Photographer
Lance DuLac
Posts: 59
Colchester, England, United Kingdom
Lance DuLac wrote:
If she is a woman, especially a pretty young woman... she should have an escort. Always. Without a doubt. White Lace Studios wrote:
*facepalm* Please do not harm yourself on my account. I have a son, and he is pure as the driven snow. But if I had a daughter I would never let her in public un-escorted. It is too dangerous physically and morally.
Photographer
White Lace Studios
Posts: 1719
Mesa, Arizona, US
Lance DuLac wrote:
Lance DuLac wrote:
If she is a woman, especially a pretty young woman... she should have an escort. Always. Without a doubt. Please do not harm yourself on my account. I have a son, and he is pure as the driven snow. But if I had a daughter I would never let her in public un-escorted. It is too dangerous physically and morally. You would never let your daughter in public un-escorted?
you're just pullin my leg...
... I will agree I am more protective of my 2 daughters than I am my sons.
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 12067
Grand Rapids, Michigan, US
New Kidd Imagery wrote:
Who even gets contacted to by a minor to shoot nudes anyway?
Who contacts models under 18 to shoot nudes?
Both seem pretty far fetched.
'I cannot wait till I'm 18.. then I can shoot nudes"... just seems unlikely that's all. It wasn't phrased that way, but I planned a nude shoot with a 17 year old, in anticipation of her turning 18. We also did the shoot, about 10 days after her birthday.
(18+, of course)
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 8#19704468
She is, and has been for quite some time, one of the most conspicuously intelligent and mature people I know. We shot nudes, and non nudes, in her apartment and my hotel room. And, gasp, we were alone nearly the whole time.
Photographer
Julian W I L D E
Posts: 1831
Portland, Oregon, US
Green Captures wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm new to portrait photography and I'm just starting to shoot models. I was approached by a girl who is 16 years old and according to her MM page she shoots nudes and she does lingerie and bikini shoots among everything else. Now, I have NO intentions of shooting lingerie and bikini pictures of her and especially any nude shots of her. I'm kinda worried about even doing a shoot with her because I don't want any weird stuff come up on the shoot. I'm a 23 year old guy and I feel really uncomfortable with this shoot die to her age. Any suggestions? Should I tell her to bring a chaperone or a parent? Is there Amy paperwork like a special model release for situations like this? How have y'all dealt with shoots with minors? Why would you bother? Really. -JULIAN
Photographer
Erlinda
Posts: 7286
London, England, United Kingdom
MC Grain wrote:
In a professional context, I'd bet none.
I haven't heard of any in any context, but it's not solely about getting arrested, it's about reputation. Since reputation is based on word of mouth, your vulnerable to inaccuracies in retelling of the story.
Someone could tell a fact based story and leave parts out that end up implying things that aren't true.
How many stories have you heard about parents being hassled while shooting their own children? I have heard of many stories of parents being hassled while shooting their own child because they are shooting in/on a place that usually photography is not allowed.
I haven't heard of a parent being hassled because they are taking a picture of their kid at a park, at home or in the shower etc.
Photographer
the lonely photographer
Posts: 2342
Beverly Hills, California, US
Jouissance Images wrote:
Sounds as if this could be an undercover cop in disguise. Sounds about right
Photographer
Photographe
Posts: 2351
Bristol, England, United Kingdom
Erlinda wrote:
I've shot 14,15,16 and 17 year olds. Parents drop them off and we shoot. You can shoot the girl in a bikini you just can't have her posing like you have the other models in your portfolio posing. You just have to make sure that she is doing poses for her age and not overly sexy. You've been irritating me all day with this, to the point where I wonder if I need to contact a mod.
Sorry but you are confusing things, firstly they are in the USA, you are not. You are subject to completely different laws. I strongly suggest you read up, because this statement is again totally inaccurate since 2003.
You just have to make sure that she is doing poses for her age and not overly sexy. OVERLY? I can just tell, you haven't ever read the 2003 legal changes.
Parents drop them off and we shoot. Again you are breaking the law in the UK
You can shoot the girl in a bikini O RLY!!! 14 year old in your studio in a bikini with no parent or booker present. Are you really so sure this is legal? Since someone has been telling you ALL day this is not.
