You are missing the point there.
The law as quoted says "indecent photograph", not simply any photograph.
In that context the definition of "indecent" is crucial, has often been addressed by courts and was discussed when that law was drafted.
I believe Jock Sturges' photos would be considered "decent" and legal. Likewise, most genuine fashion magazine shoots would qualify as decent because they are not pornographic in nature.
But a sleazy "stroke" magazine sold for the express purpose of arousal would be Guilty as charged, M'Lud, if it dared publish photos of a 16-year-old that implied sexual activity (or expressly invited sexual imputation).
The Russh photoshoot of ZipSeven with a horse should pose no problems. The prosecution would have little problem, however, arguing that the second Russh shoot, of ZipSeven naked in a bath with an apparently passed out // drunk 16-year-old boy model, should be construed as implying post-coital stupor. And that crosses the line BigTime. Hell, you'd be hard-pressed to find a potentially saleable "fashion" item in that pic - other than ZipSeven herself.
[and the guy's not asian - that's Levi Clarke, a Kiwi model with part Samoan bloodlines.]

Who is? Can you be a bit more specific. If you're aiming comments at a specific person, it's best to use the quote button at the bottom of their comment. That sends them an email alerting them of the reply (hopefully like the one you've just got).

If it was me you're addressing, I think you didn't quite catch my point. By the time I started quoting laws, the conversation had got slightly off topic (it does sometimes - especially if I'm around) and was about glamour modelling in the UK. The law quoted is a UK law, and as such has no bearing at all on images printed in Australia.

My point, by then, was purely that all models who appear topless in UK tabloid papers, by law, have to be over 18.

Oh, and welcome to Plime. Been lurking long?

Hi. sorry, still learning the ropes here.
I was referring to British law, the Sexual Offences Act of 2003, which redefined "child" for the purposes of the Protection of Children Act 1978 ("the 1978 Act") as a person under 18 years, rather than under 16 years, of age.

As I noted, the law is framed to make illegal INDECENT photographs or pseudo-photographs of children. (Aussie law on the matter is very similar to UK law, which is why i didn't bother addressing the two separately. I illustrated the argument by hypothetically addressing how Russh's photoshoots might be regarded if they were to be subject to a prosecution in the UK.)

As such, my answer was addressed, only en passant, to your statement that under British law all "glamour models" must be 18+. By glamour - i.e. Sun P3 girls - we construe soft-porn images intended for male (primarily!) titillation.

As long as a court, in Oz or in the UK, can be persuaded that an image is not indecent, then no crime can be proved, whether the child is under 18 or under 12. Which is why I mentioned Jock Sturges's photography.

A topless - or fully naked - a photo published in any journal - even the Sun - as part of a review* of a movie, or a book, or an art exhibition, could conceivably be found to be NOT indecent. Context, presentation and intent are all-important.

If the Russh case is taken to court in Oz it will be a test for every magazine, and will be closely watched by UK and Oz publication lawyers alike.

* and yes, I do realise pigs might fly before such a thing as a serious artistic review is published by the Sun. hypotheticals, yes?

Thanks for the welcome, Pocksucket. Lurking? Nope. this was my first meeting with Plime, as a result of following threads about the civil liberties issues implicit in the Russh case. probably will not be my last visit - though hopefully later visits will not be as long-winded :)