Minimum age for a bikini shoot.

Minimum age for a bikini shoot.

53 posts
23 April 2015
Kiboko
Photographer
Kiboko
I don't disagree with any of the comments made above, but it's SO hypocritical that this legislation targets photographers when the police take no action regarding the under-age girlfriend/over 16 boyfriend situation in which they "bond", produce a little unwanted child, but hey, it's OK because it was consentual! No criminal action taken there - just lots of under-age single mums & guys who get away with it. This 16 year old the photographer's talking about could theoretically be married with children and be having sex every night with her husband. He could presumably have his way with her but if he took an indecent photo of her would he then commit a criminal offence?

Posted 27 April 2015
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Kiboko

I don't disagree with any of the comments made above, but it's SO hypocritical that this legislation targets photographers when the police take no action regarding the under-age girlfriend/over 16 boyfriend situation in which they "bond", produce a little unwanted child, but hey, it's OK because it was consentual! No criminal action taken there - just lots of under-age single mums & guys who get away with it. This 16 year old the photographer's talking about could theoretically be married with children and be having sex every night with her husband. He could presumably have his way with her but if he took an indecent photo of her would he then commit a criminal offence?


No, the law actually permits a degree of freedom when someone under the age of 18 is in a relationship.  Any other person taking photos (for example) outside of a relationship could be perceived as exploiting the person under the age of 18.
Posted 27 April 2015
MaoZhu
Photographer
MaoZhu
RedChecker
No, the law actually permits a degree of freedom when someone under the age of 18 is in a relationship.  Any other person taking photos (for example) outside of a relationship could be perceived as exploiting the person under the age of 18.
+1
Posted 28 April 2015
MaoZhu
Photographer
MaoZhu
I am sorry but I still cannot understand anyone venturing into photographing someone under 18 unless you are a recognised child photographer and covered in so many CRB checks that you cannot move and not shooting glamour or nudes as well. When there are people on the SOR for keeping old copies of the Sun newspaper that contained topless photographs from when it was photographing under 18's in the 80's. When the classification for what can be classed as an indecent image of a child is in the hands of the police, no one else. If the police decide any image of someone under 18 is indecent then it is, no argument until you get into court by which time your reputation has gone and the rest of your life will be in tatters. Steer well clear of anything that involves under 16's that are not fully clothed or are related to you. Its a legal minefield and stepping on one of the mines is so easy. Just think what could happen if the 16 year old so likes the photograph they start texting it around to all their friends and their friends and so on and then police become involved.

Posted 28 April 2015
Edited by MaoZhu 28 April 2015
illuminate
Photographer
illuminate
Kiboko
I don't disagree with any of the comments made above, but it's SO hypocritical that this legislation targets photographers when the police take no action regarding the under-age girlfriend/over 16 boyfriend situation in which they "bond", produce a little unwanted child, but hey, it's OK because it was consentual! No criminal action taken there - just lots of under-age single mums & guys who get away with it. This 16 year old the photographer's talking about could theoretically be married with children and be having sex every night with her husband. He could presumably have his way with her but if he took an indecent photo of her would he then commit a criminal offence?
Getting back to the actual question, rather than the perceived hypocrisy of the law... No, I wouldn't for one second entertain the idea of photographing any female under the age of 18. Wouldn't matter if it was in a bikini shoot or any outfit whatsoever. The criteria I would always use is " Am I / Would I be completely comfortable with myself taking these shots? " The answer for me is an emphatic NO! I'll stick with the Jiminy Cricket philosophy..... " Always let your conscience be your guide " In my personal case, my conscience says Minimum age 18, 2 proofs of age and chaperones welcome.
Posted 28 April 2015
Kiboko
Photographer
Kiboko
I wish all the teenagers who make young girls pregnant were as responsible as the majority of photographers! A parent has far more to fear from their daughters' boyfriend than a photographer. Far, far more!!!

Posted 28 April 2015
Snarf
Photographer
Snarf
Personally would say just avoid shooting U18s from a peace of mind perspective. There is obviously the monster in the room phenomenon associated with the ignorant masses an those of questionable motives - however if for valid reason ie. agency/client/publication brief requiring something specific with all releases and authorization in play then do it if its a job and one which pays the bills. I think.

For sure though I would suggest people with heavy leaning to glamour and adult without normal publications and work should stay away from children.

Posted 28 April 2015
OldMaster
Photographer
OldMaster
Not sure how teenage pregnancy got into this!

The teenagers themselves may sext each other intimate pictures but that is their concern and there doesn't appear to be a law that can be enforced to stop young people doing what young people love to do!

Of course photographers have shot teenagers up to nude as well(Hamilton) and laws vary across the globe..(many 12 years olds are still married off for instance). "Reggie" has recently had a show on BBC3 looking into the Russian model market where many of the girls were 12/13..and the BBC shot them in underwear/bikinis?

So its probably down to permission and risk? Your CRB/DBS is relatively worthless in this situation but may be useful in providing some proof to parents and guardians. The purpose must be absolutely clear, guardians and parents must be present and agreements must be signed. I could only really see a reason if the girl was on the way to fully agency signed model and actually it was the agency that required the pictures...in which case they would probably do them themselves!

