PDF IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
parent at shoot, signed releases, not a big fan of photography assistants, but may be a good idea as to have someone back you up if legal problems arise later on, and if you stay within tasteful limits for the age , you should be fine !

Define "tasteful limits".  When you write "signed releases" - are you referring to a model release?

Kevin_Connery wrote:
I strongly recommend reading some of these with a careful eye to what people say the law is and what laws they can support. Recognize that people's opinions are frequently not facts.

Good advice.  There is very little good, informed advice that comes out of these threads with respect to the law.  In fact, there is far more "vapor law" than real law.

I am hard pressed to think of any photographer who has ended up in a courtroom anywhere for shooting age appropriate material with a minor.  Saying something is against the law doesn't make it against the law.

Through Garys Eyes wrote:

Tell me one thing in my statement that is NOT true.  You can't help that people overreact, and if they overreact strongly enough - it's not going to be pleasant for the photographer.  You simply cannot tell me that it HAS NOT happened!  All you have to do is pick up a newspaper or watch the news.

Yes it does happen, police also plant drugs on people, people go to prison that are innocent as well.  HOWEVER those, like poeple over reacting to "underage" photography is by far the odd exception to the rule, just like people slipping anddying in the shower. 

All you have to do is open your eyes and look around you at all the "underage" pictures in magazines, advertisements, portfolio's and catalogs for proof that it goes on in abundance with 99.9% of the photographers NEVER having an issue with it. 

Ever looked into the size and numbers of the "senior" portrait market, or are you saying most of those photographers are just minutes away from being raided by the local police?

How many times have you seen photographers, or other business people sued or charged with other things, theft, injury, rape.   I've seen several instances of false accusations of sexual assault or rape by people before, are you NOT going to shoot adult females anymore because of that "risk" as well?

PYPI wrote:
If both the model and mom is supportive and you have a properly executed release and you are on board with the concept, go for it. The sky will not fall.

Exactly, there are two sides to this in my oppinion people seem to try to mix.

The business side which is irelevant to age and involves releases, not being alone, safety, precaution about law suits and accusations and those issues should always be thought of and implimented irregardless of the clients age.

Then their is the age of the model side, this one is the frustrating one because of the brainwash reaction by most that say its "illegal" or "too much of a risk" without any logic, reasoning or knowledge about it.  Completely ignoring all the evidence around them everyday that its a very normal and common thing in photography.

The automatic assumption by most when someone says "underage" automatically means sexual (which FYI is the only thing that can make it illegal) makes me wonder about those people...

Chase West wrote:
A 17yo model contacted me for a TFP shoot. She's wanting to build her port and says her mom is supportive and would come along. I get the feeling though that the girl is looking for kind of a Miley Cyrus / Vanity Fair type of thing.

Any advice? Anyone know the law around this stuff?

Advice: Don't do it.

Physiodelectatiousness wrote:
Advice: Don't do it.

Physio... You have some nice images in your port, and it seems like you've had lots of "commercial" experience as well. 

All that work in the commercial market and you never had one person infront of the camera that was under 18? Never? Never had a senior portrait, never had a friend of the family around with their kids and you took some shots? Never went to a little league game, soccer match and clicked a few images? never?

CGI Images wrote:

Physio... You have some nice images in your port, and it seems like you've had lots of "commercial" experience as well. 

All that work in the commercial market and you never had one person infront of the camera that was under 18? Never? Never had a senior portrait, never had a friend of the family around with their kids and you took some shots? Never went to a little league game, soccer match and clicked a few images? never?

I shot minors on a set with an art director and multiple assistants in a studio with the parents present and they were sport oriented photos.

This is a different situation altogether. The model has sought him out, he has edgy images in his port and he suspects she wants an edgy image that could be a problem. I see zero reason to enter into this situation. It may go fine. It may be no problem, but why do it? Why put yourself in that situation.

As a photographer you can do alot of things, get into alot of situations, you have to use your head and know when to avoid something that "might" be trouble. Because while it may not be a problem, if it is the result is horrible.

