|
|
  | 04 June 2015 02:12 |
|
| RedChecker Photographer  Location United Kingdom Buckinghamshire Stoke Mandeville |  Quote from anthonyhI was given copy of a book, many years ago, by a photographer whose books have been sold internationally...are in several national libraries....but contain images of 'underage' girls that the UK law have deemed as indecent, so to own such a publication risks prosecution (But available on Amazon the last time I looked). It is quite interesting in that HMCR were/ are happy to take taxes from the sales of the books....sort of suggests living off 'immoral' earnings to me. The moral of this story...hypocrisy everywhere!! Are you simply assuming they've ruled that the publication in particular is indecent or has that particular book been flagged as indecent? Each image is ruled on a case-by-case basis and there's absolutely no consistenct. You've only got to look at that hideous Nan Golding photo of the two naked girls playing * to realise it's such a grey area when she can get away with it and yet a photographer who manipulates photos to make girls like fairies will be clobbered. * - I believe it went to court and it was ruled that it was art and not indecent. |
|
| When you are dead, you do not know that you are dead. All of your pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you are stupid. | ||
 | 06 June 2015 05:15 |
| paulford Photographer  Location United Kingdom South Yorkshire Doncaster | Quote from Just_Lez FYI: My understanding is the Child Protection act actually says: Sexual images, not indecent images. Sexual being even harder to define, That can be badly posed fully clothed. So I'd advise avoidance. And sexual "images" can be defined by who? If a certain person describes an image as "sexual" what does it say about them? |
| 08 June 2015 11:42 |
|
| mph Photographer  Location United Kingdom Cheshire Crewe | Quote from Just_Lez FYI: My understanding is the Child Protection act actually says: Sexual images, not indecent images. Sexual being even harder to define, That can be badly posed fully clothed. So I'd advise avoidance. Sexual Offences Act 2003 Indecent photographs of children 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. (2)Subsections (5) and (6) also apply where, in proceedings 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 when he obtained it the child and he— (a)were married, or (b)lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship. (3)This section applies whether the photograph showed the child alone or with the defendant, but not if it showed any other person. (4)In the case of an offence under section 1(1)(a), if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the child consented to the photograph being taken or made, or as to whether the defendant reasonably believed that the child so consented, the defendant is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved that the child did not so consent and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the child so consented. (5)In the case of an offence under section 1(1)(b), the defendant is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved that the showing or distributing was to a person other than the child. (6)In the case of an offence under section 1(1)(c), if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue both— (a)as to whether the child consented to the photograph being in the defendant’s possession, or as to whether the defendant reasonably believed that the child so consented, and (b)as to whether the defendant had the photograph in his possession with a view to its being distributed or shown to anyone other than the child, the defendant is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved either that the child did not so consent and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the child so consented, or that the defendant had the photograph in his possession with a view to its being distributed or shown to a person other than the child.” |
|
| Amateur - happy to do TF with models with potential and enthusiasm. Website: www.mphodson.co.uk | ||
|
| 8 Users currently online | Blue=Models Orange=Photographers Red=Agencies Purple=MUA/Stylists Grey=Studios Green=Moderators | |
| Maryrose OlgaCabaeva TiaJonesXx | ||
| couchpotato frankpht freddie jyp Vltavakrtek | ||
