Kings Media wrote:

To be honest in my personal experience with the 20 or so 17 and younger models i have shot not one has flaked or backed out. I have had some reschedule, but they gave a 2-3 day notice.

That's very encouraging, and no doubt is also testament to the quality of your work.

Davepit wrote:

That's very encouraging, and no doubt is also testament to the quality of your work.

Thanks Dave. I just realized the younger models actually seem to be more goal oriented/serious about modeling than some of the older 18+ girls...IMO and again from my experiences. I just hope I havent jinxed myself

CGI Images wrote:
Actually this issue is pretty black and white, if its "tested" so much in the courts "every day" then link some cases where photographers have been charged with taking pictures of "underage" girls simply because of thier age.

Tested - really. How much does it cost to be the one doing the testing or being tested?

Here is an excellent example of what could happen to lots of parents and photographers.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/arizona-coupl … id=8624533

A quick google search will find you all sorts of cases where photographers have been charged with all sorts of things only to be exonerated later.

In fact, there is not need to even go so far as google. You can search the MM forums and find all sorts of cases where photographers have had legal dealings - even when they were in the right.

CGI Images wrote:
To imply taking pictures simply because of age (or even reccomending seeking legal advice on the topic) might be illegal is about as asinine as telling someone to seek legal advice on whether they can drink the milk after the expiration date.  Again some things you dont need to see an attorney over.

You've put words in my mouth. At no point did I make any implication of legal or illegal behavior. Nor, have I made any statement that shooting minors may or may not be illegal. What I have advocated is knowing the law and making and educated decision about what you do. And, if you want to know, go to the best source of information available.

I'm pretty sure A.J. and Lisa Demaree wouldn't have taken their images to Wal Mart for processing had they been aware of the legal risks they were taking. While ultimately, they were acquited, the personal and financial cost have been devastating. You don't have to be wrong, someone just has to make the claim.

My advice to the OP remains that IF he wants a legal opinion, he ought to visit his attorney rather than relying on the information in a mm forum. You're advice seems to be that this isn't a case where the OP should consult with his attorney. His common sense and MM forums discussions are sufficient.

One of the great things about this country is that we can disagree.

Emeritus wrote:

Morgan Barbour wrote:
Legally, you could shoot the model nude if you wanted. It just can't be lewd or lascivious. Since you are not shooting nudes, and want to gear away from sex appeal, believe me dude, you'll be fine.

I have looked at the laws of every state, and not found that to be true.  Which state is it you are referring to, and specifically what is it that is illegal in that state?

Where I live......we had a discussion on this in a thread awhile ago.
If memory serves....it may have been you that dug the link out.

Morgan Barbour wrote:
Legally, you could shoot the model nude if you wanted. It just can't be lewd or lascivious. Since you are not shooting nudes, and want to gear away from sex appeal, believe me dude, you'll be fine.

Cherrystone wrote:
Your likely aping stuff you read here. There is at least one state where it is not legal.

Emeritus wrote:
I have looked at the laws of every state, and not found that to be true.  Which state is it you are referring to, and specifically what is it that is illegal in that state?

CGI Images wrote:
Hey Roger, he's talking about that one obscure ordinance that mentions nudity in Ohio, which I think has been debunked a couple of times, if memory serves I believe its worded in the ol "if the nudity is deemed lude" type language. 

I'm sure you or EI have the info handy, I'm tired tonight so I'm not going to dig for that statute, but its similar to the one in Utah as well.

ei Total Productions wrote:
You are correct, there is always some kind of qualifier.  There is never an absolute ban.  A requirement that it be lewd is common, and I believe that is how the Ohio statute is written.

CGI Images wrote:
Exactly, and maybe I'm reading the OP wrong, but I didnt get the impression he was looking to shoot any adult oriented work with this 17yr old.

Agreed, teen portrait shoots always digress into sexually explicit shindigs, at least if you read the posters here.  Had the OP asked about shooting nudes of minors, I would have recommended against it, even if it was legal.  I just get tired of reading about how the sky will fall if you do a great fashion shot of a sixteen year old.

Ed Stevenson wrote:

Tested - really. How much does it cost to be the one doing the testing or being tested?

Here is an excellent example of what could happen to lots of parents and photographers.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/arizona-coupl … id=8624533

A quick google search will find you all sorts of cases where photographers have been charged with all sorts of things only to be exonerated later.

