Net-Model.com
Under 18 model
Topic Start Date: Saturday, April 28, 2007 @ 4:22 AM (+-5 GMT)
Forum: United Kingdom Community
Hi can anyone help. I was talking to a girl of 17 last night and who wants to get into modelling but she said she was gutted that she had to wait till she was 18 to do topless/lingerie/implied etc.

I obvioulsy know about topless and anything stronger but what are the guidlines or law regarding implied or lingerie in particular?

I know it's probably been done to death so I link will do

Cheers
Mike


Posted By: Silverdale1971 04-28-2007 04:22am
ALL the law states is that it is an offence to take indecent images of a child. Recent legislation increased the age for this from 16 to 18
. Everything else you read hear get informed about is pure conjecture as no one has yet been prosecuted for taking topless shots of a 17 year old so no one knows for sure whre a jury will draw the line on the issue and no one wants to be the first to face down a zealous child protection officer and find out.

This week Zoo did actually publish a photo of a 17 year old flashing a boob at photographers incidently.

Bottom line is the child could in theory be fully clothed and the image considered indecent due to pose orcontext. You could equaly take a fully nude shot, say in a naturist setting and be perfectly OK. Everyone on this site has an opinion on where the line should be drawn but the only opinion that counts is yours.

The link below will at least take you to the source material and some informed articles

Baron


Posted By: RedBaron 04-28-2007 04:40am
If she really wants to get into modelling she won't mind spending a few months building up a portfolio of clothed shots before she can do higher levels is what I'd tell her.

Posted By: ChloeJadeGlamour 04-28-2007 04:52am
Much appreciated - I shall let the model know and also take a look at the link.

Cheers
Mike


Posted By: Silverdale1971 04-28-2007 05:12am
Yeah - I said that. But she wants to do that Loaded/FHM type stuff and isn;t realy interested in fashion portrait type stuff

Mike


Posted By: Silverdale1971 04-28-2007 05:13am
I heard a rumour that someone who shot a girl of 17 was done for the fact that the shape of this fully clothed model's nipple could be seen through her top.

I am not sure what happened next, but I thought I'd share it with you!


Posted By: Cytherea 04-28-2007 05:20am
ok so I'm curious....what about people who receive mazines through the post eg FHM or any other magazine or even photography books have women topless or nude, so you arent allowed to order these books from companys like amazon etc?

whats happening to this world?


Posted By: Cytherea 05-02-2007 08:05pm
anyone know?

Posted By: Cytherea 05-03-2007 02:30am
Quote from Red Baron

"ALL the law states is that it is an offence to take indecent images of a child. Recent legislation reduced the age for this from 18 to 16."

Surely you mean "Increased the age of this from 16 to 18"

GM


Posted By: go_man 05-03-2007 04:35am
But didnt the law change 2 years ago and didnt a lot of places like block busters offer night shift for people to remove certain videos of 16 and 17 year old toppless or naked on a ned etc when the law changed (thats what i heard anyway)

and this law about sending things through teh post i dont get how uyou can get pornos or even FHM with girls topless (accord to above topless is not alolowed through teh mail system if i understand it right)


Posted By: Cytherea 05-03-2007 01:30pm
The difficulty with your analysis of the law is that you are assuming that an image of someone over 18 is indecent if they show nipples. I see no evidence to back this up.

The word indecent means different things depending on context much like the word 'fast' means different things depending on whether you are talking about walking speed or a formula one car.

--------------------------------------------------------
Web: http://paulcoxphotography.com/
Myspace: www.myspace.com/paulsphotos


Posted By: paulcoxphotography 05-03-2007 10:23pm
Quote:


The fact that nipples are indecent means that if you post your 55 year old model her topless TFCD pictures, that's also an offence - see section 85(3) of the Postal Services Act 2000. ("A person commits an offence if he sends by post a postal packet which encloses any indecent...photograph")



There is a distinction here between "pictures" (i.e. a hard copy that you can pick up and view), and a "CD" (i.e. you cannot actually view the images unless you put them in a "player"). Similar to the distinction between the old home movie films and videos.


Posted By: hughmalc 05-04-2007 01:39am
Quoting hughmalc:

Quote:

The fact that nipples are indecent means that if you post your 55 year old model her topless TFCD pictures, that's also an offence - see section 85(3) of the Postal Services Act 2000. ("A person commits an offence if he sends by post a postal packet which encloses any indecent...photograph")


There is a distinction here between "pictures" (i.e. a hard copy that you can pick up and view), and a "CD" (i.e. you cannot actually view the images unless you put them in a "player"). Similar to the distinction between the old home movie films and videos.



