Photographer
Jwill266
Posts: 449
Louisville, Kentucky, US
I have a model 16 who is married, has a child, and wants to shoot with me and I would like to shoot with her but my current policy is no parent or guardian no shoot because of her age. What do I do in this case?
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
She won`t bring a parent to the shoot? What about a guardian?
Model
Nikia B
Posts: 1
Atlanta, Georgia, US
I think once a minor has been married, they're automatically considered emancipated. So there is no "guardian"...
Photographer
Jay Farrell
Posts: 13408
Nashville, Tennessee, US
Jesus, what the hell is with her? 16, married, and a kid? Holy shit........You gotta cover your ass bro..........I'd tell her no parent, no deal.
Photographer
Jay Farrell
Posts: 13408
Nashville, Tennessee, US
Nikia B wrote:
I think once a minor has been married, they're automatically considered emancipated. So there is no "guardian"... Hmmmm......interesting......possible though, I'd make sure first!
Photographer
Mikel Featherston
Posts: 11103
San Diego, California, US
Or did her husband become her legal guardian?
Photographer
C Hansen Photography
Posts: 306
Clarksville, Tennessee, US
Is she an emancipated minor? If so make sure you get a copy of the documentation stating so. If the courts say she's an "adult" then she's an "adult".
Also...what does she want you to shoot? If it's anything other than implied nude, topless, or nude go for it.
Heck...have her husband come to the shoot. Be just as good as a parent since she's married.
Photographer
Jim Duvall
Posts: 172
Seattle, Washington, US
I would tell her there is an opening in your calendar in 2008
Photographer
Mikel Featherston
Posts: 11103
San Diego, California, US
Chris Hansen wrote:
Also...what does she want you to shoot? If it's anything other than implied nude, topless, or nude go for it. Depending on the state, she can't enter into a legal contract (read: model release) due to her age. So it doesn't matter what kind of photos she is looking for.
Photographer
John Emrys
Posts: 45
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
It's too risky for your career. If something unfortunate were to happen, the legal system would not care if she was married and had a child.
There are other models out there.
Photographer
Jwill266
Posts: 449
Louisville, Kentucky, US
Chris Hansen wrote:
Is she an emancipated minor? If so make sure you get a copy of the documentation stating so. If the courts say she's an "adult" then she's an "adult".
Also...what does she want you to shoot? If it's anything other than implied nude, topless, or nude go for it.
Heck...have her husband come to the shoot. Be just as good as a parent since she's married. I am definately not doing implied nude or nudity with a 16 yr old I don't care if she has three kids and has been married twice. She wants to do some gothic stuff which I have not done and really want to try some. I think her husband does plan on comming up with her.
Photographer
C Hansen Photography
Posts: 306
Clarksville, Tennessee, US
Mikel Featherston wrote:
Depending on the state, she can't enter into a legal contract (read: model release) due to her age. So it doesn't matter what kind of photos she is looking for. I agree with you..that's why I said that. If she wanted those types of shots I'd be telling her to come back and see me when she does hit 18....emancipated or not. I wasn't trying to say do them..quite the opposite.
Photographer
Jwill266
Posts: 449
Louisville, Kentucky, US
iconophile ltd wrote:
It's too risky for your career. If something unfortunate were to happen, the legal system would not care if she was married and had a child.
There are other models out there. You have a point but she has a look I have been looking for that is unique.
Photographer
C Hansen Photography
Posts: 306
Clarksville, Tennessee, US
Jwill266 wrote:
I am definately not doing implied nude or nudity with a 16 yr old I don't care if she has three kids and has been married twice. Couldn't agree with you more. If you read what I said....if it's anything OTHER than that stuff then go for it.
Photographer
Jwill266
Posts: 449
Louisville, Kentucky, US
Ok she just emailed me back with this: i am emancipated. i live with my boyfriend because we have a child together. My cousin does my make up. If my pictures on OMP i did the make up though. I will bring some of my own stff to the shoot. any kind of clothes you would like me to bring?
Photographer
Mikel Featherston
Posts: 11103
San Diego, California, US
Jwill266 wrote:
Ok she just emailed me back with this: i am emancipated. i live with my boyfriend because we have a child together. My cousin does my make up. If my pictures on OMP i did the make up though. I will bring some of my own stff to the shoot. any kind of clothes you would like me to bring? Make sure you see the document before you start the shoot.
I did notice how she ceased to be married.
Photographer
Vito
Posts: 4581
Brooklyn, New York, US
Jwill266 wrote:
Ok she just emailed me back with this: i am emancipated. i live with my boyfriend because we have a child together. My cousin does my make up. If my pictures on OMP i did the make up though. I will bring some of my own stff to the shoot. any kind of clothes you would like me to bring? There is a big difference between a 16 year old with a boyfriend and one with a husband. In this case, the emancipation papers are imperative.
