Net-Model.com
16 yr old models
Topic Start Date: Saturday, March 24, 2007 @ 6:16 AM (+-5 GMT)
Forum: United Kingdom Community
Can a 16yr old pose topless with parents/guardian consent,and/or if they are present at the shoot ?
Anyone know the law ?


Posted By: Chris_G 03-24-2007 06:16am
OK. Thanks for reply

Posted By: Chris_G 03-24-2007 06:30am
There isn't a strict legal yes/no answer to this, but it would be an extremely foolish thing to do. Under 18's are all considered to be children, these days, so you run the risk of becoming a child sex offender should things get nasty.

Don't do anything with a 16 yr old you wouldn't be happy doing with a 14 yr old.

Don't do it, she'll just have to wait.


Posted By: PeterH 03-24-2007 06:31am
Thanks for the advice. Duly noted !!

Posted By: Chris_G 03-24-2007 06:33am
Quoting PeterH:

Don't do anything with a 16 yr old you wouldn't be happy doing with a 14 yr old.




Better still, don't do anything with a sixteen year old you wouldn't be happy with having someone else do to your fourteen year old.



Going back to the original post it is probably only appropriate to include topless shots of models under the age of 18 in lifestyle type shoots for naturist publications.

So take mum, dad, and the daughter to the beach and get them all naked and playing in the sand.

If the parents are uncomfortable with this, then they shouldn't want you to photograph their daughter topless at sixteen.

Shaun

The camera never lies - but photographs rarely portray the truth......


Posted By: BrightLights_Shaun 03-24-2007 06:44am
had the same dilemma 3 weeks ago, mum was with her when i went to see them about what she wanted to do, that was the start of the conversation, she wanted to do suggestive and topless, even her mum was saying she wants her daughter to look like one of those FHM cover models, suffice to say i told them i dont wanna go to jail and be someones bitch - !, and left










Posted By: NoNoizePhotography 03-24-2007 06:49am
Quoting Chris_G:

Can a 16yr old pose topless with parents/guardian consent,and/or if they are present at the shoot ?
Anyone know the law ?



I would have to question your motives for wanting a 16 year old to pose in such a way when there are endless models over the age of 18 that would be suitable!!

As previously stated, would you want someone doing this to your 16 year old?


Posted By: SimonL 03-24-2007 07:18am
Just imagine it, you take your well intentioned photos

The girl tells her school friends about the shoot.

Her teacher reports you to social services/police.

They visit you, your neighbours, your employer and your workmates to see if you have displayed any paedophile tendencies to them.

Your PC will probably be confiscated for a few month as will your negative archives.

The good news is that even if you're not charged at the end of it all, your images will be safer in the hands of the authorities if your house gets petrol bombed in the meanwhile.

Of course if you get taken to court, things will get alogether nastier.

So all in all it depends on whether you're an adrenaline junkie or not!!!


Posted By: Alt_Images 03-24-2007 07:21am
You can have sex and babies at 16 but can't be photographed looking like you might.

Funny old world........


Posted By: Ace 03-24-2007 07:22am
Quote:

I would have to question your motives for wanting a 16 year old to pose in such a way when there are endless models over the age of 18 that would be suitable!!



Was gonna say the same thing!


Posted By: BlackRainbow 03-24-2007 07:23am
Quoting Ace:

You can have sex and babies at 16 but can't be photographed looking like you might.

Funny old world........



Thats a pretty stupid thing to do as well. I think that may go up too anyway, thats pretty much the only thing left that you can do at 16 i think.


Posted By: JadedRed 03-24-2007 01:25pm
Better to be safe then sorry..

Find an 18+ model who looks younger if you need the model to look about 16yo in the finished work. Keeps you safe and gives you the desired result.


Posted By: daedalhysteria 03-24-2007 01:46pm
Not necessarily. It is the making/taking of the photograph, including copying, and/or the displaying/distributing (or intent to) of same which is the possible crime. Unless they were charged with 'aiding and abetting' the photographer in the crime, which is by no means a foregone conclusion and is unlikely to happen until it was proven in court that an offence had indeed been committed, it seems unlikely that parents would be prosecuted.

The way the law is written, it is the photographer, or persons distributing prescribed images, that the law targets and not the perceived 'victim'.

There is a link to the 2003 Act, but bear in mind that it must also be read in conjunction with the Protection of Children Act 1978.

Bob


Posted By: Bob 03-24-2007 01:53pm
Quoting Chris_G:

Can a 16yr old pose topless with parents/guardian consent,and/or if they are present at the shoot ?
Anyone know the law ?



yeh they can if it isnt portrayed sexually , but why would you wanna photograph a 16 year old topless - most of the girls on this site are over 16 and only do topless - its not like there is lack of choice


Posted By: Nell 03-24-2007 01:54pm
:. I was told you cant do underwear at 16. Isnt topless abit more "adult" that underwear!! :.

Oh gosh im sooo losted!

Can I do underwear then? I dont want to do topless.

Charley Victoria
------------------------------------------------------
www.charley-victoria.net


Posted By: CharleyVictoria 03-24-2007 02:56pm
Quoting CharleyVictoria:



Can I do underwear then? I dont want to do topless.




It isn't what you wear (or don't wear), it's if it is indecent or not.

