hmmm...so if a photographer wants to take a photo of his daughter, and post it up on the net, he cannot? hmmm...is it becoz she's underage? hmmm...? is it becoz he's a guy photographing a littel girl and ppl will think he's a paedo-something?hmmmm...? wat constitutes underage modelling anyway? i realize the example i spoke of is in the realm of family snapshots, but if somebody wants to take issues with them, they will. anyone read about the guy who raped his daughters?
i want to know ar, why make such a hoohaa over the legality or morallity of taking photos that happen to have a few kids? then the canon photomarathon winners who's photos sometimes features kids playing are obscene ar? a father taking photos of his baby in her bathing suit is obscene oso ar?
please enlighten me.
You don't understand vince do you? He's not here to debate art or celebrate it.
He's very practical, he just wants you to show a legal basis for what you say.
He's not interested in your morals.
So far, I don't see you have produced any basis to link age specifically with illegal activity. Obscenity, yes. Padeophilia, yes. But specifically that somehow taking model pictures of someone under 16 is against the law in Singapore? Where's your basis?
If you have nothing except your moral convictions, don't be afraid to say so. He'll respect you for taking a moral stand. You may even get the moral high ground.
What will not be respected is someone trying to fudge others with so-called legal arguments with no basis in singapore law.
He doesn't want to put you down specifically, or anyone else for that matter. He's just sick of people spreading lies and half-truths, whose intentions may be good but whose advice is totally without foundation in law.
But that is not the case, its not even close and to pretend it is, will be to risk first the ire of those opposed to you and without the openess to understand and later to incurr their punishments and limits to freedom.[/QUOTE]
Last edited by waileong; 24th November 2008 at 10:56 PM.
Gee... and I thought Brooke Shields was young in The Blue Lagoon.....
In the statutes, chapter 38, Part 1, 2. "child" means a person who is below the age of 14 years; "young person" means a person who is 14 years of age or above and below the age of 16 years.
7. Any person who, in public or private —
(a) commits or abets the commission of or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any person of any obscene or indecent act with any child or young person; or
So legally there is nothing stopping you taking photos of children, be they yours, or someone else's. But there are laws against "obscene" photos and there are certainly laws against an "indecent act", especially with someone "under 16". The law is deliberately vague on what constitutes an "obscene" act , and until it is fully tested in the courts will remain so.
This thread started because in another thread Vince wrote something to the effect that "age does not matter in photography". he is entitled to have this view, however I think this is wrong? It is misguided and legally it is in error. When it comes to someone who is under the age of 16 you are limited in the types of photography you can take. And I feel that since it is such a "grey" area that we as photographers can do more to protect not only ourselves but our hobby from the GWC and the very guys that the TNP article mentioned and the model "Amber" talked of. If you think I am wrong, and that these guys do not exist then I will happily shut-up and let this thread die.
Is it legally and morally wrong for a father to take photos of his naked baby daughter, no.
Is it legally and morally wrong for the same man to take photos of his naked 15 year old daughter, I would say yes, on both counts. If this makes me a prude or someone devoid of artistic vision, then I can live with that label.
And Wailong, Vince may be sick of the half-truths and the spreading of legal rumour, but check the statutes its not rumour, its fact. And trying to justify an arguement for "arts" sake, will not change the fact that taking "obscene" photos of anyone under the age of 16 is illegal.
Brooke Shields was 16, lucky for her, her parents consented to her involvement, so legally she was allowed to proceed as was the studio, but don't forget that at the time it still caused all manner of moral outrage, and as someone else pointed out in this thread the laws of the USA are not the laws of here...that's true: The laws of here are quite clear, under 16 and anything you do with the model had better not be obscene, indecent or able to be regarded as such.
And I appreciate that he does not want to put me down and that he is sick of half truths, but the statute I quote is not a half-truth so why are people pretending it is, or rather looking for the legal loophole?
Aselley - before we begin again on this big round, can I first confirm your position is:
(1) There is nothing legally wrong with underaged modelling so long as it is not obscene.
(2) There is only something legally wrong with underaged modelling if it is obscene.
Hence age only makes a difference if an obscene act is committed.
