photographing a 17 year old in lingerie

[joe king]

Common sense doesn't count, if' it's indecent then it's indecent.

[jj]

I'm struggling to see any sense in this post.....

Then I'll explain, from the standpoint of an old cynic.
You are technically correct; however, as Joe points out it's not so much what's
in a photographer or model's mind but what's in an observer's. 'Context' is a
poorly-defined and labile thing, and if many snappers prefer to eschew the whole
thing then I can't blame them. Unfortunately there are people out there who see
'sin' in what to most of us seem wholly innocent things, and certain parts of the
CPS/police are only too happy to act on complaints of this nature, especially
as they seem not to have to take responsibility for what I would characterise as a
sort of 'vexatious prosecution'.
The admirable notion that 'the innocent have nothing to fear' has, sadly, been
proven baseless too many times.

BTW, one way out of the mire might be to have a chaperone present throughout.

[jj]

It was "common-sense folk" who broke that paediatrician's windows.

[videokim]

Don't go there !!! wait for her 18th birthday...

[spunkie]

Its a sad state of affairs when the law and society in general judge this type of thing and instantly jump to the conclusion that you are either some kind peodophile or pervert. As stated above you can marry a female at age 16 and have consenting sex, but if you want to take an artistic shoot well thats the crime of the century! Its the whole Daily Mail take on society thing that really pisses me off - mature adults dont need to be preached to or told what is right and wrong but sadly you will be better of swerving this shoot as you will be judged for the wrong reasons.

[spider]

I remember reading that when the law changed, the Sun had had to go through all it's archives and remove and destroy any pictures of under 18 "Page 3" girls they had in their archive.

Remember Sam Fox was appearing on Page 3 for instance when she was 16 and 17 years old.

They had to remove and destroy those photos because if they retained them they were breaking the law.

This means I suppose that if you have a copy of the Sun from the early 1980's with a picture of Sam Fox, in the shed, being used as a drawer liner, underneath some old paint tins or whatever, you could be technically breaking the law.

I agree what a state of affairs. The lunatics have taken over the asylum!

[pbphotography]

I agree with everyone who says wait until she is 18.

[Hardup]

I,ve just been on the the phone to my mate Silvio,he reckons you should be ok with 17 yr olds...go for it !nervous!

[peejay101]

It's not against the law. There is no law that states you cannot publish an image of a 16 or 17 year old topless (or nude for that matter).

Now before you rush to type your condemnation, I'm not suggesting this is a good thing to do.....I'm just stating the fact that in itself a topless image of a 17 year old is not illegal.

There are lots of examples of under 18's appearing topless/nude in mainstream media.

[spider]

?There are lots of examples of under 18's appearing topless/nude in mainstream media.?

I?m struggling to think of any examples.

However, let?s accept that you are correct though and it isn?t against the law to do what is being proposed.

The fact is in the current climate, where the country is being run by Daily Mail readers, anyone doing what is being proposed could find themselves having conversations with the Old Bill.

They have their equipment removed for examination for months and months and months and then at the end of the process the Old Bill say ?no charges, here?s your kit back?, they might also say ?sorry to have bothered you?, although that?s unlikely and the chances are they will say ?don?t do it again?.

At the end of the process, as a minimum you will have had lots and lots of aggravation, and although you might be able to justifiably say ?I?ve done nothing wrong?, is it worth it?

The lunatics have taken over the asylum!