In fact, there is not need to even go so far as google. You can search the MM forums and find all sorts of cases where photographers have had legal dealings - even when they were in the right.


You've put words in my mouth. At no point did I make any implication of legal or illegal behavior. Nor, have I made any statement that shooting minors may or may not be illegal. What I have advocated is knowing the law and making and educated decision about what you do. And, if you want to know, go to the best source of information available.

I'm pretty sure A.J. and Lisa Demaree wouldn't have taken their images to Wal Mart for processing had they been aware of the legal risks they were taking. While ultimately, they were acquited, the personal and financial cost have been devastating. You don't have to be wrong, someone just has to make the claim.

My advice to the OP remains that IF he wants a legal opinion, he ought to visit his attorney rather than relying on the information in a mm forum. You're advice seems to be that this isn't a case where the OP should consult with his attorney. His common sense and MM forums discussions are sufficient.

One of the great things about this country is that we can disagree.

Disagree is one  thing, fear mongering with no facts is another.  And yes telling someone to "seek legal counsel" on something thats so obvious is fear mongering in my opinion.

The best example you can come up with is a 1 in a million example of a situation where someone took "nude" images of their kids..

I didnt see the OP mention "nude" anything in his post at all..  So again if its so risky, and likely that you'll be "testing" the laws... show some actual cases where photographers were charged with taking images of people "under 18" like the OP addressed.  You CAN NOT google "many cases" of it, because it doesnt exist.

You're talking about cases that involved "adult" material with minors, a completely differnt issue.

ei Total Productions wrote:
Agreed, teen portrait shoots always digress into sexually explicit shindigs, at least if you read the posters here.  Had the OP asked about shooting nudes of minors, I would have recommended against it, even if it was legal.  I just get tired of reading about how the sky will fall if you do a great fashion shot of a sixteen year old.

Exactly.

Brittney LeAnn wrote:
Just dont get let her do nude, hello did you see miley?

::SIGH::

I know I'll regret pointing this out, but "nude" really doesnt have anything to do with the images being legal or not.

Your right E.I.. it cant be avoided...

OP says "Pictures of 17yr old" and here we are on page three talking about cases involving "adult" oriented material and nudity...

Jim Gupta-Carlson wrote:
Second to weddings, shooting 17 year olds is by far the most lucrative market in photography- even more so than babies.  I really have trouble understanding the paranoia sorrounding it.

This explains it...

CGI Images wrote:

::SIGH::

I know I'll regret pointing this out, but "nude" really doesnt have anything to do with the images being legal or not.

Your right E.I.. it cant be avoided...

OP says "Pictures of 17yr old" and here we are on page three talking about cases involving "adult" oriented material and nudity...

Today, American vogue presents a very special problem to a photographer like me. As a true European, my mores are very different from the American sensibilities. This, of course, finds it’s expression in the way I photograph women. The American public is extremely puritanical. Female nipples are totally taboo. Recent issues of American Vogue have shown nude women, frantically covering up pubes, bottoms and nipples. It’s a sad spectacle, embarrassing to behold, but it has its comical side. The worst thing that can happen is for the magazine to be removed from the shelves of supermarkets. Alex Liberman once said to me: “the supermarket managers cannot read, so our writers can discuss any amount of female multiple orgasms and similar subjects in their articles without being censored. But the supermarket managers check the photos. One nipple, and the magazine is off the shelf. “

CGI Images wrote:

::SIGH::

I know I'll regret pointing this out, but "nude" really doesnt have anything to do with the images being legal or not.

Your right E.I.. it cant be avoided...

OP says "Pictures of 17yr old" and here we are on page three talking about cases involving "adult" oriented material and nudity...

and its only going to go further =/

left-handed creative wrote:
"Parent present I'd say. At the very least make sure they sign a model release. You have shots in your portfolio that are appropriate for a minor."

Ahh, approval and advice from a 17-year old. I'm feeling better.

Yeah, tell that to the judge.
I've shot with a couple of 17yr olds alone, few years ago, both astonishingly talented agency level models but It's not something I take lightly, these days. And unless a parent, guardian is present I shy away from shooting underage models entirely.
  One 16 yr old Asian gal I did shoot last year brought her, yes, husband... to our beauty shoot.
Rather surprised me, but I guess it's not unheard of that parents can approve an underage marriage in some cultures.