The fact you've not "heard" about parents getting arrested doesn't mean it's not happening. There are at least two UK families living in exile in Holland for making the same assumptions as you. If you really call yourself a pro, why on earth don't you go and read up on the law.
Now I really hope the topic can shift back to the USA before you and I argue further.
Photographer
the lonely photographer
Posts: 2342
Beverly Hills, California, US
I've seen some MM profiles of "underage models"specificially stating they are ok with lingerie and underwear shoots, I don't think its inconcievable that some girls wouldn't get naked if the price is right. But that opens a whole new can of worms,solicitation of a minor for lewd acts. There are asian countries where ultra rich businessmen hire underage girls (students)for entertainment.
Personally I'd pass on shooting an underage model unless it was for headshots to pass around for a modeling gig or agency.
Photographer
Photographe
Posts: 2351
Bristol, England, United Kingdom
Yes but the OP and topic is specifically discussing USA, not the UK, Asia or anywhere else. If you read the other similar topic created today also, you'll see that you don't always get a choice about working with 18+ or even 16+. EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_2003 If you look at the definitions, they are extremely broad and anyone who has any sense will not shoot a 14 or 15 year old in a bikini without a parent, legal guardian or booker present. It's called non-consensual voyeurism. The law is repeatedly broken still in the fashion industry with 16 and 17 year olds, but they still aren't showing nipples. This law was created after Sam Fox and others did page 3 at 16, the Government really hated this and changed the law. It's suicide to shoot under 16's in anything less than normal clothing without a parent or booker. It's how perfectly innocent photographers end up in trouble, by being very stupid and taking risks.
Photographer
the lonely photographer
Posts: 2342
Beverly Hills, California, US
Rollo David Snook wrote:
Yes but the OP and topic is specifically discussing USA, not the UK, Asia or anywhere else.
If you read the other similar topic created today also, you'll see that you don't always get a choice about working with 18+ or even 16+. underage hijinks don't happen in USA? This kind of stuff happens world wide, not necessarily limited to photography, people are leery of pervs all over. If catholic priests and school teachers can be pervs, anybody can be a perv.
It don't take much to get arrested. just a complaint alone will have you spending millions in lawyers fees. Little kids can be the biggest liars cause a lot of them learned they can extort money by just threatening to say you raped them...
Photographer
Erlinda
Posts: 7286
London, England, United Kingdom
Rollo David Snook wrote:
Erlinda wrote:
I've shot 14,15,16 and 17 year olds. Parents drop them off and we shoot. You can shoot the girl in a bikini you just can't have her posing like you have the other models in your portfolio posing. You just have to make sure that she is doing poses for her age and not overly sexy. You've been irritating me all day with this, to the point where I wonder if I need to contact a mod.
Sorry but you are confusing things, firstly they are in the USA, you are not. You are subject to completely different laws. I strongly suggest you read up, because this statement is again totally inaccurate since 2003.
You just have to make sure that she is doing poses for her age and not overly sexy. OVERLY? I can just tell, you haven't ever read the 2003 legal changes.
Parents drop them off and we shoot. Again you are breaking the law in the UK
O RLY!!! 14 year old in your studio in a bikini with no parent or booker present. Are you really so sure this is legal? Since someone has been telling you ALL day this is not.
The fact you've not "heard" about parents getting arrested doesn't mean it's not happening. There are at least two UK families living in exile in Holland for making the same assumptions as you. If you really call yourself a pro, why on earth don't you go and read up on the law.
Now I really hope the topic can shift back to the USA before you and I argue further. I am new to the UK I am from Toronto Canada and that's where my experience comes from when it comes to shooting younger models. I don't mean to annoy you, I am not talking about shooting kids here in London I am talking about in Toronto and in Paris where I lived and worked as a photographer. Canada and US have pretty similar laws when it comes to things like this. But you are right, I am not a lawyer and don't know the law.
As you can see I NEVER quoted that I knew the law I talked about MY experience. Which many here on MM have. The OP can look at where I'm from and where I lived and take what I say with a grain of salt. No need for you to get all emotional about my opinion. 
