egafd.com

has done this already and has a couple of spread shots too

The concensus of opinion on the thread is don't do it.

I would totally agree with all that adviced this, you would be totally playing with fire, and also given the government and the PC brigade another stick to beat the adult / porn industry with.

Wait till they are 18 and then you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Cheers

And from a commercial point of view (I assume you want to make a little money) a model who is under 18 but over 16 has a maximum of 24 months shelf life. So you'll be constantly searching for new models without the benefit of cash cows (a marketing term, honest) or bankers, whereby their fresh material will keep the fans coming back year after year.

As mentioned above, Louise is already 17.

Whereas I have just seen some recent material of Lucy Gresty, who I first photographed in 1987.

When Lucy was 17, unless it was before 25 March...then she was 16.

didnt samantha fox pose nude at 16?

with all the response and the interest generated on this forum...i'd be inclined to do it...but with all the t's crossed and i's dotted legally.

Ie get the consent forms signed by consenting parent or gaurdian and get the site hosted in a country where u r not gonna be shot/flogged.

IMO

Of course - how could I forget Natalie Banus?
The Sport did a similar countdown for LDM but the interesting thing was they published her topless picture on the day of her 16th birthday! Think about it. That means the photo must have been taken at least 1 day before her birthday, i.e. when she was 15. I don't recall The Sport getting in trouble for this.

I wish someone could explain to me exactly what a model release form does. The best explanation I've had is that the subject of a picture owns the copyright and I know that ain't true otherwise papparazzi couldn't exist and news photographs couldn't be taken.

just cos this topic has generated a lot of replies 2 this board does not equal paying punters.

far from it - this is a touchy subject and that's where the "interest" lies - not necessarily in the subject matter itself.

ginger77, you'd be putting quite a lot at stake going into this venture, and the general direction of the law is going towards protecting minors, so though it might be "just about legal" now, who knows what draconian measures Blair et al might bring in to crackdown on paedophiles.

i did a quick search earlier and there are already several sites featuring 16/17 yo UK-based girls. From the previews, some definitely sound like the work of men with disturbing attitudes towards girls under 18. So you're entering a niche market that's already crowded - what will yours offer over and above the others - your mark of differentiation?

just my 2 penn'orth...

Something everyone who's in the biz missed pointing out.

As it's illegal for a model under 18 to sign a model release her parents or guardian who will sign it must also be present at the shoot. They cannot write a letter giving permisssion or sign the release off the premises where the shoot takes place. Anyone could be signing it if this was to happen.

For hosting.. I don't think you'll have a problem with US hosts but.. Sites like have been known to delete topless images of UK models who are only 16 as it's an open to all site..