Henri3 wrote:

left-handed creative wrote:
"Parent present I'd say. At the very least make sure they sign a model release. You have shots in your portfolio that are appropriate for a minor."

Ahh, approval and advice from a 17-year old. I'm feeling better.

Yeah, tell that to the judge.
I've shot with a couple of 17yr olds alone, few years ago, both astonishingly talented agency level models but It's not something I take lightly, these days. And unless a parent, guardian is present I shy away from shooting underage models entirely.
  One 16 yr old Asian gal I did shoot last year brought her, yes, husband... to our beauty shoot.
Rather surprised me, but I guess it's not unheard of that parents can approve an underage marriage in some cultures.

or they can get the court to deem them majors (emanciapted minors) and do what the duck they want (including marry).

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
or they can get the court to deem them majors (emanciapted minors) and do what the duck they want (including marry).

Well as long as they can show the emancipation paperwork, all is A OH KAY

left-handed creative wrote:
My portraits tend to be a little sexy so I want to be sure I don't cross any lines.

I don't know. Use your judgment.

left-handed creative wrote:
I know about no-nudes, but should I be ultra-conservative with poses and clothing?

You wouldn't have to be ULTRAconservative. Use your judgment.

left-handed creative wrote:
Does a parent or guardian need to be present?

No, but you need a parent or guardian to sign any contract/agreement. She can't legally sign that unless she is an 'emancipated minor'. Since it is the parent with which you are making the agreement, you should be asking the parent how you should approach the shoot.

left-handed creative wrote:
Should I simply tell her to come back when she's 18?

I would not even word it that way. You could just explain that you would need to make the arrangement with a parent/guardian, what the shoot would be, since she is underage. She will figure out on her own to come back after 18 if what she wanted to do was something she didn't want to get parental approval on...

She's a minor. All your questions; you should be asking her parents.

left-handed creative wrote:
should I be ultra-conservative with poses and clothing?
Does a parent or guardian need to be present? Should I simply tell her to come back when she's 18?

No offense but it sounds like you're looking for us to validate your own decisions.

Either shoot w/ her in a way that you BOTH are comfortable doing or don't. This advice would be applicable regardless of age.

left-handed creative wrote:
My portraits tend to be a little sexy so I want to be sure I don't cross any lines.
I know about no-nudes, but should I be ultra-conservative with poses and clothing?
Does a parent or guardian need to be present? Should I simply tell her to come back when she's 18?

You should probably wait until she turns 18 so you can use your sex instrument on her without any legal ramifications. Usually I call it a camera, but in your case I think sex instrument is probably more appropriate.

ERIC  STEINER wrote:
Have a Parent present, and get a model release. Common Sense

Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the court of law than reason and common sense.


{edit} In otherwords, if you have to ask (an internet forum)....you may want to question your own judgment.

Stan Schutze wrote:
Personally, I would leave champagne and quaaludes out of the equation.


Butt hay, that's just me.

That's exactly what I was going to say.

Stan Schutze wrote:
Personally, I would leave champagne and quaaludes out of the equation.


Butt hay, that's just me.

Click Hamilton wrote:
That's exactly what I was going to say.

I believe you!

Ravendrive Productions wrote:
Most state and county laws are copied and pasted from the neighboring states or counties statutes. Actually, I don't have statistics to back that up, just my observation.

Again, I have read every state law that is relevant to this issue.  What you just claimed is false.  There is a great variety of approaches between the states.

Ed Stevenson wrote:
I'm pretty sure A.J. and Lisa Demaree wouldn't have taken their images to Wal Mart for processing had they been aware of the legal risks they were taking. While ultimately, they were acquited, the personal and financial cost have been devastating. You don't have to be wrong, someone just has to make the claim.

My advice to the OP remains that IF he wants a legal opinion, he ought to visit his attorney rather than relying on the information in a mm forum.

Let's suppose they had visited their attorney, and that he advised them correctly.  He would have said that there is nothing illegal about those pictures.

The issue, to the degree there is one, is generally NOT one of law, and NOT one for which an attorney is the most qualified expert, but rather is one of culture.  Should we all consult with a cultural anthropologist and sociologist before unleashing our cameras?

Cherrystone wrote:
If memory serves....it may have been you that dug the link out.