PYPI wrote:
I see the same amount of scandalous back in these two photos.

sure... but what you maybe haven't realized is that what you think doesn't really matter in an issue like this. It's the reaction of the community around you and how they treat you :-) I frankly see no problem with the image either. But that doesn't really matter.

PYPI wrote:
I see the same amount of scandalous back in these two photos.

Once again I agree with PYPI, I think the "vanity fair" look is more of a reference to the trendy washed out, bleached look than than anything else.

Physiodelectatiousness wrote:
sure... but what you maybe haven't realized is that what you think doesn't really matter in an issue like this. It's the reaction of the community around you and how they treat you :-) I frankly see no problem with the image either. But that doesn't really matter.

Actually, I don't really care what the community thinks. They don't dictate what I shoot. The only thing that matter is the law and the law is clear that images of backless minors are legal.

CGI Images wrote:
Once again I agree with PYPI, I think the "vanity fair" look is more of a reference to the trendy washed out, bleached look than than anything else.

I don't think so. OP is asking about laws regarding shooting minors in this manner. I don't think the law really cares about lighting techniques.

PYPI wrote:

Actually, I don't really care what the community thinks. They don't dictate what I shoot. The only thing that matter is the law and the law is clear that images of backless minors are legal.

I wonder PYPI, how many of these "pro's" with their "DONT DO IT", "RUN" comments or their handcuff GIF's have ever shot high school cheerleaders, or senior portraits of them in mini skirts and 1/2 shirts and never blinked an eye.

Digital One  wrote:
Here it is:

Get a good model release;
Have the model sign it;
Have one of the parents at the shoot;
Have the parent sign it;
Give them a copy of the signed release;
You keep a copy.
Approve everything with the parent first before you start the shoot.
If you are still paranoid,  get a friend to come along to witness everything.
If the model is sneaking around without parent's knowledge, don't do the shoot.

Why have the model sign it? It's meaningless.

PYPI wrote:

Actually, I don't really care what the community thinks. They don't dictate what I shoot. The only thing that matter is the law and the law is clear that images of backless minors are legal.

wow you're a badass. You don't care what anyone thinks of you. Tough guy! woohoo... :-) why is it this kind of comment only ever comes from a boy? :-)

PYPI wrote:

I don't think so. OP is asking about laws regarding shooting minors in this manner. I don't think the law really cares about lighting techniques.

Yeah I know PYPI, I was poorly attempting to point out how people just jump to conclusions and assumptions when someone mentions "minor" but the "jump" is never to the other side, always to "sexual"

CGI Images wrote:

I wonder PYPI, how many of these "pro's" with their "DONT DO IT", "RUN" comments or their handcuff GIF's have ever shot high school cheerleaders, or senior portraits of them in mini skirts and 1/2 shirts and never blinked an eye.

I wonder how Target and Macy's creates underwear and swimsuit ads for teens. Do they use 18 year old models that look 12?

CGI Images wrote:

Yeah I know PYPI, I was poorly attempting to point out how people just jump to conclusions and assumptions when someone mentions "minor" but the "jump" is never to the other side, always to "sexual"

Well I didn't jump to the conclusion on the part of the photographer. I think the model asking could be trouble. Let's be honest not everyone who is trouble in this business is a photographer. Alot of models start with one thing and want to end with something else.

PYPI wrote:
I wonder how Target and Macy's creates underwear and swimsuit ads for teens. Do they use 18 year old models that look 12?

I don't think logic comes into this.  The lynch mob is out, and it's looking for a hanging victim.

PYPI wrote:

I wonder how Target and Macy's creates underwear and swimsuit ads for teens. Do they use 18 year old models that look 12?

Digital recreation, but hey PYPI what do you know, your just a boy, probably never made a dime in photography have you? lol...