Kindly confirm your position before I go further. If not, I'll be going round and round in circles with you again and again.
Thanks. This is a start to move away from morals.
Now explain how this makes taking fully-clothed pictures of minors an illegal act please. How about bikini-clad pictures? But I see you've already conceded that such pictures are not illegal.
Yes, there are restrictions on pornography or obscenity, but I wouldn't link it with age. If you think that age is irrelevant wrt pornography or obscenity, you are of course welcome to post pictures of you engaging in pornographic act and see how your test case works out. Assuming you are above 16 of course.
Again such is not illegal if it is not obscene. But it is a grey area...What I find so amazing is that in the shadow of TNP's article and accusations or rtaher insinuations leveled that you would even want to argue semantics and want to play in the "grey" area.
I do not think age is irrelevant, from all he has said and defended, Vince does. He is the one that thinks art should be art and that "there is no concept of underaged when doing photography"
1. There is nothing wrong with underage modeling so long as its not obscene and the correct permissions are sought,
2. There is something both legally and morally wrong with underage modeling if it is obscene.
But yes the major point would be if the photography was obscene.
Look I realise everyone has different opinions on morals, and I am very aware what one person regards as obscene another may regard as vanilla. But don't you think that in light of what has been sensational suggested by the press and been stated and quoted by the model that we have a responsibility to ensure that we are seen in the best and most profesional light.
Surely to do otherwise is to lead us onto a path where the law will step in and make more and more activities illegal?
The freedom afforded photographers here in Singapore is fanatstic, you can take Street Candids without fear of attack, you can photogrpah kids at play in a fountain and enjoy it as a moment captured without fear of labels and accusatory looks. Don't you think as photographers here that you have a responsibility to safegaurd such. And as a Senior Member on CS don't you see how your words can shape the understanding of those who look at your works, read your words and want to emulate...and then do so without the temper of wisdom?
I know this is emotive, and you have dismissed such as without real substance earlier in this thread. But the perception of photography, photographers and the freedoms we have to indulge our passion is ours for the protecting or ours for the destroying...how we act, how we talk, and how we present ourselves and our art is important, and when it comes to underage we need to accpet its a "grey" area in both legal terms (in respect to obscene) and in moral terms (in terms of peoples perceptions) and as such we need to tread carefully.
I just need to address this point since its directed at me.
I do realise on hindsight that the statement "there is no concept of underaged when doing photography" could have sent the wrong signal and I do apologise in this regard.
What I had intended was that there is no legal concept or distinction as far as age is concerned in relation to photographing of models is concerned. As I have repeated this point on many many occassions before in this forum, with each repeat, I tend to shorten and shorten the original message since there is simply no point repeating myself again and again, and it does get tiring that people bring up the same issues without having read the previous posts. It is entirely possible that you may not have seen the other previous discussions because apparently you're a relatively new addition to this forum.
Purely as an example (and not for further discussion on the merits), I have taken the same approach with model releases. When the topic initially came up, I had taken great pains to explain at length my position. However, as the years go by and the same issue popping up, I have reduced my explanation to a single statement.
Hence, unfortunately, in my haste to be brief, I may have miscommunicated my original intention in the thread. Nevertheless, as WaiLeong correctly put it, I have never been one to engage in moral discussions simply because there is no end to differing standards. I prefer to engage in legal discussions because at least the parameters there are clearer.
I trust that this clarifies the original statement, and if you wish to continue discussion on the legal aspects, I'll be happy to oblige.
I'll next turn to discuss the sections you have quoted as well as your other legal points.
I am new to the forum, so if I have not gone into the archives to chase down your stance on MR's I do apologise. It is my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) that there is no legal basis for them here in Singapore, that they are not required and that they serve no real purrpose here. I know some photographers use and insist on them, while others couldn't really care less.
But they do serve a purpose overseas and as such I feel that they are a good practice to get into. But this is a personal thing and thus my caveat of "correct permissions".
Hope that makes it a tad clearer.
I think TS has failed to define what obscene is. and i'm just wondering are you continuing this train to nowhere to prove a point or are u really trying to raise awareness of "child porn" in this place?
Opinions are like A-holes. Everyone's got one.