We did have that conversation, and it is not true that the simple fact of shooting a nude minor in Ohio is illegal.  As with every other state, there are qualifiers and exceptions.  Ohio is more conservative about it than most other states, but not as absolute as you claim.

Emeritus wrote:

Let's suppose they had visited their attorney, and that he advised them correctly.  He would have said that there is nothing illegal about those pictures.

The issue, to the degree there is one, is generally NOT one of law, and NOT one for which an attorney is the most qualified expert, but rather is one of culture.  Should we all consult with a cultural anthropologist and sociologist before unleashing our cameras?

I think you miss the point. This is not a 'white shoes after September' kind of issue. Its a hot-button except like abortion and a few others.  Even where it is totally legal, anyone contemplating getting into the abortion business has to consider the non-legal risks or risks of some silly prosecutor trying to get around the law and make it illegal again and being made the scapegoat.  When you have high-energy issues like this, you can't just wave them away and pretend there is no potential problem for individuals.

Emeritus wrote:
Let's suppose they had visited their attorney, and that he advised them correctly.  He would have said that there is nothing illegal about those pictures.

The issue, to the degree there is one, is generally NOT one of law, and NOT one for which an attorney is the most qualified expert, but rather is one of culture.  Should we all consult with a cultural anthropologist and sociologist before unleashing our cameras?

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
I think you miss the point. This is not a 'white shoes after September' kind of issue. Its a hot-button except like abortion and a few others.  Even where it is totally legal, anyone contemplating getting into the abortion business has to consider the non-legal risks or risks of some silly prosecutor trying to get around the law and make it illegal again and being made the scapegoat.  When you have high-energy issues like this, you can't just wave them away and pretend there is no potential problem for individuals.

Did you read what I wrote?  At all?

Southern Exposure Foto wrote:
In Louisiana a 17 YO is an adult

Since Louisiana statutes disagree, I'd be very interested in a citation to an authoritative source for that.

Louisiana Civil Code wrote:
Art. 29.  Age of majority

Majority is attained upon reaching the age of eighteen years.

Acts 1987, No. 125, §1, eff. Jan. 1.  1988

PhotoguyJay wrote:
I would say think like this... NO NIPS, NO LIPS....

then you will be fine from a legal standpoint!!

it took me a second...no lips....what wrong with....oh....

left-handed creative wrote:
My portraits tend to be a little sexy so I want to be sure I don't cross any lines.
I know about no-nudes, but should I be ultra-conservative with poses and clothing?
Does a parent or guardian need to be present? Should I simply tell her to come back when she's 18?

if you don't how to approach or image an underage model then you shouldn't be working with them.  not sure why it's taken 3-pages to say that to you.

StudioPRIMETIME   AFIF wrote:
be on the safe side, wait.

shoot her reg or wait till she is legal in your state.

not worth it.

AFIF

Society is in one hell of a mess if this attitude becomes widespread, and frankly I'm getting sick and tired of this sort of paranoid knee-jerk response.
I always work TF*, so it's generally with new, young models. The ages of the models on my portfolio range from 13 to 17 or 18, they were all shot in public places with either a parent or friend present.
In my experience, common sense and a responsible, respectful attitude is all you need.

Morgan Barbour wrote:

Why is shooting with an underage model so dangerous?

It's not.  Lots of models working and being shot that are under 18yo.
Just take the good advice in this thread and run with it

Miss Anthrope 1007 wrote:

It's not.  Lots of models working and being shot that are under 18yo.
Just take the good advice in this thread and run with it

I know that. I was asking a rhetorical question.
I've been shooting underage well...all my life.

left-handed creative wrote:
Does a parent or guardian need to be present?

If you really want to shoot with her, her parents/legal tutors MUST be present! I also reccomend the presence of a female make up artist on the set...you never knows...it may help.

Btw, she's 17. Why don't you tell her to wait just a year?

Emeritus wrote:

Did you read what I wrote?  At all?

I did.  thats why I had to reply to your 'should we consult a cultural anthropoligist' remark. it reads like you are being dismissive of the issue

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

I did.  thats why I had to reply to your 'should we consult a cultural anthropoligist' remark. it reads like you are being dismissive of the issue

No, I'm being dismissive of the notion that lawyers are the sole repository of credible advice on non-legal issues.