Physiodelectatiousness wrote:

wow you're a badass. You don't care what anyone thinks of you. Tough guy! woohoo... :-) why is it this kind of comment only ever comes from a boy? :-)

So are you taking opinion polls before you decide to shoot something? I sure don't.  Does one really need to be a bad ass to create art based on their own standards rather than community standards. One group are called artists, the other group are called politicians.

Ray Holyer wrote:

I don't think logic comes into this.  The lynch mob is out, and they're looking a hanging victim.

Thats what makes this topic so frustrating, the lack of logic..its insane.  To me it would be no different than someone coming up with a topic saying...

illogic : "Its illegal to have redheads in print advertising"...
logic : "um...do you see this ad here??"
illogic : "yes"
logic : "is that a redhead"
illogic : "yes"
logic : "so you see this ad, right infront of your face with the redhead in it?"
illogic : "yes"
logic : "so how is that illegal?"
illogic :  "Its illegal, RUN"..

PYPI wrote:

So are you taking opinion polls before you decide to shoot something? I sure don't.  Does one really need to be a bad ass to create art based on their own standards rather than community standards. One group are called artists, the other group are called politicians.

No I don't think you need to be a bad ass. But I think saying that you don't care what people think or that the reactions to your work are meaningless to you... well frankly it's not very thoughtful or realistic.

Do I take opinion polls? Nope. Do I consider impact, yes actually I do.

But more important than any of this, is that this particular model sounds like trouble. I don't think people should never photo minors. I have zero interest in it myself, but I see nothing wrong with it. I don't think anyone in this thread is saying 'never photo models under 18'

At least I am saying, don't photo this one, she's trouble. I've photo'd models in their 30's that were REAL trouble and luckily it worked out. But it was a horrible experience.

I am guessing from your reaction you get alot of crap for photoing younger people, that's too bad. You shouldn't have to put up with that. Clearly though you do care, you don't like it and it sucks that apparently some people treat you poorly for your artistic choices.

Physiodelectatiousness wrote:

No I don't think you need to be a bad ass. But I think saying that you don't care what people think or that the reactions to your work are meaningless to you... well frankly it's not very thoughtful or realistic.

Do I take opinion polls? Nope. Do I consider impact, yes actually I do.

But more important than any of this, is that this particular model sounds like trouble. I don't think people should never photo minors. I have zero interest in it myself, but I see nothing wrong with it. I don't think anyone in this thread is saying 'never photo models under 18'

At least I am saying, don't photo this one, she's trouble. I've photo'd models in their 30's that were REAL trouble and luckily it worked out. But it was a horrible experience.

I am guessing from your reaction you get alot of crap for photoing younger people, that's too bad. You shouldn't have to put up with that. Clearly though you do care, you don't like it and it sucks that apparently some people treat you poorly for your artistic choices.

You consider the impact of your work?  And let that deter you from anything?  Wow...

Physiodelectatiousness wrote:
But more important than any of this, is that this particular model sounds like trouble. I don't think people should never photo minors. I have zero interest in it myself, but I see nothing wrong with it. I don't think anyone in this thread is saying 'never photo models under 18'

At least I am saying, don't photo this one, she's trouble. I've photo'd models in their 30's that were REAL trouble and luckily it worked out. But it was a horrible experience.

You came to the conclusion the model is trouble from the OP? Assume much?

Physiodelectatiousness wrote:
I am guessing from your reaction you get alot of crap for photoing younger people, that's too bad. You shouldn't have to put up with that. Clearly though you do care, you don't like it and it sucks that apparently some people treat you poorly for your artistic choices.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The only crap I get is from models pissed that I won't test them for free.

PYPI wrote:

Physiodelectatiousness wrote:
But more important than any of this, is that this particular model sounds like trouble. I don't think people should never photo minors. I have zero interest in it myself, but I see nothing wrong with it. I don't think anyone in this thread is saying 'never photo models under 18'

At least I am saying, don't photo this one, she's trouble. I've photo'd models in their 30's that were REAL trouble and luckily it worked out. But it was a horrible experience.