Photographer
Jwill266
Posts: 449
Louisville, Kentucky, US
Vito wrote:
There is a big difference between a 16 year old with a boyfriend and one with a husband. In this case, the emancipation papers are imperative. I agree. I told her "I need to see da papers"
I do however think and agree a parent should be present when a young girl such as this is shooting images. But comparatively speaking, young girls need not get parental permission for something so emotionally devastating as an abortion but to shoot images you can get nailed to a cross if someone doesn't like them. I just think that's kinda f**d up.
Photographer
Scott Aitken
Posts: 3587
Seattle, Washington, US
Jwill266 wrote:
I am definately not doing implied nude or nudity with a 16 yr old I don't care if she has three kids and has been married twice. She wants to do some gothic stuff which I have not done and really want to try some. I think her husband does plan on comming up with her. Why didn't you say so in the first place? If you are shooting "goth" style, and there will be no nudity, then you don't have to worry about assorted laws regarding indecency and so on. Your only real concern then is whether or not she can legally sign her own model release. If she has legal emancipation papers, then she can sign it herself. Without it her parent or guardian needs to sign. Tell her to bring an extra copy for you to keep with the model release in your file (it isn't enough just to SEE it; you should keep a copy of it).
I think some people worry too much about shooting minors. I would never shoot a minor in a sexually suggestive way. But if she just wants to dress up in dark clothes and wear black lipstick and black fingernail polish, I see no harm in that. Goth is about a look and an attitude. It is not about sexuality.
Photographer
lll
Posts: 12295
Seattle, Washington, US
Just have her parents sign the release, and have a witness present. Or setup a video camera for the shoot etc. It's no biggie.
Photographer
B R E E D L O V E
Posts: 8022
Forks, Washington, US
If your not shooting nudes then there really is no problems go for it.
Photographer
Rowen
Posts: 630
Gibsonia, Pennsylvania, US
I agree with what's been said above...
However, just from a legal perspective it's interesting. A 16 year old mother IS a parent and, by that definition, IS also a guardian. Nice twist there.
Then again, it's like the stupid law in Pennsylvania that allows you to own a bar at 18 but not be allowed to drink in it until you are 21.
-R
Photographer
digital cowboy
Posts: 147
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, US
Jwill266 wrote:
I have a model 16 who is married, has a child, and wants to shoot with me and I would like to shoot with her but my current policy is no parent or guardian no shoot because of her age. What do I do in this case? *breaks out the banjo*
I'd move on...
...seriously...
There are 6.3 billion people on the planet, 52% of those being women, and 99% of those women being less complicated than this girl. Move along...
-=Jeff=-
Photographer
Imagemakersphoto
Posts: 786
Saint Paul, Minnesota, US
Scott Aitken wrote:
Your only real concern then is whether or not she can legally sign her own model release. If she has legal emancipation papers, then she can sign it herself. Without it her parent or guardian needs to sign. Tell her to bring an extra copy for you to keep with the model release in your file (it isn't enough just to SEE it; you should keep a copy of it).
I think some people worry too much about shooting minors. I would never shoot a minor in a sexually suggestive way. But if she just wants to dress up in dark clothes and wear black lipstick and black fingernail polish, I see no harm in that. Goth is about a look and an attitude. It is not about sexuality. I agree. If she has the papers AND you keep a copy along with a copy of her I.D. and the model release you are fine with this kind of shoot. Even with out the papers the shoot would be fine, but your use would be very limited (and I would not do it ).
I would not be alone at the shoot. I would have an assistant with you. I like to keep my self coverd legaly if the model would try to say I did some thing. Her boyfriend/ husband.... is not the one I would want as the only other person.
Photographer
Michael A
Posts: 95
Ben Lomond, California, US
Along with everything else already said, try not to include her crotch, even if she is clothed. That will keep you out of trouble, pretty much, with the feds / child exploitation laws. Read up on this!!!!!
Photographer
C R Photography
Posts: 3594
Pleasanton, California, US
Yea, definitely keep her clothes on and you should be in the clear. Of course if you can get her cousinâ¦. I mean husband Cletus to sign for her that'd be more better 
Photographer
T R Willmitch
Posts: 7173
Normal, Illinois, US
Hi,
I believe that this entire thread shows how absolutely moronic the insane patchwork of U.S. law is when it comes to legislating morality. No one believes in protecting children more than I do as the parent of a teenage and a young daughter.
However, thatâs not what this is about and Iâm mortified by the degree of fear and paranoia that I see in discussions like this. This countryâs moral crusaders have scored a titanic victory by enacting this nationâs ambiguous patchwork of laws, supported by a confusing hodgepodge of court rulings.