Photographer
EVEhome Productions
Posts: 37
Oakland, California, US
Post hidden on Apr 03, 2012 07:56 am Reason: violates rules Comments: Spam
Model
Britney Rae
Posts: 120
West Palm Beach, Florida, US
Art of the nude wrote:
Green Captures wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm new to portrait photography and I'm just starting to shoot models. I was approached by a girl who is 16 years old and according to her MM page she shoots nudes and she does lingerie and bikini shoots among everything else. Now, I have NO intentions of shooting lingerie and bikini pictures of her and especially any nude shots of her. I'm kinda worried about even doing a shoot with her because I don't want any weird stuff come up on the shoot. I'm a 23 year old guy and I feel really uncomfortable with this shoot die to her age. Any suggestions? Should I tell her to bring a chaperone or a parent? Is there Amy paperwork like a special model release for situations like this? How have y'all dealt with shoots with minors? "Dear police department, there's a girl on Model Mayhem who claims to be 16 and says she'll shoot nudes. Will you have the DA determine what's best for her?"
Yeah, that'll work. Sorry, but this made me lol really hard.
OP, if you're saying you're uncomfortable, don't do it. Plain and simple.
Photographer
TXPHOTO
Posts: 1907
Fort Worth, Texas, US
I just photographed a beautiful, 5'-9" 13 year old, who is about to be signed to a national agency. Parent present of course. Nothing wrong with that. Just use common sense and do age appropriate poses. Not difficult to understand.
Photographer
RME Digital Photography
Posts: 267
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
I won't shoot with underage models period. Most of my work is nude and somewhat sexual. I would never want to even give the impression that something inappropriate is going on. I'd feel uncomfortable mixing G rated underage photos with the rest of my portfolio. I usually don't even accept friend requests from underage models. Its just a personal choice and there are plenty of 18+ models to work with. I feel bad when an underage model sends me a friend request and wants to do swimware and lingerie. I always tell them that I don't want to give people the wrong impression, it makes me uncomfortable, and it really has nothing to do with them specifically. Sometimes they go on about how mature, and professional they are; how much their parents support them, etc. But that really has nothing to do with it.
Photographer
The Viking Studio
Posts: 220
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
Paintings and Pictures wrote:
Contact your local law enforcement and let them talk with the District Attorneys office to determine what is best for this minor. WTF? I hope that was sarcasm...
Photographer
DRImages
Posts: 1651
San Diego, California, US
The Viking Studio wrote:
WTF? I hope that was sarcasm... Surely he's jesting
Model
BuxomBeauty
Posts: 68
Tampa, Florida, US
I would say have her bring a parent. Alert the parent what her MM says, but also that you'd be willing to shoot non-nudes. The last thing you want to deal with is the wrath of a parent who's daughter lied to them and is standing in front of a young guy who is interested in her nude phototgraphs.
If she comes to the shoot without a parent, or is just dropped off or something, insist that you cannot begin shooting without her legal guardian there.
Once her legal guardian is present and you've discussed the shoot with the two of them and are ready to take photos, have the *both* of them sign a release, whether it's a nude shoot or not, and make a copy of their I.D.s. I would say, do not work with the girl if she has no I.D. Many 16 year olds don't, if they don't drive anyway, but many do. Especially if they're serious about modeling.
Photographer
Photographe
Posts: 2351
Bristol, England, United Kingdom
If the mum is not there, it's not sending the right messages to the 14 or 15 year old. When kids model, it goes to their heads. Not all kids have mums who can be at every shoot. But parents need to be careful that their development of their child's modelling career is progressing at the correct and safe rate. It's harder for some parents than others, there might be an agent, or 18+ or the mum might know the mua etc. In magazines by 15, pregnant and single parent by 17. Erlinda wrote:
No need for you to get all emotional about my opinion. The only thing I get emotional about, after watching you attack/insult someone for not being able to type or spell correctly is this statement on your profile...
Erlinda wrote:
I frequently travel to Albania, Greece, Pairs and Liverpool Very emotional, crying with laughter in fact.
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Paintings and Pictures wrote:
Contact your local law enforcement and let them talk with the District Attorneys office to determine what is best for this minor. No!!
