FHM has been censured by the Press Complaints Commission after it published a topless photo of a 14-year-old girl without her consent.
The PCC said the photograph, included in a gallery of mobile phone snapshots, was a "serious intrusion" into the girl's privacy and had a "significant effect" on her emotionally and at school.
Moreover, the commission added that the Emap men's magazine's failure to respond more quickly to the complaint "aggravated what was a significant breach" of its code of practice.
The parents of the girl complained to the PCC after the picture was published in the April 2007 edition of FHM. They said the photo was taken in 2005 when their daughter was 14.
FHM said it received around 1,200 photos of women either topless or wearing lingerie for publication each week. It added that it was "extremely surprised" to learn that the girl was 14 "as she certainly appeared to be older", the PCC reported in its ruling today.
"The magazine had been informed that the complainants' daughter was in a cohabiting relationship with the person who submitted the photograph and, in those circumstances, no further enquiries about the image were made," said the PCC.
"Nonetheless, the magazine - which had introduced new measures to ensure that the situation would not occur again - confirmed that the image would not be republished or syndicated and offered to write a private letter of apology to the complainant."
The PCC said the publication of the photo was a "serious intrusion" into the girl's private life.
"This would have been the case regardless of how old she was, but the commission was particularly concerned about the impact on the girl in light of her youth," the regulator added.
"The magazine had clearly not taken any sort of adequate care to establish the provenance of the photograph and whether it was right to publish it.
"It should have been much quicker to recognise the damage that publication would have caused the girl, and offered to publish an apology or take other steps to remedy the situation to the satisfaction of the complainant.
"Failure to respond in a swift and proportionate manner aggravated what was a significant breach of the code."
The parents' complaint against FHM was upheld by the PCC.
A spokesman for FHM said: "Naturally we regret any distress caused to either the girl or her parents by the publication of this picture. When the picture - a posed, topless shot - was submitted to us for publication it appeared to be of a much older girl taken by a male friend. The information with which we were provided also suggested this was the case.
"Although we continue to receive more than a thousand such pictures a week for publication from readers, we have now discontinued the particular feature in which a 3cm high version of the original picture was published.
"We have also put in place still more stringent measures aimed at preventing people who submit pictures from misleading FHM as to their provenance. Again, we can only apologise for any upset caused to the girl's family."
The PCC said the photograph, included in a gallery of mobile phone snapshots, was a "serious intrusion" into the girl's privacy and had a "significant effect" on her emotionally and at school.
Moreover, the commission added that the Emap men's magazine's failure to respond more quickly to the complaint "aggravated what was a significant breach" of its code of practice.
The parents of the girl complained to the PCC after the picture was published in the April 2007 edition of FHM. They said the photo was taken in 2005 when their daughter was 14.
FHM said it received around 1,200 photos of women either topless or wearing lingerie for publication each week. It added that it was "extremely surprised" to learn that the girl was 14 "as she certainly appeared to be older", the PCC reported in its ruling today.
"The magazine had been informed that the complainants' daughter was in a cohabiting relationship with the person who submitted the photograph and, in those circumstances, no further enquiries about the image were made," said the PCC.
"Nonetheless, the magazine - which had introduced new measures to ensure that the situation would not occur again - confirmed that the image would not be republished or syndicated and offered to write a private letter of apology to the complainant."
The PCC said the publication of the photo was a "serious intrusion" into the girl's private life.
"This would have been the case regardless of how old she was, but the commission was particularly concerned about the impact on the girl in light of her youth," the regulator added.
"The magazine had clearly not taken any sort of adequate care to establish the provenance of the photograph and whether it was right to publish it.
"It should have been much quicker to recognise the damage that publication would have caused the girl, and offered to publish an apology or take other steps to remedy the situation to the satisfaction of the complainant.
"Failure to respond in a swift and proportionate manner aggravated what was a significant breach of the code."
The parents' complaint against FHM was upheld by the PCC.
A spokesman for FHM said: "Naturally we regret any distress caused to either the girl or her parents by the publication of this picture. When the picture - a posed, topless shot - was submitted to us for publication it appeared to be of a much older girl taken by a male friend. The information with which we were provided also suggested this was the case.
"Although we continue to receive more than a thousand such pictures a week for publication from readers, we have now discontinued the particular feature in which a 3cm high version of the original picture was published.
"We have also put in place still more stringent measures aimed at preventing people who submit pictures from misleading FHM as to their provenance. Again, we can only apologise for any upset caused to the girl's family."
um, wow...imagine if one of us had "accidentally" published a topless picture of a 14 year old...still more shocking...a 14 year old living with the person who took the picture? um, how old was this person? Isn't this production of CP?
Comment