Is it ok to take topless photographs of a 16 or 17 year old?
This subject came up in a photographic forum yesterday and there was a lot of discussion as to whether or not it was OK in English law. I thought the subject deserved making into a post.
My reply was:
"The purpose of the law in this respect is to intimidate people to stop them doing what the law makers want.
By not specifically prohibiting actions, but by prohibiting interpretation, it means that each individual case would have to be decided by a jury and this will incur huge expense to the photographer who makes the photographs.
It is effective.
Ask yourself if taking that photograph of a 16 or 17 year old is really worth time in court to try to prove a point. I doubt if any photographer would want that.
And remember, if you get arrested, the papers will make a front page splash in your local rag about how you have been arrested for taking indecent images of children. After they have finished you will probably have to move house. If you win the case, they won't report that you actually won. I've seen this happen numerous times in local newspapers.
Your life will be trashed.
So is it worth it? "
Readers in the US may find is surprising that this would come up, but the current raft of laws being introduced in this country are not based on defining what is right and wrong, but what a jury will convict on. Thus if the image is deemed provocative by a jury it is illegal. This will obviously vary on a case by case basis and so it is an effective ban on the whole thing. There were several contributors to the forum thread that didn't think that these laws were intended to intimidate, but were to protect children. However, if this were the case then the law should have defined what is permitted and what is not, rather than leaving it for a jury to decide.
"I can't tell you what provocative is, but I know it when I see it?"
Does this sound familiar? You've got to ask yourself this question:
"Do I feel lucky?"
Well, do ya, punk?
Lin, over 18 at the time of shooting, honest gov!
My reply was:
"The purpose of the law in this respect is to intimidate people to stop them doing what the law makers want.
By not specifically prohibiting actions, but by prohibiting interpretation, it means that each individual case would have to be decided by a jury and this will incur huge expense to the photographer who makes the photographs.
It is effective.
Ask yourself if taking that photograph of a 16 or 17 year old is really worth time in court to try to prove a point. I doubt if any photographer would want that.
And remember, if you get arrested, the papers will make a front page splash in your local rag about how you have been arrested for taking indecent images of children. After they have finished you will probably have to move house. If you win the case, they won't report that you actually won. I've seen this happen numerous times in local newspapers.
Your life will be trashed.
So is it worth it? "
Readers in the US may find is surprising that this would come up, but the current raft of laws being introduced in this country are not based on defining what is right and wrong, but what a jury will convict on. Thus if the image is deemed provocative by a jury it is illegal. This will obviously vary on a case by case basis and so it is an effective ban on the whole thing. There were several contributors to the forum thread that didn't think that these laws were intended to intimidate, but were to protect children. However, if this were the case then the law should have defined what is permitted and what is not, rather than leaving it for a jury to decide.
"I can't tell you what provocative is, but I know it when I see it?"
Does this sound familiar? You've got to ask yourself this question:
"Do I feel lucky?"
Well, do ya, punk?
Lin, over 18 at the time of shooting, honest gov!
posted by Richard at 6:17 PM
1 Comments:
Recall my posting on this subject. Not directly relevant to your UK situation, but Jock Sturges's misfortunes were public and expensive -- although, in the end, I think it did more for his reputation (and sales) than almost anything else in his career.
Finally, although I don't know the UK situation, what about releases signed by a minor's parents? Is that a "safe harbour"?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home