Photographer
Fashion Photographer
Posts: 14388
London, England, United Kingdom
Rollo David Snook wrote:
If the mum is not there, it's not sending the right messages to the 14 or 15 year old.
When kids model, it goes to their heads.
Not all kids have mums who can be at every shoot. But parents need to be careful that their development of their child's modelling career is progressing at the correct and safe rate. It's harder for some parents than others, there might be an agent, or 18+ or the mum might know the mua etc. In magazines by 15, pregnant and single parent by 17.
The only thing I get emotional about, after watching you attack/insult someone for not being able to type or spell correctly is this statement on your profile...
Very emotional, crying with laughter in fact. Easy there, cowboy. Erlinda is being perfectly nice to you, and you ought to return the courtesy.
Your statement in relation to the law, by the way, is incorrect.
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Photographer
Photographe
Posts: 2351
Bristol, England, United Kingdom
Fashion Photographer wrote:
Easy there, cowboy. Erlinda is being perfectly nice to you, and you ought to return the courtesy.
Your statement in relation to the law, by the way, is incorrect. If she wants it removed, then fair enough and fair enough I'm not a mod.
Which statement and which part is incorrect? I've got the wrong end of the stick by assuming "London" meant native, so apologies. I've made my point, but it would be a flag for me if my neighbour's 14 year old daughter was shooting with a 20 something photographer. Since agencies don't do it, I'm confused how I could be wrong. I could be confused because I did photography prior to 2003 and also have worked for Brent Council on various "young talent" related projects.
Photographer
thePhotosmith
Posts: 425
Durham, North Carolina, US
I don't suggest shooting anyone, especially after posting your intent to a webforum -- that could be used as evidence of premeditation.  -- Seriously, though: Photographing minors is a headache. Photographing nude minors is a felony. If you want to work with her, while she wears clothes, have her legal guardian accompany her to every meeting and the photoshoot. In which case, once she's 18, she can withdraw from all of your releases and leave you with a bunch of useless photos. If you want to work with her, while she is nude, wait until she's 18 years old.
Photographer
Rich Burroughs
Posts: 3259
Portland, Oregon, US
Agreed with the people who say you should pass if you're uncomfortable. That's really all you need to know right there.
I've had a few minors express interest in shooting with me. I usually tell them to let me know when they're 18. If it was someone really exceptional I'd consider it, but only with a parent/guardian present. You need them to get a release signed anyway.
Photographer
Daeda1us
Posts: 1067
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
Green Captures wrote:
I'm kinda worried about even doing a shoot with her because I don't want any weird stuff come up on the shoot. I'm a 23 year old guy and I feel really uncomfortable with this shoot die to her age. Any suggestions? First suggestion, avoid models that make you feel uncomfortable, regardless of age.
Second, minors make me leery to start with. But if you choose to shoot minors, as everyone else has stated, parents present, etc.
My two cents, YMMV
Photographer
Erlinda
Posts: 7286
London, England, United Kingdom
Rollo David Snook wrote:
If the mum is not there, it's not sending the right messages to the 14 or 15 year old.
When kids model, it goes to their heads.
Not all kids have mums who can be at every shoot. But parents need to be careful that their development of their child's modelling career is progressing at the correct and safe rate. It's harder for some parents than others, there might be an agent, or 18+ or the mum might know the mua etc. In magazines by 15, pregnant and single parent by 17.
The only thing I get emotional about, after watching you attack/insult someone for not being able to type or spell correctly is this statement on your profile...
Very emotional, crying with laughter in fact. Whats so funny? I don't get it. I do travel there.... Albania is where my grandma lives (and where I am originally from) and I try to visit every summer. Then I go to Greece because my mother lives there and Paris is where I lived for a year and I have friends there that I visit, and Liverpool is where my husbands family is from so we try to visit there every few months.....
Who did I attack about spelling? I am the last person that would attack anyone on spelling since I know how shitty at it I am. Are you talking about the photographer who let the robber walk? It was a joke... He was correcting what I wrote and I was joking about what he wrote cause we both made mistakes.... Honestly I think you have a thing for me
I don't know why you even brought this up? How is this relevant to the OP..... I honestly don't get it, it must be the English humour thing... Still haven't been able to figure that out. 
