There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing a set of lingerie images with a 17 year old.
You do not need any parental involvement either.
As long as the shots do not become some sort of pseudo porn shoot with sexualised posing, then you have nothing to fear.
Keep the shots 'decent' and even if some 'do-gooder' got involved, the police would not show any interest.
There are plenty of examples of under 18's in lingerie in a variety of publications, catalogues spring to mind.
photographing a 17 year old in lingerie
Re: photographing a 17 year old in lingerie
The law is very clear. Get a jury.
~~~~~joe king~~~~~
Free pics and movie links of British porn stars
Latest British porn links: [b][url]http://british-uk-porn.com/blog/[/url][/b]
Free pics and movie links of British porn stars
Latest British porn links: [b][url]http://british-uk-porn.com/blog/[/url][/b]
-
one eyed jack
- Posts: 12405
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: photographing a 17 year old in lingerie
PeeJays right.
If its just pictures and posing fully clothed (even if its lingeries) its ok.
Legs open and finger in mouth might be walkingon dodgy territory but to the best of my knowledge there is nothing wrong with what you suggest because everyone is confused withthe BBFC and their 18 certificate so seem to think anyhting naughty is considered adult but did you knwo you could get topless videos at 15 certificate too.
There have been commercial films with teenage nudity in at 15 cert as well
The BBFC rule doesnt apply to photographs and I dont know anywhere in law other than the legal age of sexual consent where this paranoia applies.
It sounds like a private job anyway. There was recent controversy surrounding a well known company marketing lingierie to teenagers as young as 15. Again it wasnt against the law as it was more against bad taste that parents stepped up to complain.
I can understand that. The legality was never the issue on that one.
If its just pictures and posing fully clothed (even if its lingeries) its ok.
Legs open and finger in mouth might be walkingon dodgy territory but to the best of my knowledge there is nothing wrong with what you suggest because everyone is confused withthe BBFC and their 18 certificate so seem to think anyhting naughty is considered adult but did you knwo you could get topless videos at 15 certificate too.
There have been commercial films with teenage nudity in at 15 cert as well
The BBFC rule doesnt apply to photographs and I dont know anywhere in law other than the legal age of sexual consent where this paranoia applies.
It sounds like a private job anyway. There was recent controversy surrounding a well known company marketing lingierie to teenagers as young as 15. Again it wasnt against the law as it was more against bad taste that parents stepped up to complain.
I can understand that. The legality was never the issue on that one.
www.realcouples.com
www.onemanbanned.com
www.linkmojo.me/realcouples
www.twitter.com/realcouples
www.facebook.com/realcouples
www.onemanbanned.com
www.linkmojo.me/realcouples
www.twitter.com/realcouples
www.facebook.com/realcouples
Re: photographing a 17 year old in lingerie
OK, Tel- the 64-dollar Q.
Would YOU do it? Or is the small risk just not worth the hassle?
It's precisely because the law is so vague and self-contradictory that the whole
thing is a bloody minefield.
If I had a written commission from [say] Marks and Sparks, then OK- otherwise,
Bargepole City.
Would YOU do it? Or is the small risk just not worth the hassle?
It's precisely because the law is so vague and self-contradictory that the whole
thing is a bloody minefield.
If I had a written commission from [say] Marks and Sparks, then OK- otherwise,
Bargepole City.
"a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the
signification...."
signification...."
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: photographing a 17 year old in lingerie
Cheers, JJ. At least someone got my point!
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: photographing a 17 year old in lingerie
Well I emailed her today and said I can't do it. She's 18 in the autumn. Anyone got a time machine!! lol
POj
POj
Re: photographing a 17 year old in lingerie
OK, Tel- the 64-dollar Q.
Would YOU do it? Or is the small risk just not worth the hassle?
It's precisely because the law is so vague and self-contradictory that the whole
thing is a bloody minefield.
If I had a written commission from [say] Marks and Sparks, then OK- otherwise,
Bargepole City.
I'm struggling to see any sense in this post.....
1. Yes I would.
2. No risk whatsoever.
3. The law can be vague, but not on this point. There is nothing illegal in shooting a 17 year old with her underwear on.
4. Since when does a written commission from M and S give you legal immunity? It is either ok to do or it isnt. It is the content and style that is the issue, not who it is for.
If your shots of the girl are 'indecent', then you have a problem. If they are catalogue style for example, or something similar then you have no problem whatsoever.
There are plenty of examples of under 18's being filmed or photographed topless and nude, never mind in their grundies.
Much ado about nothing.
Would YOU do it? Or is the small risk just not worth the hassle?
It's precisely because the law is so vague and self-contradictory that the whole
thing is a bloody minefield.
If I had a written commission from [say] Marks and Sparks, then OK- otherwise,
Bargepole City.
I'm struggling to see any sense in this post.....
1. Yes I would.
2. No risk whatsoever.
3. The law can be vague, but not on this point. There is nothing illegal in shooting a 17 year old with her underwear on.
4. Since when does a written commission from M and S give you legal immunity? It is either ok to do or it isnt. It is the content and style that is the issue, not who it is for.
If your shots of the girl are 'indecent', then you have a problem. If they are catalogue style for example, or something similar then you have no problem whatsoever.
There are plenty of examples of under 18's being filmed or photographed topless and nude, never mind in their grundies.
Much ado about nothing.
Re: photographing a 17 year old in lingerie
'indecent' hasn't been 'definded'
~~~~~joe king~~~~~
Free pics and movie links of British porn stars
Latest British porn links: [b][url]http://british-uk-porn.com/blog/[/url][/b]
Free pics and movie links of British porn stars
Latest British porn links: [b][url]http://british-uk-porn.com/blog/[/url][/b]
Re: photographing a 17 year old in lingerie
My reading of this thread is that there could be hassle, so why bother.
Take whatever photos you want on her 18th birthday and she can ware as much or as little as she wants and the law can not touch you.
Take the same photos when she is 17 years 364 days old and the old bill ?could? have grounds to investigate, with all the agro that goes with an investigation.
That could include the removal and examination of computers, photographic equipment etc, etc.
Chances are you wouldn?t get the kit back for six months, and highly likely no charges would be made.
But why take the risk?
The law is mad but there it is.
Take whatever photos you want on her 18th birthday and she can ware as much or as little as she wants and the law can not touch you.
Take the same photos when she is 17 years 364 days old and the old bill ?could? have grounds to investigate, with all the agro that goes with an investigation.
That could include the removal and examination of computers, photographic equipment etc, etc.
Chances are you wouldn?t get the kit back for six months, and highly likely no charges would be made.
But why take the risk?
The law is mad but there it is.
Re: photographing a 17 year old in lingerie
No, but you would struggle to suggest a Littlewoods catalogue is indecent, wouldn't you?
Just apply some common sense.
Just apply some common sense.