No longer does what cannot be done depend on written law. Instead those who hoist their bigoted, narrow, and intolerant morality on others can sit back and repress artists with the fear of uncertain legal vengeance. Meanwhile, the create community of artists (including photographers), musician, and writers bow to the legal and moral authority of these religious fanatics by running in circles with fear.
Deeply saddened,
Tom
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Michael A wrote:
Along with everything else already said, try not to include her crotch, even if she is clothed. That will keep you out of trouble, pretty much, with the feds / child exploitation laws. Read up on this!!!!! Oh and don't take any photographs including her chest either...even if it's completely covered and behind a lead lined apron.
Oh and not her neck either...some people consider that the ultimate erogenous zone...definitely having her neck in a photo, exposed or not, could lead to people thinking it's pornography
Oh and forget about her lips...JEEZE you could go to JAIL man!
Oh and not her legs either...everyone knows where all legs lead, that's right!!! Not the FLOOR!
Oh and not her feet because that's just perverted!!!
T R Willmitch wrote:
...Iâm mortified by the degree of fear and paranoia that I see in discussions like this...
No longer does what cannot be done depend on written law. Instead those who hoist their bigoted, narrow, and intolerant morality on others can sit back and repress artists with the fear of uncertain legal vengeance. Meanwhile, the create community of artists (including photographers), musician, and writers bow to the legal and moral authority of these religious fanatics by running in circles with fear. Oh...careful...you'll now get called out by both sides because you either A) don't show enough skin in your portfolio, or B) are a closet pornographer.
Photographer
BCG
Posts: 7316
San Antonio, Florida, US
raveneyes wrote:
Michael A wrote:
Along with everything else already said, try not to include her crotch, even if she is clothed. That will keep you out of trouble, pretty much, with the feds / child exploitation laws. Read up on this!!!!! Oh and don't take any photographs including her chest either...even if it's completely covered and behind a lead lined apron.
Oh and not her neck either...some people consider that the ultimate erogenous zone...definitely having her neck in a photo, exposed or not, could lead to people thinking it's pornography
Oh and forget about her lips...JEEZE you could go to JAIL man!
Oh and not her legs either...everyone knows where all legs lead, that's right!!! Not the FLOOR!
Oh and not her feet because that's just perverted!!!
Oh...careful...you'll now get called out by both sides because you either A) don't show enough skin in your portfolio, or B) are a closet pornographer. are you writing a chapter for Child Pornography for Dummies?!?
Photographer
Weldphoto
Posts: 846
Charleston, South Carolina, US
T R Willmitch wrote:
Hi,
I believe that this entire thread shows how absolutely moronic the insane patchwork of U.S. law is when it comes to legislating morality. No one believes in protecting children more than I do as the parent of a teenage and a young daughter.
However, thatâs not what this is about and Iâm mortified by the degree of fear and paranoia that I see in discussions like this. This countryâs moral crusaders have scored a titanic victory by enacting this nationâs ambiguous patchwork of laws, supported by a confusing hodgepodge of court rulings.
No longer does what cannot be done depend on written law. Instead those who hoist their bigoted, narrow, and intolerant morality on others can sit back and repress artists with the fear of uncertain legal vengeance. Meanwhile, the create community of artists (including photographers), musician, and writers bow to the legal and moral authority of these religious fanatics by running in circles with fear.
Deeply saddened,
Tom I really think blaming this on religion and morality is going in the wrong direction. We live in a nation in which one out of four girls are abused before the age of 18 every year. One out of six for boys. The laws are not based on religion or morals but on a well meaning hope of protecting kids - like yours. It not a right or left wing issue, its about the protection of minors. Until someone can come up with a better way of doing so, then I suspect we will see these laws enforced more and more.
Sadly its about the rotten apples spoiling the whole bunch. We all pay for the crimes of others. That's why we have a pocket full of keys...
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Weldphoto wrote:
I really think blaming this on religion and morality is going in the wrong direction. We live in a nation in which one out of four girls are abused before the age of 18 every year. One out of six for boys. The laws are not based on religion or morals but on a well meaning hope of protecting kids - like yours. It not a right or left wing issue, its about the protection of minors. Until someone can come up with a better way of doing so, then I suspect we will see these laws enforced more and more.
Sadly its about the rotten apples spoiling the whole bunch. We all pay for the crimes of others. That's why we have a pocket full of keys... Sadly, blaming this on "protecting the kids" is *just* what the "moral majority" want you to do.
The laws are not based on morality, and in a well meaning hope of protecting kids...however we're not talking about laws
You're saying that "Laws" are being enforced more and more
THESE ARE NOT LAWS...THERE ARE NO LAWS PROHIBITING OR LIMITING THE SHOOTING OF PEOPLE OF ANY AGE IN ANY STATE OF CLOTHING!!!
