in the first place.

Please refrain from "Daily Fail" style statements, and instead please explain the Full story. Many thanks.
 
The police enter the bedroom of a man they dislike, and they want to charge him with something. The man is eighteen years old his girlfriend is sixteen. The girl proves she is sixteen and police start to leave the room as no offence has been committed. Then one of the officers notices a topless photo of the sixteen year old girl pinned to the mans wall.

The naked man gets dragged from on top of his girlfriend, and he is then charged at the police station with taking an indecent image of the under age girl, and no mention of the sex is said at the station as that was perfectly legal!

Now is that mad :cuckoo:
 
This countries law is a big pile of poop in a lot of ways. You can legally be married, have 2 kids and another on the way before you can smoke, drink or have a photo of her boobs taken. Where in the hell is the logic of that. Most 'kids' are not kids by the age of 16 nowadays.

If the photos the op took were anything like the example then I must criticise him as the horizon is definitely not straight. Really, IMHO there's far too many prudish people in this country, and the sooner they grow up and realize that skin is just skin whether it's here, there or anywhere the better. Just cause I want to take some photos of a lovely young girl in a bikini I'm not a monster, and I'm sure if a little common sense was applied most people would see the same.
 
jonbeeza said:
The police enter the bedroom of a man they dislike, and they want to charge him with something. The man is eighteen years old his girlfriend is sixteen. The girl proves she is sixteen and police start to leave the room as no offence has been committed. Then one of the officers notices a topless photo of the sixteen year old girl pinned to the mans wall.

The naked man gets dragged from on top of his girlfriend, and he is then charged at the police station with taking an indecent image of the under age girl, and no mention of the sex is said at the station as that was perfectly legal!

Now is that mad :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

lol did you spend the entire 18 minutes between your two posts thinking that up?
 
jonbeeza said:
The police enter the bedroom of a man they dislike, and they want to charge him with something. The man is eighteen years old his girlfriend is sixteen. The girl proves she is sixteen and police start to leave the room as no offence has been committed. Then one of the officers notices a topless photo of the sixteen year old girl pinned to the mans wall.

The naked man gets dragged from on top of his girlfriend, and he is then charged at the police station with taking an indecent image of the under age girl, and no mention of the sex is said at the station as that was perfectly legal!

Now is that mad :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

If they were in a relationship, no offence was committed. LINK


45 Indecent photographs of persons aged 16 or 17

(1)The Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) (which makes provision about indecent photographs of persons under 16) is amended as follows.
(2)In section 2(3) (evidence) and section 7(6) (meaning of “child”), for “16” substitute “ 18 ”.
(3)After section 1 insert—
“1AMarriage and other relationships

(1)This section applies where, in proceedings for an offence under section 1(1)(a) of taking or making an indecent photograph of a child, or for an offence under section 1(1)(b) or (c) relating to an indecent photograph of a child, the defendant proves that the photograph was of the child aged 16 or over, and that at the time of the offence charged the child and he—
(a)were married, or
(b)lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship.
__________________
 
Last edited:
actually you can take photos of her boobs you just can't show them to anyone else.

modchild said:
This countries law is a big pile of poop in a lot of ways. You can legally be married, have 2 kids and another on the way before you can smoke, drink or have a photo of her boobs taken. Where in the hell is the logic of that. Most 'kids' are not kids by the age of 16 nowadays.

If the photos the op took were anything like the example then I must criticise him as the horizon is definitely not straight. Really, IMHO there's far too many prudish people in this country, and the sooner they grow up and realize that skin is just skin whether it's here, there or anywhere the better. Just cause I want to take some photos of a lovely young girl in a bikini I'm not a monster, and I'm sure if a little common sense was applied most people would see the same.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top