JoeFong wrote:
I’m thinking about shooting edgy fashion for a minor, 16 years old to be exact. These will be strictly outdoor and in public places.  Do I need his legal guardian to be present? There’s absolutely no implied or whatsoever. My MUA/Hairstylist will be there too.  Both of my MUA/Hairstylist can do both makeup and hair. I’ll definitely request the model to bring an adult friend along, but don’t how possible that’s since he’s visiting. Should I not shoot the minor altogether or am I worrying too much? Thanks.

Generally, the only issue with shooting minors is the use of the pictures.  If you plan on using them in your port, it's good to get a release signed by the parent/gaurdian.  If you plan on publishing them, that would be mandatory.

Otherwise, make it a fun day.

Vector One Photography wrote:
Is it really worth it ?  If it becomes he said / she said...you're screwed.  I only shot one underaged girl and I had her mother within fifty feet and in plain view and we we not doing anything that anyone would call edgy.

The thought that catalogs, magazines, and advertising agencies do it all the time doesn't hold up in this case.  That's a pro shoot, they have a dozen people on the shoot, it's for real money and a real, probably a known client.  You are one pervert photographer and an underaged girl.... and that's how the parent, clergy or newspaper will characterize you if something goes wrong.

And the fearmonger post of the day award goes to.
Please keep your acceptance speech to under 500 words, I don't want to read too much.

OP: don't fret so much, minors are just young adults. Only need the guardian for the release.

Wysiwyg Photography wrote:
.... Really?....

I just have two say two words:

Senior Portraits!


Thanks, and Good Night.

Good words, but totally irrelevant in California.  It is an entirely different thing for a student to come in and purchase photos from you, i.e. senior portrats, and another to book a model for a shoot.  There is little distinction in California law if the shoot is paid or TF, since images are consideration.  The governing code is the Labor Code, which has absolutely nothing to do with senior portraits.

The OP is in California, one needs to answer the question in the context of Califonria law. I have deliberately not given the OP a response, but, at some point, someone is going to have to look in the right place to give the OP the right answer, rather than these viceral replies.

ei Total Productions wrote:

Good words, but totally irrelevant in California.  It is an entirely different thing for a student to come in and purchase photos from you, i.e. senior portrats, and another to book a model for a shoot.  There is little distinction in California law if the shoot is paid or TF, since images are consideration.  The governing code is the Labor Code, which has absolutely nothing to do with senior portraits.

The OP is in California, one needs to answer the question in the context of Califonria law. I have deliberately not given the OP a response, but, at some point, someone is going to have to look in the right place to give the OP the right answer, rather than these viceral replies.

Excellent reply.

ei Total Productions wrote:
I am curious, are any of you familiar with the labor code in California as it relates to shooting a 16 year old, particularly in determining if this is a commercial or non-commercial shoot?  Do any of you know the age at which a parent is or is not required in California for a commercial shoot?

Would it be considered labor if she came to you to do shots for her portfolio ? (just like in the case of Glamourshots)

ei Total Productions wrote:
It is an entirely different thing for a student to come in and purchase photos from you, i.e. senior portrats, and another to book a model for a shoot.

Is the point whether he approached her or vise-versa ?

Paul

ei Total Productions wrote:
I am curious, are any of you familiar with the labor code in California as it relates to shooting a 16 year old, particularly in determining if this is a commercial or non-commercial shoot?  Do any of you know the age at which a parent is or is not required in California for a commercial shoot?

Paul Brecht wrote:
Would it be considered labor if she came to you to do shots for her portfolio ? (just like in the case of Glamourshots)

ei Total Productions wrote:
It is an entirely different thing for a student to come in and purchase photos from you, i.e. senior portrats, and another to book a model for a shoot.

Paul Brecht wrote:
Is the point whether he approached her or vise-versa ?

Paul

I am trying very hard not to give anything that looks like legal advice or is a conclusion of law.  That is for attorneys to do, but I will give you a little bit of guidance since eerybody is off track and not looking at the right thing.

In California, there are statutes that require a parent to be present for any model under the age of sixteen if the shoot is for commercial purposes.  There is clearly an issue that comes into play if the model is simply trying to hire you, and pay you to shoot pictures she iwll later use in her portfolio.  That is a form of commercial use, but she is a client, not an employee or contractor.  It gets confusing though if we are talking about a TF shoot, and of course, there are no appellate cases on the issue that I am aware of.  Particularly since a complaint would first be resolved by the labor commissioner before the courts.