Photographer
Erlinda
Posts: 7286
London, England, United Kingdom
Fashion Photographer wrote:
Easy there, cowboy. Erlinda is being perfectly nice to you, and you ought to return the courtesy.
Your statement in relation to the law, by the way, is incorrect. Thanks Fashion.... I don't get why this guy feels the need to keep telling me about the law in London and keeps it at it with me... He must have the hots for me
I never said anything about shooting a 14 year old in a bikini, that's something he added in his head. Only underage model I shot that was in a bikini was a 17 year old. Every shoot I've done with underage models has been through an agency in either Toronto or Paris which I told this dude and he still throwing London Laws at me like I did something wrong.
I was talking about my experience
He needs to let it go!
Photographer
Efan Bruder
Posts: 640
Vermillion, South Dakota, US
DVSmith wrote:
Photographing nude minors is a felony. Provide a citation for this from either the United States Code or an individual state code. So far as I know, there's no state in the union where simple nudity of a minor is illegal to photograph.
I choose not to for my nude work, but at least I know the law in every state I work in.
Photographer
GER Photography
Posts: 8463
Imperial, California, US
Brooke Shields was running around naked in a nationally distributed movie when she was 12 or 13, no one went to jail.
Photographer
Andrew Thomas Evans
Posts: 24079
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
personally, i am way comfortable shooting any age female. An underage female doesn't cause me one minute's hesitation....age appropriate is the key.
if the OP is not comfortable around teenage girls, he should leave the shooting to someone that is.. +1
Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 12067
Grand Rapids, Michigan, US
DVSmith wrote:
Seriously, though:
Photographing minors is a headache.
Photographing nude minors is a felony.
If you want to work with her, while she wears clothes, have her legal guardian accompany her to every meeting and the photoshoot. In which case, once she's 18, she can withdraw from all of your releases and leave you with a bunch of useless photos.
If you want to work with her, while she is nude, wait until she's 18 years old. "Seriously, though:"
No it isn't.
http://www.artnet.com/artists/jock-sturges/
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
George Ruge wrote:
Brooke Shields was running around naked in a nationally distributed movie when she was 12 or 13, no one went to jail. I get tired of hearing this comment. Do you realize that, in part, because of wht Brooke Shield did, we now have 18 USC 2256 (and subsequently 18 USC 2257)? She is one of hte major reasons that they changed the law.
Have you looked at the DVD of "Pretty Baby" -vs- the original VHS version? If you look carefully, you wil see that they re-edited the film so that all of the full frontal nudity, and even a number of butt shots have been removed. It is much tamer. The producers were afraid that the original version would be illegal under current law.
Photographer
Fashion Photographer
Posts: 14388
London, England, United Kingdom
Rollo David Snook wrote:
If she wants it removed, then fair enough and fair enough I'm not a mod.
Which statement and which part is incorrect? I've got the wrong end of the stick by assuming "London" meant native, so apologies. I've made my point, but it would be a flag for me if my neighbour's 14 year old daughter was shooting with a 20 something photographer. Since agencies don't do it, I'm confused how I could be wrong. I could be confused because I did photography prior to 2003 and also have worked for Brent Council on various "young talent" related projects. As a matter of law:
The is no obligation upon a photographer to ensure that any parent of a child is present in a photography session.
There is an obligation upon a photographer not to take indecent photographs of children. That means that out of the entire shoot, of say, 1000 images, not a single one of those images should be indecent.
The presence of a parent at the shoot will not convert an indecent image into a decent image.
Photographer
Fashion Photographer
Posts: 14388
London, England, United Kingdom
And the law:
Protection of Children Act 1978, ss. 1 and 1A
1.—(1) Subject to section 1A and 1B, it is an offence for a person—
(a) to take, or permit to be taken or to make, any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or
(b) to distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs; or
(c) to have in his possession such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or
(d) to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, or intends to do so.
1A.—(1) This section applies where, in proceedings for an offence under section 1(1)(a) of taking or making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, or for an offence under section 1(1)(b) or (c) relating to an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, the defendant proves that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was of the child aged 16 or over, and that at the time of the offence charged the child and he—
(a) were married, or
(b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship.
