Eric Nguyen Photography wrote:
Just a very quick question for photographers and anyone else out there that knows.

A friend of a friend asked me to take some photos for her, she is technically a minor for another few months. I know normally I have to get a parent or guardian to sign a release for her, but her and her parent's don't really live together so that makes it hard. So the question is, (she's asked for my rates so she's willing to pay) but if i decide that I will not sell or even use those photos as part of my portfolio (website when I get one set up), and just give her all the photos after i've edited, I do not need a release form? Is that right?

Thanks for you help in advance guys/gals!!

Does she fall under the legal definition of an "emancipated minor" in the jurisdiction where she resides?  If so, she can sign the release on her own.

David Kirk wrote:
however, this doesn't change the fact that you're shooting a minor without parental consent.

+1

And if you were working in a retail store and she came in to buy a t-shirt, you'd be selling her clothing without parental consent.

Oh, and if you were working in a coffee shop and she came in for a cup of coffee, you better have parental consent to do so...



What kind of shoot is this? Porn? If so, you probably want to wait until she turns 18. Cutesy head shots for MySpace or Facebook? Why is parental consent needed?

My personal policy is that I don't shoot minors without a parent present. That's my policy, though, not because it is a law anywhere.

Eric Nguyen Photography wrote:
That makes sense, but curious as to what could happen if I don't ever plan on posting them anywhere??

Not sure of the rules in Canada, but in the USA, nothing would happen.  It's not against the law to photograph minors without parental permission (here).

Eric Nguyen Photography wrote:
That makes sense, but curious as to what could happen if I don't ever plan on posting them anywhere??

I have at least four minors in my MM portfolio with no release. The only thing that's happened so far is their moms thanked me and a lot of people have left favorable comments.

Eric Nguyen Photography wrote:
That makes sense, but curious as to what could happen if I don't ever plan on posting them anywhere??

With respect to the release, nothing can happen. That's the sole purpose of a model release is to give you rights to use the images.

Eric Nguyen Photography wrote:
Question if a model release is needed, plz help!!

www.newmodels.com/Releases.html --- this explains a good deal from the perspective of the AMERICAN legal system; you'll want to find out more information for the area in which you live.

c_d_s wrote:
I have at least four minors in my MM portfolio with no release. The only thing that's happened so far is their moms thanked me and a lot of people have left favorable comments.

The human mind is an interesting thing, it changes. When everybody's happy, there's never a problem. However, if they later decide that for some reason they don't like the fact that you displayed those images publicly, they and their attorneys could make your life very miserable, and you'd really wish you had written permission from the parents. Offering to take the images down, at that point, may or may not solve the problem.

David Kirk wrote:
if you don't intend to use the photos then you don't require a release.

however, this doesn't change the fact that you're shooting a minor without parental consent.

As far as I know, minors don't need permission to buy most products and services.  Sure there are a few things like alcohol, cigarettes, piercings, etc., but photography services?

jwb imagery wrote:
Sorry I can not be of aid as I am not familiar with the laws of Canada and Ontario.  The home shown in your profile.

Also, I wonder how may of the responders took time to look.

Now here is a smart Photographer!! No, I'm being serious

GM Photography wrote:

As far as I know, minors don't need permission to buy most products and services.  Sure there are a few things like alcohol, cigarettes, piercings, etc., but photography services?

Come to think of it when I had my studio I used to get any age come in and get photos done ..I never realy thought of it ..I didnr have to have a sign up say 18+ or any thing ..as long as I wasnt useing the images for any commercial reason I was ok and with in the law ..

I am only speaking from an Australian law piont of view tho

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
A model release serves one purpose only. It enables the photographer to use the images, via written permission.  That's it. That's all it is. Period. Without one, you don't have written permission to use the images.

School photographers, little league photographers, photographers who photograph dance studios,  and almost every photo studio in your phone book will shoot minors (or anyone else), without a model release. They understand that without a release, they don't have the right to use the images....so they just take your money, do the shoot, and provide the customer with images.

It doesn't matter where you live. All over the world, a model release has the same purpose. It's written permission whereby the model gives the photographer the right to use the images.  The OP doesn't intend t use the images, so he doesn't need a release.
/story.