The bottom line is that the model in question is sixteen, and that is the seminal fact.  A parent clearly needs to sign the release if a release is required.  An entertainment work permit may also be required.  The law, may, however, not require a parent to be present.

Whether it would be wise to do the shoot without parental consent is another matter.  If it were me, I would speak to the parents, if for no other reason, to avoid a conflict later. 

California has more defined laws in the entertainment field than many other states because of the film industry.  The age is set at 16, rather tha n18, for practical reasons.  The movie studios put pressure on the legislature.  The rules regarding a "set teacher" change at sixteen as well.

JoeFong wrote:
It's a TF and non-commercial shoot. Port uses only! I sure don't want the headache. I will ask for a guardian; otherwise, no shoot then.

I don't really see a problem then, especially if you're going straight to their parents first for permission. One of my parents always comes along to sign a release form and just hangs out on the sidelines or in the car and that's that. No big deal.

JoeFong wrote:
It's a TF and non-commercial shoot. Port uses only! I sure don't want the headache. I will ask for a guardian; otherwise, no shoot then.

FYI, in many cases, merely shooting a model for a portfolio becomes commercial, wehter it is TF or not.  It is irrelevant if you are making any money.  It is interesting, and I don't agree necessarily with the definition, but the theory is that the purpose of shooting for portfolio is that, eventually, you will want to make some money from your work, and hence the shoot is for advertising.

I am not sure all courts will agree with tht definition, but, unfortunately, many courts have.  As an example, that is the written rule in the federal parks system.

the bottom line is that you need to know the rules and play by them.   Don't simply assume that, because you are doing TF for your own portfolio, you are going to get a pass under the statutets.

At some point in your career, you may want to speak with an attorney and udnerstand your obligations under California law.

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
You are worrying too much. Thousands of portrait studios including Sears, JC Penney, Walmart and nearly every other portrait studio you'll find in the yellow pages will shoot minors without even thinking about it.

The likelihood that this model will rape you is probably low. The likelihood that you'll do something illegal to this model will be determined by your behavior. If you behave yourself, the likelihood that the model will run off screaming rape just so you'll dig deep into your pockets and succumb to her blackmail scheme is also very low, but if you fear that this might happen, then bring your next-door neighbor.  The reason I think the blackmail scheme is a low probability is that any model smart enough to plan such a thing, would likely pick a studio with the deepest pockets, like JC Penney, Sears, Walmart, etc.  This however doesn't seem to be a chronic problem for those deep pocketed targets, so it probably won't be for you. Chances are, she merely wants photos. Behave yourself and you'll be fine.

You don't need and assistant and you don't need anyone else there. However, the 16 year old model cannot provide you with a valid model release due to her age. So, if these photos are being taken because she's paying you, and you have no intention of using them yourself, forget the release, you don't need one.  However, if you plan to use the photos yourself, then you'll probably want to have a parent or guardian sign it. The release can be signed anytime, but to protect yourself, I'd get it signed before I release photos that the model can use.

Young people aren't all that and neither is photographing them.

Now, if nudity is involved, all the above still applies. There's no law in any state in the US that prevents photographers from photographing minors nude. Nudity, in itself, is not pornography. However, the inherent risk is that you and your attorney might have to try to convince some judge and/or jury that your images are "art" not "pornography".  That's sometimes difficult because "pornography" has yet to be defined by the Supreme Court, so, it's a gray area, and one best left to professional photographers who just happen to also be lawyers.

plus ONE.

I shoot minors all the time. No problem and no big deal.

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
You are worrying too much. Thousands of portrait studios including Sears, JC Penney, Walmart and nearly every other portrait studio you'll find in the yellow pages will shoot minors without even thinking about it.

Do you have the sort of insurance and access to large law firms with multiple lawyers at your beck and call, that Sears, Walmart, etc. have? Do you have in-house attorneys?

If you think you are playing on the same field as those sorts of entities, you are kidding yourself.

JoeFong wrote:
I’m thinking about shooting edgy fashion for a minor, 16 years old to be exact. These will be strictly outdoor and in public places.  Do I need his legal guardian to be present? There’s absolutely no implied or whatsoever. My MUA/Hairstylist will be there too.  Both of my MUA/Hairstylist can do both makeup and hair. I’ll definitely request the model to bring an adult friend along, but don’t how possible that’s since he’s visiting. Should I not shoot the minor altogether or am I worrying too much? Thanks.