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
BCG wrote:
are you writing a chapter for Child Pornography for Dummies?!? Are you going to state what your issue is with me or are you just going to keep harassing me across all the threads and in all the forums? Better yet, are you even going to provide a valid argument for anything I say or are you just going to continue with your one sentence harassments?
Photographer
T R Willmitch
Posts: 7173
Normal, Illinois, US
Hi,
I strongly disagree as to the heart of the matter. Yes, there is abuse but by whom and to what degree. Mark Twain wrote that, âThere are liars, damn liars, and statistics.â? I firmly believe that is the case here.
My graduate minor was in mathematics and I know statistical trash when I see it. I see it in the numbers here and in the news. It is a weapon being used in this country against those who do not subscribe to a narrow moral doctrine. And the techniques that are being used ironically come straight from the pages of Noam Chomsky and works like âManufacturing Consentâ?.
Discussions like this fundamentally reflect ripples on the edge of a holy war waged against intellectuals and artists in this country
Take care,
Tom
Photographer
C Hansen Photography
Posts: 306
Clarksville, Tennessee, US
Scott Aitken wrote:
I think some people worry too much about shooting minors. I would never shoot a minor in a sexually suggestive way. But if she just wants to dress up in dark clothes and wear black lipstick and black fingernail polish, I see no harm in that. Goth is about a look and an attitude. It is not about sexuality. I agree with Scott. I shoot minors and have no issues about it. I don't shoot suggestive shots. I don't do or say anything inappropriate. I approach the shoot in a professional manner and that is it, end of the story.
All the people that say they would never shoot a minor because of the legal issues...get over it. As we say in the military...get your head out of your 4th point of contact!! If you treat the minor as your own child and shoot them accordingly then there will be no issues. Ask guys that shoot ads for Teen Vouge, Vogue, Seventeen, etc....they shoot underage models all the time and have no issues. As long as you've dotted your "Is" and crossed your "Ts" you'll be just fine.
If anyone cares to disagree with me or carry on this discussion further message me directly...don't carry it on here.
Photographer
Weldphoto
Posts: 846
Charleston, South Carolina, US
raveneyes wrote:
[
The laws are not based on morality, and in a well meaning hope of protecting kids...however we're not talking about laws
You're saying that "Laws" are being enforced more and more
THESE ARE NOT LAWS...THERE ARE NO LAWS PROHIBITING OR LIMITING THE SHOOTING OF PEOPLE OF ANY AGE IN ANY STATE OF CLOTHING!!! Are you speaking as a qualified lawyer on this subject? Or are you just spouting your learned opinion?
You missed the point of what I wrote. My point was its not a moral issue, its an issure of protecting children. And that is not a religious or political issue.
Model
DawnElizabeth
Posts: 3907
Madison, Mississippi, US
Are you shooting nudes? If not, make sure that YOU have someone there, get a copy of her DL and make sure she signs a consent form. If it's your policy about the parents thing with the age....then I would stick to it regardless. But if you absolutely have to shoot her and you aren't doing nudes, just make sure your ass is covered.
Photographer
Weldphoto
Posts: 846
Charleston, South Carolina, US
T R Willmitch wrote:
Hi,
I strongly disagree as to the heart of the matter. Yes, there is abuse but by whom and to what degree. Mark Twain wrote that, âThere are liars, damn liars, and statistics.â? I firmly believe that is the case here.
My graduate minor was in mathematics and I know statistical trash when I see it. I see it in the numbers here and in the news. It is a weapon being used in this country against those who do not subscribe to a narrow moral doctrine. And the techniques that are being used ironically come straight from the pages of Noam Chomsky and works like âManufacturing Consentâ?.
Discussions like this fundamentally reflect ripples on the edge of a holy war waged against intellectuals and artists in this country
Take care,
Tom I would encourage you to go to www.darknesstolight.com and learn more about child abuse in this country. Statistics are not always trash and I think you will find many intellectuals and artists in this country who do not share your fears of creeping holy wars.
Photographer
Weldphoto
Posts: 846
Charleston, South Carolina, US
T R Willmitch wrote:
Hi,
I strongly disagree as to the heart of the matter. Yes, there is abuse but by whom and to what degree. Mark Twain wrote that, âThere are liars, damn liars, and statistics.â? I firmly believe that is the case here.
My graduate minor was in mathematics and I know statistical trash when I see it. I see it in the numbers here and in the news. It is a weapon being used in this country against those who do not subscribe to a narrow moral doctrine. And the techniques that are being used ironically come straight from the pages of Noam Chomsky and works like âManufacturing Consentâ?.
Discussions like this fundamentally reflect ripples on the edge of a holy war waged against intellectuals and artists in this country
Take care,
Tom I would encourage you to go to www.darkness2light.org/ .com and learn more about child abuse in this country. Statistics are not always trash and I think you will find many intellectuals and artists in this country who do not share your fears of creeping holy wars.
|