(2) Subsections (5) and (6) also apply where, in proceedings for an offence under section 1(1)(b) or (c) relating to an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, the defendant proves that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was of the child aged 16 or over, and that at the time when he obtained it the child and he—
(a) were married, or
(b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship.
(3) This section applies whether the photograph or pseudo-photograph showed the child alone or with the defendant, but not if it showed any other person.
(4) In the case of an offence under section 1(1)(a), if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the child consented to the photograph or pseudo-photograph being taken or made, or as to whether the defendant reasonably believed that the child so consented, the defendant is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved that the child did not so consent and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the child so consented.
(5) In the case of an offence under section 1(1)(b), the defendant is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved that the showing or distributing was to a person other than the child.
(6) In the case of an offence under section 1(1)(c), if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue both—
(a) as to whether the child consented to the photograph or pseudo-photograph being in the defendant's possession, or as to whether the defendant reasonably believed that the child so consented, and
(b) as to whether the defendant had the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession with a view to its being distributed or shown to anyone other than the child,
the defendant is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved either that the child did not so consent and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the child so consented, or that the defendant had the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession with a view to its being distributed or shown to a person other than the child.
Criminal Justice Act 1988, ss. 160 and 160A
160.—(1) Subject to section 160A, it is an offence for a person to have any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child in his possession.
(2) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1) above, it shall be a defence for him to prove—
(a) that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession; or
(b) that he had not himself seen the photograph or pseudo-photograph and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent; or
(c) that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for an unreasonable time.
160A.—(1) This section applies where, in proceedings for an offence under section 160 relating to an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, the defendant proves that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was of the child aged 16 or over, and that at the time of the offence charged the child and he—
(a) were married or civil partners of each other, or
(b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship.
(2) This section also applies where, in proceedings for an offence under section 160 relating to an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, the defendant proves that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was of the child aged 16 or over, and that at the time when he obtained it the child and he—
(a) were married or civil partners of each other, or
(b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship.
(3) This section applies whether the photograph or pseudo-photograph showed the child alone or with the defendant, but not if it showed any other person.
(4) If sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the child consented to the photograph or pseudo-photograph being in the defendant's possession, or as to whether the defendant reasonably believed that the child so consented, the defendant is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved that the child did not so consent and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the child so consented.
Photographer
Photographe
Posts: 2351
Bristol, England, United Kingdom
Fashion Photographer wrote:
There is no obligation upon a photographer to ensure that any parent of a child is present in a photography session. I think you're talking about portraiture. I find it hard to believe it's legal to create a lone working situation with a child for commercial purposes. It crosses several other employment laws, whether paid or not.
Secondly, here's where I worm my way out of it and make the point that whether legal or not, lone working with children for fashion or beauty is very irresponsible.
It's not leading by example either.
Photographer
Fashion Photographer
Posts: 14388
London, England, United Kingdom
Rollo David Snook wrote:
I think you're talking about portraiture. I find it hard to believe it's legal to create a lone working situation with a child for commercial purposes. It crosses several other employment laws, whether paid or not.
Secondly, here's where I worm my way out of it and make the point that whether legal or not, lone working with children for fashion or beauty is very irresponsible.
It's not leading by example either. No, I can assure you that working alone with children, as a photographer, in a situation which does not involve childcare, is perfectly lawful, even in a commercial context.
You make an interesting point about responsibility. I think that the responsibility falls onto parents, rather than photographers. It's common practice in the fashion industry to work with children without their parents present. Any photographer who refuses to do so is swimming upstream.
In your bio, you list Storm and Models1 in your credits.
Unless they were sending you models from their main board, you would have been shooting children. You can't honestly tell me that their parents turned up to each and every shoot, can you?
Photographer
Photographe
Posts: 2351
Bristol, England, United Kingdom
If it is perfectly lawful, then I am wondering why none of the model agents ever do it.
And I'm also wondering how the term "appropriate adult" exists if what you say is true.
