photographing a 17 year old in lingerie

[Peter]

spider wrote:

> 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?,

And not just your equipment, they'll take anything capable of storing an electronic file. Your smartphone, satnav, skybox, camera memory cards & tapes, CDs & DVDs, digital picture frame, anything which they think could hide your dubious picture collection.

And when they find no case to answer, the locals will still refer to you as the the 'bloke who got off' rather than the bloke who did nothing wrong.

As I said earlier, it's all about risk and reward. Far too much risk for me.

[peejay101]

This greats crazier by the day.

Please show me ANY evidence of a photographer having ANY issues with the police for taking a straightforward (non sexual) image of a 17 year old her underwear.

I'll wager you cannot......

[joe king]

How can an 'image of a 17 year old (in) her underwear' be 'non-sexual'?

[peejay101]

Joe,

Now you're just being deliberately argumentative. There is more than one way to pose a model in lingerie, as you well know.

If you choose to shoot with a 17 year old, and pose her provocatively in a pornographic style then you deserve all you get. If, as stated above, they are 'catalogue' style then you have nothing to fear.

JJ - no it wasn't common sense folk who went after a paediatrician. They are idiots. The world is full of them......as is this thread it seems.

[joe king]

so why is 'catalogue style' non-sexual?

[spider]

The world is full of idiots; lots of them are in the Police and the legal professions.

You have hit the nail on the head when you say "there is more than one way to pose a model in lingerie".

These idiots will take lots of time and great pleasure in examining the "evidence" before coming to a decision on how they think you have posed the model and what the legal position is.

Eventually they will hand all the confiscated items back to you and say "you were right you know, you weren't breaking any laws". "Oh well cheerio then, shame you've had months and months of agro for nothing".

[jj]

My throwaway comment was meant as a wry dig. I'll stick an emoticon on similar
such, in future.

As to the 'argumentative', I think that applies more to you [I reckon your, um,
'persistence' has needlessly trebled the length of this thread- but I guess that's
free speech for ya... ]- and now it seems you're adding abuse.
You're clearly in a minority of one as regards advising this chap to accept the
job- and while I agree he'd probably be OK it's easy to offer idealistic counsel
when you don't have to face any consequences should it go wrong.

[peejay101]

Spider - you keep talking of all this hassle that photographers have had, can you link me to just one example please?

Joe - anything can be sexual. Post an image of your feet and someone will be turned on. Well, maybe not your feet but you get the point. Its about the primary intention of the shot. A lingerie model in a catalogue is not sexual as its primary intention.

[jj]

And how many young boys got their first jollies from looking through the
underwear section of a Freeman's cat? [img]http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/smileys/grin.gif[/img]

[peejay101]

Yep, and?