Which brings us around to motive..in other words only if the pictures are a real requirement shot under the strictest of controls could I see a purpose behind it..if not the motives become questionable?

Which brings us back to why would you want to..and best avoided!!!



Posted 28 April 2015
BIGBLUE
Photographer
BIGBLUE
Kiboko
I wish all the teenagers who make young girls pregnant were as responsible as the majority of photographers! A parent has far more to fear from their daughters' boyfriend than a photographer. Far, far more!!!
Confused, what has this got to do with photography.
Posted 29 April 2015
Kiboko
Photographer
Kiboko
BIGBLUE

Confused, what has this got to do with photography.


Everything. If you read the thread it all follows on. I don't think I've gone off topic.


Posted 29 April 2015
BIGBLUE
Photographer
BIGBLUE
Kiboko
Everything. If you read the thread it all follows on. I don't think I've gone off topic.
What teen pregnancy..... oh okay.
Posted 29 April 2015
PaulManuell
Photographer
PaulManuell
Billy1300, after 3 pages (so far) of advice and opinions, and only one response from you early in page 1, what's your decision on this shoot now? My opinion, for what it's worth (probably nothing), is that I personally would be very reluctant to do this shoot, even with safeguards in place., eg., model's parent(s) present at shoot and no provocative shots whatsoever, though 'provoctive' itself is a very subjective word. However, only you can make the ultimate decision as to whether to go ahead with this particular shoot or not. Just bear in mind, though, once the model has her copies of the photos, no matter how innocent they turn out to be, they can end up anywhere she chooses (and yes, I realise the photographer has ultimate copyright, but that wouldn't necessarily stop her posting them all over the net). Would you feel comfortable with that?

Posted 29 April 2015
marlhamphoto
Photographer
marlhamphoto
PaulManuell

Billy1300, after 3 pages (so far) of advice and opinions, and only one response from you early in page 1, what's your decision on this shoot now?

It's pretty evident from his profile that he buggered off 5 days ago so you wasted your time typing all that out. Since he no longer has any images in his port it's only a matter of time before admin suspend his account.

Posted 29 April 2015
Edited by marlhamphoto 29 April 2015
SMILESPHOTO
Photographer
SMILESPHOTO
MaoZhu

 When there are people on the SOR for keeping old copies of the Sun newspaper that contained topless photographs from when it was photographing under 18's in the 80's.



Just on a point of law, you couldn't be put on the SOR for having old copies of the Sun with pics of 16 year old girls topless, since prior to (I think 2004) it was legal, and the law can't be retrospective.


Posted 29 April 2015
redbaron
Photographer
redbaron
SMILESPHOTO

Just on a point of law, you couldn't be put on the SOR for having old copies of the Sun with pics of 16 year old girls topless, since prior to (I think 2004) it was legal, and the law can't be retrospective.



But it is and MaoZhu was making a perfectly valid point. When the law was revised to lower the age to 16 all the agencies and professional glamour photographers felt oblidged to destroy negatives and prints of any models under 18 that could be suspect because it was personally and commercially to dangerous to have them in their files.

Also he was raising another important point. It is not simply about legality in front of the court. First you have to get there which would mean a harrowing few months of police investigation and 'leaked' stories by them intended to destroy your character and break any resistance. Many people are so traumatised by this that they plead guilty rather than face the trial and even if aquitted their professional reputation would have been destroyed. All of this before getting to court and based soley on the pinion of a police officer who may be more concerend with his conviction rates and promotion than justice.

A few years back a reputable professional family photographer was asked to take some 'fairy' portraits a a couples little girls. I think they were under 5, certainly well before puberty and they were topless but wearing a skirt to match the theme as fairy wings. Perfectly innocent and the sort of photos I an many other photographers would have no concerns about taking. Someone reported them and the photographer was charged and convicted of taking indecent images of a child. His only appearance in court was to plead guilty. Later one of the magistrates admitted that had he pleaded not guilty they would have thrown the case out. It was patently absurd. Unfortunately the photographer had beeb broken well before that by the police.

Of course those defending the action will mutter uncorroborated suggestions that there was 'more to it' but the simple truth is this man was destroyed without even having the chance of a fair trial. You can bet for example that if the OP had taken anything even vaguely risque' that the police decided were indecent they would also have trawled through all the rest of his photos. The would have asserted some were underage and demanded he  prove they were not. They may well have implied others broke some law or other.

You can be certain that they would have leaked his details to the local press to ensure extrajudicial pressure was added to their formidable resources. You can be sure too that he would have been fired from his job for brining th ecompany into disrepute.

Is any of this fair? Of course not its a grotesque intrusion into a persons right to live how they please and enjoy the life they choose providing they operate within what most sensible people would consider the law. Unfortunately for most of us without access to heavyweight legal teams the law is what the local police decide it is going to be not what some far off supreme court thinks.

Posted 30 April 2015
Edited by redbaron 30 April 2015
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join