Not really trying to flame you, but you might want to double check on that and also MM rules

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
A model release serves one purpose only. It enables the photographer to use the images, via written permission.  That's it. That's all it is. Period. Without one, you don't have written permission to use the images.

School photographers, little league photographers, photographers who photograph dance studios,  and almost every photo studio in your phone book will shoot minors (or anyone else), without a model release. They understand that without a release, they don't have the right to use the images....so they just take your money, do the shoot, and provide the customer with images.

It doesn't matter where you live. All over the world, a model release has the same purpose. It's written permission whereby the model gives the photographer the right to use the images.  The OP doesn't intend t use the images, so he doesn't need a release.
/story.

You are exactly right even if other dont agree with you I do ..but its not just photographers who need one .

even if you took a photo of your self and put it on your MM port you need a model release . for any photo on your port you must have a model release as it is commercial .

You dont however need one to post a photo on this or forum as it is editorial and addvertising is not allowed most MM forums , ( I think there is a shopping forum on here ) .

However in Australia you dont need a model release for any NON commercial use of that image .
non commercial could be like in a newspaper story ,even some web sites

Tommy M wrote:

Not really trying to flame you, but you might want to double check on that and also MM rules

OK. I have read the rules for MM. They are here. https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 0317&page=

I don't see any rule that says a photographer needs  a model release for images that he does not use.

It seems apparent that we might disagree on what a model release is and what the purpose for one might be. So, let me ask you, do you agree that the purpose of a model release is to provide the photographer with written permission to use the models image and likeness (aka: photos of the model) ???   If not, what do you think the purpose of a model release is? If we agree on the purpose for such a document, why would one be needed if the photographer does not intend to use the images?

Flame away if needed.

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
OK. I have read the rules for MM. They are here. https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 0317&page=

I don't see any rule that says a photographer needs  a model release for images that he does not use.

It seems apparent that we might disagree on what a model release is and what the purpose for one might be. So, let me ask you, do you agree that the purpose of a model release is to provide the photographer with written permission to use the models image and likeness (aka: photos of the model) ???   If not, what do you think the purpose of a model release is? If we agree on the purpose for such a document, why would one be needed if the photographer does not intend to use the images?

Flame away if needed.

You are corect but its not just photographers who need them , even a model needs a model release to publish there own photos .any one who uses them photos need that release.If you take a shot of your self with your web cam and put it on your MM port you need a model release for that and must supply one if MM so ask
If you are not in any way going to use an image you do not need a release and what would the piont of getting one be .

Well it would make the family get together interesting

If you think this is bad dont make me mention property release

Model Model Model wrote:
Always use a release agreement for every shoot, in every situation, no matter what. NEVER shoot a minor, under any circumstance, unless both parents sign an agreement. If one parent signs and the other doesn't, there are cases where the parent that signed is over ruled and the photographer still got charged.

Got charged with what?  We are not talking about doing porn here, and if we did, parental consent would mean nothing.  There is nothing criminal about taking headshots of a minor.

Mark Tate wrote:
You are corect but its not just photographers who need them , even a model needs a model release to publish there own photos .any one who uses them photos need that release.If you take a shot of your self with your web cam and put it on your MM port you need a model release for that and must supply one if MM so ask

You really, really need to explain this to me.  Can you show me any statute that requires a model to have a release from herself to use her own likeness for any purpose?

This comment is so wrong, on so many levels, I really want to try to understand what you are attempting to say.

Perhaps you should take a visit to your local IP attorney and explain what you are trying to say to him first, so he can articulate what you are trying to say to us, after.

I am wondering if you are confusing a license with a release, but that wouldn't explain why you would need a release/license for a self-portrait.

GM Photography wrote:
As far as I know, minors don't need permission to buy most products and services.  Sure there are a few things like alcohol, cigarettes, piercings, etc., but photography services?

It's not against the law to shoot minors without parental consent (as far as I know) and I was not trying to state that it was.