Storm and Models 1 are listed as clients, because they were... clients. I've tested with everyone, but those two were clients as well. Models 1 no children ever. In fact, besides a 16 year old from Select, I think everyone has been 17+. With Storm I scouted a 14 year old to them, was paid and then continued to mentor her and still do, she's in the next Bond movie. So they didn't "send" her to me, I "sent" her to them.
And yes, to be honest, I can not recall ever any incidence of myself or anyone else shooting anyone ever under 16 without a parent, booker or an MUA who was practically part of the agency themselves and not chosen by the photographer.
It would be a major red flag for an agent to hear about a photographer working alone with children. Children in fashion in the UK are pretty rare anyway, so it's not like the agent can't organize the appropriate adult.
Going back to your point about parents, I agree, a lot of parents hand the responsibility to the agents and forget about and don't really do their homework so to speak.
I've shot with non-agency 15 year olds etc, favours for friends etc, but always the parent came.
Where it is more grey, is with 17 year olds. I get the impression a lot of 17 year olds are shooting what is technically 18+ work. I can remember plenty of occasions a "gay" stylist was very physical with a young lady.
Photographer
DRImages
Posts: 1651
San Diego, California, US
Fashion Photographer wrote:
And the law:
Protection of Children Act 1978, ss. 1 and 1A
1.—(1) Subject to section 1A and 1B, it is an offence for a person—
(a) to take, or permit to be taken or to make, any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or
(b) to distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs; or
(c) to have in his possession such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or
(d) to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, or intends to do so.
1A.—(1) This section applies where, in proceedings for an offence under section 1(1)(a) of taking or making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, or for an offence under section 1(1)(b) or (c) relating to an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, the defendant proves that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was of the child aged 16 or over, and that at the time of the offence charged the child and he—
(a) were married, or
(b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship.
(2) Subsections (5) and (6) also apply where, in proceedings for an offence under section 1(1)(b) or (c) relating to an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, the defendant proves that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was of the child aged 16 or over, and that at the time when he obtained it the child and he—
(a) were married, or
(b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship.
(3) This section applies whether the photograph or pseudo-photograph showed the child alone or with the defendant, but not if it showed any other person.
(4) In the case of an offence under section 1(1)(a), if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the child consented to the photograph or pseudo-photograph being taken or made, or as to whether the defendant reasonably believed that the child so consented, the defendant is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved that the child did not so consent and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the child so consented.
(5) In the case of an offence under section 1(1)(b), the defendant is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved that the showing or distributing was to a person other than the child.
(6) In the case of an offence under section 1(1)(c), if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue both—
(a) as to whether the child consented to the photograph or pseudo-photograph being in the defendant's possession, or as to whether the defendant reasonably believed that the child so consented, and
(b) as to whether the defendant had the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession with a view to its being distributed or shown to anyone other than the child,
the defendant is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved either that the child did not so consent and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the child so consented, or that the defendant had the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession with a view to its being distributed or shown to a person other than the child.
Criminal Justice Act 1988, ss. 160 and 160A
160.—(1) Subject to section 160A, it is an offence for a person to have any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child in his possession.
(2) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1) above, it shall be a defence for him to prove—
(a) that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession; or
(b) that he had not himself seen the photograph or pseudo-photograph and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent; or
(c) that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for an unreasonable time.
160A.—(1) This section applies where, in proceedings for an offence under section 160 relating to an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, the defendant proves that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was of the child aged 16 or over, and that at the time of the offence charged the child and he—
(a) were married or civil partners of each other, or
(b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship.
(2) This section also applies where, in proceedings for an offence under section 160 relating to an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, the defendant proves that the photograph or pseudo-photograph was of the child aged 16 or over, and that at the time when he obtained it the child and he—
(a) were married or civil partners of each other, or
(b) lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship.
(3) This section applies whether the photograph or pseudo-photograph showed the child alone or with the defendant, but not if it showed any other person.
(4) If sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the child consented to the photograph or pseudo-photograph being in the defendant's possession, or as to whether the defendant reasonably believed that the child so consented, the defendant is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved that the child did not so consent and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the child so consented. Cliffs Notes please.
![https://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r141/fyurst/Colin_Powell.jpg]()
|