I'm very comfortable shooting model at group events, but would hesitate to do so one-on-one.

MerrillMedia wrote:
Do you have the sort of insurance and access to large law firms with multiple lawyers at your beck and call, that Sears, Walmart, etc. have? Do you have in-house attorneys?

If you think you are playing on the same field as those sorts of entities, you are kidding yourself.

If you read Alan's posts above, you'll note that just by the nature of these shots puts you in a different (legal) field than those others...

Walmart, Sears, etc., aren't looking for model releases to use to further their business. If they do, you can bet that they hire the kid according to all labor laws, etc...

They also are being hired by the client to take family portraits, which will be tame, compared to most fashion/modeling pictures...

Paul

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
You are worrying too much. Thousands of portrait studios including Sears, JC Penney, Walmart and nearly every other portrait studio you'll find in the yellow pages will shoot minors without even thinking about it.

MerrillMedia wrote:
Do you have the sort of insurance and access to large law firms with multiple lawyers at your beck and call, that Sears, Walmart, etc. have? Do you have in-house attorneys?

If you think you are playing on the same field as those sorts of entities, you are kidding yourself.

No. But I'm not afraid of kids either. I'm also fairly certain that photographing minors isn't a problem for the many, many studios that do it, who also don't have a large legal budget.

JoeFong wrote:
I’m thinking about shooting edgy fashion for a minor, 16 years old to be exact. These will be strictly outdoor and in public places.  Do I need his legal guardian to be present? There’s absolutely no implied or whatsoever. My MUA/Hairstylist will be there too.  Both of my MUA/Hairstylist can do both makeup and hair. I’ll definitely request the model to bring an adult friend along, but don’t how possible that’s since he’s visiting. Should I not shoot the minor altogether or am I worrying too much? Thanks.

I shoot fashion weekly with 14 - 17 year olds, and very rarely does a parent or guardian accompany the model.  Since there is no legal document to be signed, you don't need a parent either, unless you're worried about what others in this thread seem to be worried about, which is a great deal apparently.

Edit:  I will qualify my post by saying that parents, I presume, at least know where their teens are when shooting with me.  Their bookers most certainly know, since I work with models through modeling agencies.

Richard Dubois wrote:
I shoot fashion weekly with 14 - 17 year olds, and very rarely does a parent or guardian accompany the model.  Since there is no legal document to be signed, you don't need a parent either, unless you're worried about what others in this thread seem to be worried about, which is a great deal apparently.

Edit:  I will qualify my post by saying that parents, I presume, know where their teens are when shooting with me.  Their bookers most certainly know, since I work with models through modeling agencies.

Laws are different in Canada

Paul Brecht wrote:
Laws are different in Canada & California...

Is it illegal elsewhere in the US to photograph a minor without an adult present?  That is the impression this thread is giving me.

JoeFong wrote:
I’m thinking about shooting edgy fashion for a minor, 16 years old to be exact. These will be strictly outdoor and in public places.  Do I need his legal guardian to be present? There’s absolutely no implied or whatsoever. My MUA/Hairstylist will be there too.  Both of my MUA/Hairstylist can do both makeup and hair. I’ll definitely request the llama to bring an adult friend along, but don’t how possible that’s since he’s visiting. Should I not shoot the minor altogether or am I worrying too much? Thanks.

If the llama is a MINOR then you need to have a parent signature on the llama release and I think you also need a parent or guardian present as well (I've always requested at least one parent to be present during the shoots).

Swank Photography wrote:

If the model is a MINOR then you need to have a parent signature on the model release and I think you also need a parent or guardian present as well (I've always requested at least one parent to be present during the shoots).

The Parent or Guardian present is a VERY STRONG suggestion.. not needed legally.. but if I was inclined to do a shoot like this (Which I wouldn't, but) If I was, I would have a parent there.

BUT if one wanted to do anything with the photos outside of personal "Oh look an my pritty picher" stuff... he will need a model release signed by the parent or guardian.

Vector One Photography wrote:
.....You are one pervert photographer and an underaged girl.... and that's how the parent, clergy or newspaper will characterize you if something goes wrong.

Ummm, except that if you actually read OP's post it's not an underage girl that OP wants to shoot, it's an underage guy. I know it doesn't make a figs difference in the eyes of the law but I bet it makes a massive difference to people's perceptions of whether OP should go ahead with the shoot or not.