I was only pointing out that just because the law does not require a release (OP's question) that he may still wish to seek parental consent.  Law may not REQUIRE him to have it, but some people get pretty upset about "some photographer" taking pictures of their precious children without their consent and I can live without any of that kind of drama.  Legal or not.

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:

OK. I have read the rules for MM. They are here. https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 0317&page=

I don't see any rule that says a photographer needs  a model release for images that he does not use.

It seems apparent that we might disagree on what a model release is and what the purpose for one might be. So, let me ask you, do you agree that the purpose of a model release is to provide the photographer with written permission to use the models image and likeness (aka: photos of the model) ???   If not, what do you think the purpose of a model release is? If we agree on the purpose for such a document, why would one be needed if the photographer does not intend to use the images?

Flame away if needed.

Do not post messages that violate Federal, State, or Local laws which include, but are not limited to, anything that violates a copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret, or is bound by NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement). You will not discuss, suggest, engage, or encourage any ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. Links provided to locations that deal with any such activity are also expressly forbidden.

telling people how things pertain to the law Mike.  Unless you are an attorney and you forgot to mention that and familiar with state federal and international laws.

Beyond Vanilla wrote:
Each year, billions of children are photographed, all over the world,  by professional photographers, without model releases. This happens at Walmart, JC Penny, Glamour Shots, Ritz, Pro-Ex, Sears, and in most elementary, junior high and senior high schools. It also happens in the photo studios on Main Street.

After reading the above posts, I would like to make two statements which I know to be true in at least the US and Canada.

1. It is not illegal to photograph a minor.

2. A model release is not needed by a photographer for any reason, if the photographer doesn't do anything with the images, other than provide them to the client. This is true even if the client is a minor.

Oregon state law prohibits the photography of minors without the consent and that is just from own personal knowledge.  I'm telling you guys that keep refering to law, that you are not strengthening your case.  In B.C. the model owns the copyright to any and all images and I know that because I do go to canada to shoot.  So if you dont know for a FACT why is it so hard to just say, "I would talk to a lawyer bud"

Model Model Model wrote:
Always use a release agreement for every shoot, in every situation, no matter what. NEVER shoot a minor, under any circumstance, unless both parents sign an agreement. If one parent signs and the other doesn't, there are cases where the parent that signed is over ruled and the photographer still got charged. We live in a sick world where 99% of the time you ( possibly ) will never have to deal with a situation, but you don't want to live out that 1% of the time your royally screwed. There are laws in 26 states that will put you in jail if you shoot a minor under age without consent... and lord help you if the minor decides to go on a witch hunt and say you touched em... then your on a whole new level of screwed.. as in, jail time and labeled as a sex offender for life..... ALWAYS use the agreement... and if you need a lawyer to help you create an agreement to keep you safe... go to Www.Lawyerphil.coM  and send him a message... protect yourself always...

Wow. This post is full of fail and fear mongering. There are no laws against taking pictures of minors without parental consent. If there were, the prisons will be flooded with teens taking pictures of each other for Myspace. Mall photographers would be locked up by the thousands and banks and city government will be imprisoned for taking pictures from ATM machines and traffic cams.

Tommy M wrote:
Oregon state law prohibits the photography of minors without the consent and that is just from own personal knowledge.  I'm telling you guys that keep refering to law, that you are not strengthening your case.  In B.C. the model owns the copyright to any and all images and I know that because I do go to canada to shoot.  So if you dont know for a FACT why is it so hard to just say, "I would talk to a lawyer bud"

I call bullshit. Show me the law.

And you are also wrong about Canadian copyright law. Your FACTS are in fact flawed interpretations.

Mark Tate wrote:

You are corect but its not just photographers who need them , even a model needs a model release to publish there own photos .any one who uses them photos need that release.If you take a shot of your self with your web cam and put it on your MM port you need a model release for that and must supply one if MM so ask
If you are not in any way going to use an image you do not need a release and what would the piont of getting one be .

Well it would make the family get together interesting

If you think this is bad dont make me mention property release

You confuse a model release with a photographer's image license. A model does not need a model release to allow herself to use her own likeness. Just like I don't need to give myself an image license to use my copyrighted images.