CGI Images wrote:

Wow, hmmmm projecting perhaps?

Maybe after I am sitting here reading comments by people who say they "don't care what anyone thinks" and other famous mantras of 16-yr olds and actually responding to it :-) ha ha ha

Probably so... if I was more adult, I wouldn't be having this convo... you got me!

PYPI wrote:

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.

It's not about retorts. I guess it's about me being dumb enough to get suckered in by a troll. Good job :-) ha ha ha Thanks!

Physiodelectatiousness wrote:
It's not about retorts. I guess it's about me being dumb enough to get suckered in by a troll. Good job :-) ha ha ha Thanks!

Wow! Reaching for the troll label. Now you're really reaching for the bottom of the barrel. I noticed you marked this image M. That's very telling considering there is absolutely no reason that image needs a M mark.

Through Garys Eyes wrote:
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.

Thats been my point the entire time iregardless of the age of the client, in business thats always prudent. 

Also there are as many professional photographers on here as well as "internet photographers working from their homes".  Some VERY big names in the field are very active members on MM.   

I would not do a 2am shoot alone with a 30yr old woman alone just for CYA.

PYPI wrote:

Wow! Reaching for the troll label. Now you're really reaching for the bottom of the barrel. I noticed you marked this image M. That's very telling considering there is absolutely no reason that image needs a M mark.

And what does it tell you :-)

CGI Images wrote:

Thats been my point the entire time iregardless of the age of the client, in business thats always prudent. 

Also there are as many professional photographers on here as well as "internet photographers working from their homes".  Some VERY big names in the field are very active members on MM.   

I would not do a 2am shoot alone with a 30yr old woman alone just for CYA.

Like yourself? Come on tell us who you really are... Todd Hido? wait wait Nick Vedros? oh wait no he's from KC, you're in the middle of KS... let me think... I'm sorry

What makes someone a good photographer? I'm curious.

Michael Siu wrote:
shoot, Lather, rinse, repeat.

How hard is that?

Might get in trouble with the lather part...lol

Physiodelectatiousness wrote:

Like yourself? Come on tell us who you really are... Todd Hido? wait wait Nick Vedros? oh wait no he's from KC, you're in the middle of KS... let me think... I'm sorry

What makes someone a good photographer? I'm curious.

I never once claimed I was huge in the industry at all, I said there are several that actively participate on MM.. but if you'd like some names I'd be happy to share.

Lets start with Stephen Eastwood, Ken Marcus, Alan (of playboy fame), oh yeah and I shouldnt leave out Patrick Yeun.  I'm sure others could add to the list as well.

My bigger curiousity is why you jump to personal attacks instead of trying to argue your point with logic and facts?

CGI Images wrote:

I never once claimed I was huge in the industry at all, I said there are several that actively participate on MM.. but if you'd like some names I'd be happy to share.

Lets start with Stephen Eastwood, Ken Marcus, Alan (of playboy fame), oh yeah and I shouldnt leave out Patrick Yeun.  I'm sure others could add to the list as well.

My bigger curiousity is why you jump to personal attacks instead of trying to argue your point with logic and facts?

Because I'm childish. Didn't you figure that out? ;-P Good lord.

So let me ask you this... do "big names" mean something to you? I mean does it make MM more respectable to you that big names participate in the forum? It seems to be important to you...

Physiodelectatiousness wrote:
Because I'm childish. Didn't you figure that out? ;-P Good lord.

So let me ask you this... do "big names" mean something to you? I mean does it make MM more respectable to you that big names participate in the forum? It seems to be important to you...

It often means they have years of experience others could learn from, thats what it means.

If I had a legal question and was in a discussion about it with two cooks, a dentist and Alan Dershowitz.  I would think it wiser to listen to the expertise and experience of Alan over the others.

Thats why it matters.

CGI Images wrote:
Thats been my point the entire time iregardless of the age of the client, in business thats always prudent. 

Also there are as many professional photographers on here as well as "internet photographers working from their homes".  Some VERY big names in the field are very active members on MM.   

I would not do a 2am shoot alone with a 30yr old woman alone just for CYA.

Of course there are some VERY big names in the field that are active members on MM - but wouldn't we be talking about maybe a couple hundred, compared to probably thousands of not so big names?

The point I was trying to make when I brought up that a large number of photographers here shoot out of their homes with no team members present is that THOSE are the phographers who most need to be aware of the potential risks.

The big names (in most cases) don't have any extra risk because of the issues I already mentioned - probably have studios not in their homes, have reputations that precede them, and have additional team members present at virtually all shoots.

[Please note: just because I have brought up "photographers who shoot out of their homes" here and in earlier posts, it should not be taken as a disparagement of those photographers - it's just that they are the ones at most risk when shooting minors unless they take simple and proper precautions.]

CGI Images wrote:

It often means they have years of experience others could learn from, thats what it means.

So do you think there is nothing to learn from others?

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?

It's legal so long as its not sexual, but its just not a good idea... People are uncomfortable with it, and you'll get a bad rep.

The things is: most fashion models are typically under 18, and they are always dressed incredibly provocatively anyways, so as long as you do it in that sort of way, you'll be alright.

Through Garys Eyes wrote:

Of course there are some VERY big names in the field that are active members on MM - but wouldn't we be talking about maybe a couple hundred, compared to probably thousands of not so big names?

The point I was trying to make when I brought up that a large number of photographers here shoot out of their homes with no team members present is that THOSE are the phographers who most need to be aware of the potential risks.

The big names (in most cases) don't have any extra risk because of the issues I already mentioned - probably have studios not in their homes, have reputations that precede them, and have additional team members present at virtually all shoots.

[Please note: just because I have brought up "photographers who shoot out of their homes" here and in earlier posts, it should not be taken as a disparagement of those photographers - it's just that they are the ones at most risk when shooting minors unless they take simple and proper precautions.]

I didnt take it you were trying to be negative about smaller photographers or ones that work from home or small studios. 

I believe we think alike.. but the bottom line when it comes to "minors" is in the "subject matter" not the age.

CGI Images wrote:
I never once claimed I was huge in the industry at all, I said there are several that actively participate on MM.. but if you'd like some names I'd be happy to share.

Lets start with Stephen Eastwood, Ken Marcus, Alan (of playboy fame), oh yeah and I shouldnt leave out Patrick Yeun.  I'm sure others could add to the list as well.

My bigger curiousity is why you jump to personal attacks instead of trying to argue your point with logic and facts?

Please don't include me in that list as I am a nobody. But I will point out that Spencer Tunick is also a MM member. https://www.modelmayhem.com/member.php?id=151862

KookingProductions wrote:
Don't do it! Go as far as swimsuits and that's it.

If the girl gets some sort of exposure later, and your photos surface. If the mom and daughter decide to say that you pressure them into doing it just to save-face and career, and you dont have any sort of big rep. to back you up. You'll be in deep doo-doo, not necessarily sued but you'll have a bad rep. and not a lot of people will want to work with you after that. Let's just say you dont want to ruin your rep.

Excellent advise! I agree, similar thing almost happend to me, her mum actually contact me and asked, I refused.... they later hired me to take some family portraits.... JUST SAY NO!