Minimum age for a bikini shoot.

Minimum age for a bikini shoot.

53 posts
23 April 2015
JeromeRazoir
Photographer
JeromeRazoir
Rather shows up my series of close-up shots of several pre-pubescent boys' genitals.

SHOCK, HORROR, CALAMITY....

The judge said absolutely nothing about indecency etc. when they were produced in court. That was why they were shot, as evidence in a trial. My client, a firm of solicitors was pleased, the case went well and no problems for me at all.

Posted 8 May 2015
zanussi
Photographer
zanussi
I got nicked for taking a photo of my 14 year old son when he won his gold swimming award at the local sports centre. I was held overnight, my house searched, neighbours interviewed and all my kit and computers held for three months. In the next cell was a professional for the local paper "caught" photographing a majorette rally.

World going mad

Posted 27 May 2015
Just_Lez
Photographer
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.

Posted 3 June 2015
zanussi
Photographer
zanussi
My sad experience suggests it is down to the arresting officer to decide what is decent and what is not, in my case the charming fellow kept leering and saying "no smoke without fire, where is the rest then?" But what really dammed me in his eyes was I had three cameras. "wot you need three for, eh, eh? Answer me that, go on then! Can't can yer, obvious you are up to no good."

Inspector Morse he was not.

Posted 3 June 2015
anthonyh
Photographer
anthonyh
I 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!!

Posted 4 June 2015
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
anthonyh

I 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.
Posted 4 June 2015
paulford
Photographer
paulford
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?
Posted 6 June 2015
mph
Photographer
mph
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.”
Posted 8 June 2015
Edited by Love 8 June 2015
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join