I don't think that distinction exists, as most downloaders of kiddie porn seem to be charged with "making indecent pictures", despite the fact that they only exist in electronic form (and as for "making" - surely "possessing" would be more accurate)

As for the postal issue, though, how come most top shelf mags offer subscriptions? And Amazon happily sell books by the likes of Roy Stuart and Richard Kern.


Posted By: seanb 05-04-2007 03:44am
Seanb

You are taking my response out of context.

My point relates purely to material sent through the post - nothing to do with downloads.


Posted By: hughmalc 05-04-2007 06:36am
Just got back to this post.

Some interesting comments here - I think what I'll do, if the model decides to shoot with me in the summer, is play on the side of caution and do some fashion shoots (which she now wants to do) and that's about it.

I can see why the law was brought in/changed but as usual it's been made almost unworkable like a lot of other laws we've had to endure over the last 5 years


Posted By: Silverdale1971 05-04-2007 05:15pm
Just got back to this post.

Some interesting comments here - I think what I'll do, if the model decides to shoot with me in the summer, is play on the side of caution and do some fashion shoots (which she now wants to do) and that's about it.

I can see why the law was brought in/changed but as usual it's been made almost unworkable like a lot of other laws we've had to endure over the last 5 years


Posted By: Silverdale1971 05-04-2007 05:15pm
How glad am I that this question was raised.
I was about to finalise a shoot with a 17 year old for a topless/art nude shoot at her request on a TFCD basis. I thought the law still requiired the model to be a minimum of 16yrs old. Now I know it has change think I will wait a few months for her 18th.
Thanks all for highlighting this

There is no harm in looking (unless you get caught)


Posted By: DanArcher 05-05-2007 06:36am
I don't know where you live but try saying that to the average London kid of that age!

And maybe you can explain why Parliament is considering reducing the voting age to 16.


Posted By: anthonyh 05-06-2007 04:23am
I was going to add ( but wanted to check something first) that I bought a copy of 'Age of Innocence' (photographer David Hamilton) from a large bookshop in London about a year ago. This book contains quite a few nude images of girls obviously well under 18.

Surry police tried to claim that possession of this book was an offence. You can now order it on the internet if you don't want to trek along to the book shops - so much for the opinion of Surry police.

The implication is that any images that are in the David Hamilton style are probably legal.


Posted By: anthonyh 05-06-2007 04:40am
I work in the London area - for more years than I care to remember I taught at a large FE/HE College and worked with probably thousands of 16 plus London kids in that time. I think I know how a lot of them think!

I also think they think much like 16 / 17 yr olds everywhere. I doubt if many of them have hangups about glamour images...or if they do, they suddenly take a different perspective on their 18th birthday.


Posted By: anthonyh 05-06-2007 04:50am
Quoting Silverdale1971:

Hi can anyone help. I was talking to a girl of 17 last night and who wants to get into modelling but she said she was gutted that she had to wait till she was 18 to do topless/lingerie/implied etc.

I obvioulsy know about topless and anything stronger but what are the guidlines or law regarding implied or lingerie in particular?

I know it's probably been done to death so I link will do

Cheers
Mike



The law is very simple.

You must not produce "indecent" images of models under tha age of 18.

What they are wearing, or not wearing is completely immaterial.

The majority of people assume that this outlaws nude images of under 18 models.

It does not, provided they are not "indecent".

Sadly there is no hard and fast definition of "indecent" within this context.

But I am sure that you, like me, can think of think of images that you would consider "indecent" where the models were not naked. Likewiase I'm sure that you, like me, can think of nude images that you would not consider "indecent".

Shaun







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


Posted By: BrightLights_Shaun 05-06-2007 10:56am
If an under 18 is to pose for Max Power in Bedroom babes etc
This wouldnt be accepted?
As the poses are not only half naked but sexually provocative..


Posted By: Zee 05-27-2007 10:35am
I'm jus trying to understand this
Some people sayits fine an others not
I thought an image in a provocative pose was what wasn't allowed.


Have jus been told by a model you only have to be 17 to appear in lads mags
is this made up?


Posted By: Zee 05-27-2007 10:52am
It seems apparent that it doesn't really matter what the law says in so far
as under 18's are concerned because you are unlikely to find a
photographer brave enough (or daft enough) to risk having the finer points explained to him in a courtroom. Even if found not guilty I suspect any reputation and business he had previously would be shot through.
Even if you could find definitive text to show it was all OK I suspect you would struggle to book your model in with a phootgrapher.


Posted By: Woody1380 05-27-2007 11:01am
Imagine being a teenager living in a Country where the girls are so desperate to get their kit off for the public gaze.... times have changed... can I have my life back and start over from say 15 lol

Posted By: Woody1380 05-27-2007 11:03am
Page 1 of 1 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=847780&fid=13