You came to the conclusion the model is trouble from the OP? Assume much?


I have no idea what you're talking about. The only crap I get is from models pissed that I won't test them for free.

oh well then you're just a childish idiot. Sorry I was thinking maybe there was a reason for your two-dimensional comments and inability to clearly read comments. It's just a matter of judgment. good luck to you, I'm sure you'll never have any problems with your thorough knowledge of "the law"

:-)

Physiodelectatiousness wrote:
oh well then you're just a childish idiot.

Wow, hmmmm projecting perhaps?

Mike MacLellan wrote:

You consider the impact of your work?  And let that deter you from anything?  Wow...

Yes, I consider it. If I think the impact could be unpleasant, I will ask myself "why do this"... if I can come with a good reason, then I do it. If I can't, then I don't.

CGI Images wrote:
Yes it does happen, police also plant drugs on people, people go to prison that are innocent as well.  HOWEVER those, like poeple over reacting to "underage" photography is by far the odd exception to the rule, just like people slipping anddying in the shower. 

All you have to do is open your eyes and look around you at all the "underage" pictures in magazines, advertisements, portfolio's and catalogs for proof that it goes on in abundance with 99.9% of the photographers NEVER having an issue with it. 

Ever looked into the size and numbers of the "senior" portrait market, or are you saying most of those photographers are just minutes away from being raided by the local police?

How many times have you seen photographers, or other business people sued or charged with other things, theft, injury, rape.   I've seen several instances of false accusations of sexual assault or rape by people before, are you NOT going to shoot adult females anymore because of that "risk" as well?

People should really stop using the portrait and "senior" portrait market as a justification that there are absolutely NO risks involved when shooting minors.  It's just not the same thing as the typical internet photographer shooting minors!

Of course there is absolutely no problem with shooting portraits and "senior portraits" with minors - these are all typically shot in a mall or at the school, where are there are multiple employees and multiple other clients around while the shoot is going on.  The kinds of established studios that typically do portraits and senior portraits have a reputation to protect - NO ONE is worried about these photographers.  So, if you are say - a photographer for "Glamour Shots" at the mall - then I say "go ahead and shoot all the minors you want, there really is no additional risk compared to shooting models that are not minors".

But a large number of the photographers on MM (and other internet modeling/photography sites) shoot out of their homes, and they don't have a team of stylists, MUA's, assistants, etc.  For these photographers (again, a sizable number of the photographers on MM), there is some risk if you shoot minors alone.  And it's really silly to say there isn't additional risk when our society generally feels that minors need more protection, including passing laws which give them additional protection compared to adults (and here I'm talking about laws concerning minors in general, without regards to photography).

Having said that, you CAN reduce any additional risk to nearly nothing by having an assistant and/or MUA and/or other team members present.

You are absolutely correct when you said:

"All you have to do is open your eyes and look around you at all the "underage" pictures in magazines, advertisements, portfolio's and catalogs for proof that it goes on in abundance with 99.9% of the photographers NEVER having an issue with it."

But almost all of the photographers doing those kind of shoots have an established studio and/or they work with legitimate agencies - with teams of other professionals present when the shoot is going on.

Any additional risk in shooting minors is incurred only if you're shooting privately with no others present (and preferably someone who works with or for YOU; if there is any dispute, people who came with the model - including guardians - are more likely to side with the model than you).

I've never advocated that photographers should never shoot with minors.  I've just said they should understand the potential additional risk and act accordingly.

Physiodelectatiousness wrote:

oh well then you're just a childish idiot. Sorry I was thinking maybe there was a reason for your two-dimensional comments and inability to clearly read comments. It's just a matter of judgment. good luck to you, I'm sure you'll never have any problems with your thorough knowledge of "the law"

:-)

Calling names already? Did you run out of retorts that quickly? I never once brought up the law but since you brought it up, I confirm for you that shooting minors backless is not illegal anywhere in the United States. If you think otherwise, feel free to quote me the law.