Clarification of a law regarding photography

[RobbieKB]

Ok, this is a weird one. A really quick back story as to why I am posting this. A woman my Dad works with, is friends with the wife of a guy who has just been put on the sex offenders list (I understand it's a long chain of connections and 4th hand information).

Allegedly he has followed a 16 year old aspiring model for a while (she's now 19) and had a number of images of her clothed, on his PC. He's 63, it's all a bit weird and I'm not quite sure of all the details. Anyway he pleaded guilty. His wife left him but when she learnt of the truth (as he claims it to be) she went back to him. Said convict says that the images on his computer were of a 16 year old (since the laws changed in May 2004 to list photographs of 16/17 year olds as children rather than adults) and were not provocative or pornographic and he didn't take them.

I don't want to get in to the details of this case too much as they are hazy at best and again allegedly, the papers reported it to be A LOT worse than they were. However, a friend of mine wants me to photograph her little girl when it snows, which I'm more than happy to do but now, and I'm embarrassed to say this, I'm a bit wary and don't really want to do it any more as pathetic as that sounds.

So can anyone qualify what the laws are in this area? I can't find too much on it.

Edited by RobbieKB on Saturday 22 December 16:41

[Simpo Two]

So let me get this straight - his crime is to have photos of a clothed woman on his PC?

[Xerstead]

The law is against indecent images of a person under 18. As I understand it, it does not require nudity to be indecent (provocative posing/props), nor does nudity automatically make it indecent. However, 'indecent' is subject to interpretation and everyone has different standards.
ETA.
Having non-provocative pics of a clothed teenager would not be considered indecent for a conviction, there is more to it than that.
You have nothing to worry about.

Edited by Xerstead on Saturday 22 December 16:58

[RobbieKB]

Simpo Two said:

So let me get this straight - his crime is to have photos of a clothed woman on his PC?

A clothed 16 year old - yes. Not an adult. That's his defence. It's all suspicious and he sounds guilty as sin and just a liar, but it's worth knowing what the laws are.

I really want to know if there are any steps I need to take differently when photographing under 18s apart from the obvious signed model release form by the guardian.

[RobbieKB]

Xerstead said:

The law is against indecent images of a person under 18. As I understand it, it does not require nudity to be indecent (provocative posing/props), nor does nudity automatically make it indecent. However, 'indecent' is subject to interpretation and everyone has different standards.

Exactly. So as long as there is nothing that can be construed as remotely sexual, the photographer is free to do as he pleases, yes?

[Xerstead]

RobbieKB said:

I really want to know if there are any steps I need to take differently when photographing under 18s apart from the obvious signed model release form by the guardian.

No need for a release form in the UK, although may be needed if you are submitting to agencys for international sales.
Having one could be usefull just to highlight intended usage and copyright/licence details for the people involved.
General advise is just to have a parent/guardian present at all times.
If shooting older teens be aware they may pose themselves in ways that may not be entirely suitable.

[RobbieKB]

Xerstead said:

RobbieKB said:

I really want to know if there are any steps I need to take differently when photographing under 18s apart from the obvious signed model release form by the guardian.

No need for a release form in the UK, although may be needed if you are submitting to agencys for international sales.
Having one could be usefull just to highlight intended usage and copyright/licence details for the people involved.
General advise is just to have a parent/guardian present at all times.
If shooting older teens be aware they may pose themselves in ways that may not be entirely suitable.

Yeah good point. I have no interest in portraiture of children or teenagers but it's nice to know where you stand.

[GetCarter]

The world has gone mad.

[Simpo Two]

I photograph under-18s at almost every wedding. It's part of my job. I can hardly photograph weddings and studiously avoid everyone under 18 or put big mosaic splodges over them. 'Excuse me, are you under 18? Sorry but could you step out of the group please?' 'Excuse me madam, could you just get your children out of this shot please?'

Model release to photograph your friend's daughter playing in the snow? Frankly if you're that terrified, just say no. What is the legal difference between you taking photos and her parents taking photos? Or maybe parents can't photograph their children either - most of the dodgy stuff starts at home they say.

I'm with Carter.

[Piglet]

Part of the problem is people listening to gossip. You have no idea what actually happened involving this chap yet you've let it spook you to a situation where you think that there might be a problem taking photos, at a mother's request, of her small child playing in the snow - presumably with the mother in attendance.

Mad indeed.

[2slo]

I can understand how the OP feels about this. I wanted to photograph my sons's school sports day but decided against it as I couldn't be bothered with seeking permission from the school to photograph my own child. What makes this doubly annoying is that the school lets my kids get photographed every year by a photographer whos work is less than impressive and expects us to pay high prices for the snaps he takes.

[LongQ]

You may be lucky and the snow fails to arrive.

However, in a more serious note, I you consider what seems to be happening in the "legal" world at the moment thuggery, theft and various forms of GBH up to and including murder seem to be attracting lower panalties from the judiciary than having for some time worked in the media and being old.

If they can re-write history - and they can and do - then they can re-write legal history at some point in the future. So what may appear to be acceptable today (and would have been boringly normal in my younger days) might, in a few decades, be considered unwholesome.

I would say this is a very sad state of affairs in termso of our society.

On the other hand if it means that someone manages to successfully legally gut the people that ran the UK in the Bliar administration days there may be some justice a couple of decades from now.

However I would not for one minute assume that sense will prevail. Frankly the sooner we all stop taking photos of kids (and celbrities come to that ) the better our lives will become.

All very much my own extremely personal opinion of course.

[Simpo Two]

I say cut his nuts off now just to be on the safe side. And 20 years in jail. And then cut his nuts off again.

[LongQ]

Simpo Two said:

I say cut his nuts off now just to be on the safe side. And 20 years in jail. And then cut his nuts off again.

And his hands. Difficult to take photos/fiddle when you don't have hands. Precautionary principle and all that stuff.

The alternatives would be ban the production of children which would, er, be, er, well, relatively practical I suppose and solve a few other problems - behaviour issues, poor education, population control are three that come to mind - quite quickly.

Oh, and housing crises - four things that come to mind.

Alternatively one could consider setting an age range for being a child to something sensible and more inline with what it used to be and more in line with many countries around the world. Granted young adults, especially makes, have a tendency to cling to some aspects of childhood well into their 20s (or for life in some cases) but that does not mean we should keep extending the upper limit accordingly.

30 years ago this sort of question would never have arisen. However now we see how keen some people, including the police it appears, seem to be to revisit certain types of past events and compare than with more recently defined "crimes" (* see footnote) it's clear that you can take nothing for granted as being acceptable behaviour both now and for any period into the future.

Trust no one. The nice mother who wants some photos of her brat charming child today is the same person who, 15 years on and aging badly will blame YOU for the behavioural problems of her junkie daughter and she will have the photographic evidence to prove the link.

Avoid.

However you should be safe to take a deposit for the shoot and never return it. Worst case result might be some "words of advice" but a bit of fraud, as practiced from the top down, seems to be totally accepted these days so no one will be making too much of a fuss about it.

• (one might say people do that rather than address today's crimes or maybe to seek some form of compensation)