Lots of sexy shots in underwear could be considered indecent, simple underwear catalogue shots would be considered plain and wholesome.

Equally, topless (and even nude) shots in the right context could be considered decent.

Personally, I would steer clear of underwear with an U18 unless specifically doing a commercial shoot for a catalogue. Too many wrong conclusions for people to jump to otherwise.

((((--- My computer beat me at chess ..... but I whupped its a*se at kickboxing ---))))


Posted By: Sandpiper 03-24-2007 03:19pm
I didn't quite mean it like that :. Sorry if you misunderstood/I phrased it wrong.
More that he can use someone who looks a 'young' 18 rather then 'old' 18, etc.. Also I was taking into consideration that he mentioned shooting topless, but never that her chest would be seen or that the images were to be provocative. I assumed they weren't going to be in that way otherwise I doubt he'd have even considered taking them in the first place.. at least I hope not.

For example, if you need to do a photo-story about underage sex you aren't going to have your teen played by a 60 year old with a zimmer frame, but someone who looks close to the 'correct' age. I wasn't supporting explicit images of those who look underage, simply age association. It's done in films all the time; such as Thirteen where Rachael Evan Wood plays a younger character.

I definately wasn't trying to encourage or condone underage nude photos.. :|

I hope that clears that up for you/others that may have felt the same. Hopefully some people understood what I meant and that I've explained it a little clearer this time o_0


Posted By: daedalhysteria 03-24-2007 09:25pm
Quoting Ace:

You can have sex and babies at 16 but can't be photographed looking like you might.

Funny old world........



Very true.

As as I dont get you can do swimwear under 18 but you cant do underwear. :.




Charley Victoria
------------------------------------------------------
www.charley-victoria.net


Posted By: CharleyVictoria 03-25-2007 04:36pm
Quoting CharleyVictoria:

As as I dont get you can do swimwear under 18 but you cant do underwear.





That is not true, it depends on the image.
You could have a picture of a 16 year old posing very provocatively in swimwear (or fully clothed for that matter) and it would be considered indecent, yet you could have a perfectly innocent picture of a girl in underwear for a catalogue.

You are right though that its probably safer to do swimwear and not underwear. Can you really not see the difference between them? I can.

(If anyones wondering my point, I would go out the house in swimwear but I don't think it'd be appropriate to go out in underwear)


Posted By: Becky_W 03-25-2007 04:51pm
you know there is one loophole to this...

At college I knew a 18 year old. Her mother had thrown her out of the house and so she had this bit of paper which legally made her an adult somehow...So she couldown property and she didn't need parental consent to do anything. That's the only way you will get a 16 year old who is legally able to do topless and you will not get into trouble. So yeah. Stay well clear. We don't want to end up as a pedo for something like that now do we? They'll keep you on a register all your life.


Posted By: Jayms_Fallen_Angel 03-25-2007 04:56pm
common sense counts for a lot, though it isnt as common as one would hope


Dave


Posted By: Promise 03-25-2007 04:59pm
Quoting Jayms_Fallen_Angel:

That's the only way you will get a 16 year old who is legally able to do topless and you will not get into trouble.


I was reading about this the other day, and I think you still would get into trouble for that. Even if you have been through all that, the legal ages still apply to you. (Like you'd still need to be 18 to buy alcohol etc.)


Posted By: Becky_W 03-25-2007 05:00pm
Quoting CharleyVictoria:

Very true.

As as I dont get you can do swimwear under 18 but you cant do underwear. :.




Charley Victoria
------------------------------------------------------
www.charley-victoria.net



The law does not say you cannot do lingerie shoots, or even that you cannot do topless ones. What it does say is that should I take an indecent photo of you I could be tried for child pornography with all the ramnifications should I be found guilty.

The snag is that, quite deliberatly, the law does not define what constitutes indecent so understandably I am going to play on the side of caution, as will most sensible photographers. If that seems a bit irrational in places well rather that than having to fight my corner in a court of law.

If you think we are being paranoid then I suggest you read the link about a case in America at the moment. No nudity involved yet the owners of a Child model website are still being arraigned under US obsenity laws.


Posted By: RedBaron 03-25-2007 05:01pm
Quoting Becky_W:

I was reading about this the other day, and I think you still would get into trouble for that. Even if you have been through all that, the legal ages still apply to you. (Like you'd still need to be 18 to buy alcohol etc.)


I'm not 100% certain, but I think she did mention that she could go topless legally. It get's lost in translation because usually when I'm talking about breasts I'm pissed and seeing things. So I don't know, but if there is a way to do it that would be it.


Posted By: Jayms_Fallen_Angel 03-25-2007 05:05pm
A few years ago I would have confidently said Yes it was legal to photograph a 16yr old topless, but this topsy turvy world in which we live seems to change the rules as we go along.
Back on the 22nd Feb 1983 SAMANTHA FOX first appeared topless in The Sun. As she was born 15th April 1966 this would mean she was only 16!!!
Who changed the rules? And when? And why did nobody tell us? lol
Play safe - WAIT.


Posted By: jetbrown 03-25-2007 05:29pm
Page 1 of 2 All times are EST (-5 GMT)
This post comes from Net-Model.com
http://www.net-model.com

The URL for this post is:
http://forums.net-model.com?tid=814635&fid=13