Jake Garn wrote:
If nudity in front of a minor is illegal then nude beaches and locker rooms would ban all minors.

LOL true. And if it was illegal for minors (18) to see nudity or even sexuality, rated R movies would say "no one under x age allowed" but they don't.  I can legally take my daughter to the raunchiest R movie pefectly legal. 

Not to mention shes been on sets of nude shoots. Shes 14. I also allowed her to take a nude figure drawing class and they let her in so how is all that any different if she was the one holding the camera?

ei Total Productions wrote:
Let's get away from paranoia and look at the law realistically.

that's a nice dream you have...

not gonna happen here though.......

we love the paranoia....we should change the name to modelparanoia.com
would be more fitting...

Doug Swinskey wrote:
we love the paranoia....we should change the name to modelparanoia.com

Good one Doug

Dudley Watson wrote:
I didn't find an exact answer using the search function, but I was wondering if any models agreed to do some nude photos, only to discover, during the shoot or afterwords that the photographer was under the legal age limit?

If during the shoot, did you immediately stop, put your clothes back on, and continue or simply leave?

If after the shoot, what did you do?

Depends on context. There are no laws saying minors can't see nudity.

Dana LL wrote:
If the minor in question was a GWC, then people should have a problem with it. However, I assume that you did a shoot with this individual because they had an impressive portfolio - and therefore was a professional (or was close to one). As long as the neither the model or the photographer was sexually presenting themselves or doing any sexual actions, it shouldn't be illegal. Artistic nudes are one thing, porn in another. Either way, before doing a shoot as such I would contact a lawyer and ask - it is better to be safe than sorry.

Correction: BWC

Dudley Watson wrote:
I didn't find an exact answer using the search function, but I was wondering if any models agreed to do some nude photos, only to discover, during the shoot or afterwords that the photographer was under the legal age limit?

If during the shoot, did you immediately stop, put your clothes back on, and continue or simply leave?

If after the shoot, what did you do?

Dudley Watson wrote:
I didn't find an exact answer using the search function, but I was wondering if any models agreed to do some nude photos, only to discover, during the shoot or afterwords that the photographer was under the legal age limit?

If during the shoot, did you immediately stop, put your clothes back on, and continue or simply leave?

If after the shoot, what did you do?

zoomring photo wrote:
I suppose it could be made into some sort of contributing to the delinquency of a minor

I'm curious, do you even know the legal definition for the Offense "Contributing to the delinquency of a minor?"

ei Total Productions wrote:

I'm curious, do you even know the legal definition for the Offense "Contributing to the delinquency of a minor?"

Obviously not.

CGI Images wrote:

Obviously not.

My thoughts exactly.

LuckyShots wrote:
I was taking figure drawing classes at 16... with a signed parent permission slip anyway.

I was drawing nude models both male and female in formal classes at the age of 14.

Isaiah Brink wrote:
The last time I checked, the photographer had to be of legal age as well, not just to enter into a legally binding contract, but to view that sort of work, which is at least 18 in most areas.

Why do you spread this bs?  It's one thing to be unsure and another to be mistaken.  But to choose to ignore an abundance of evidence all around you everyday really makes me question the true motives of people that spew such crap fearmongering.

IF what you said were even remotely true then please explain to us why I can legally take my 10 yr old to any number of sexually graphic laced with nudity rated R movie??

CK2 Photography wrote:

I was drawing nude models both male and female in formal classes at the age of 14.

According to Mr Brink you were breaking the law and had to be 18 to see such things.

Dudley Watson wrote:
...

If after the shoot, what did you do?

file a petition to change the stupid law in this country.............. lol

i'm joking, but seriously - teenagers are sexually developed AND (often) active way earlier than "the law" lets them.... imagine everyone was following that law and haven't seen a naked body in the first 5 years while their hormones have been making them go crazy.... who votes for this crap anyway??.......

zoomring photo wrote:
Bottom line is any mixing of minors and nudity is fraught with too many dangers to be worth it, at least in USA.

I'll get a good laugh out of that when me and my kid are lounging by the pool at the nudist camp this weekend.

And then I'll mention to everyone in every "all ages" locker room I visit. Or open public bathroom for that matter.   

And then I'll mention it next time I'm backstage at a play or fashion show where lots of naked people, adults and kids are standing around together. 

Oh, then I should go ahead and mention it at every school where they shower after PE and the coaches are often REQUIRED to monitor the "nude" kids.

Feral Oneiric wrote:
Well, I've never shot with anyone young enough for it to even be a question... but if I did, that would be effed up!

I'd tell his parents!

How quick people are to assume a minor photographer would be a perverted young boy!
I've had this dilemma already...  about a week ago. 
SHE and I could not find anything conclusively against it so we planned to go ahead with the shoot.  Unfortunately I think I might have been flaked out on... 
I'm sad.  This girl had talent than most "photographers" in my area could ever hope to.

CGI Images wrote:
36 is right though there will be slight variances jurisdiction by jurisdiction. However typically most "indecent exposure" laws have much more to do with where the exposure takes place than the how or to whom.

And FYI 36.  I've taken my daughter to nudist camps in Arkansas, never had any problems or heard of any raids.  One of them even had a miss nude teen pagent.

I LIKE YOU!!

- Phil H - wrote:

I don't know, if the underage photographer had solicited/hired the model without disclosing their age, I should imagine that it opens a real can of legal worms.
There are without doubt a lot of underage kids out there that look over 18 and so there would be little reason for the model to think they were in fact underage.

I would also imagine that models are rarely in the position where they have thought or needed to verify the age of the photographer that she is modeling for.

Doesn't work if the underage models solicits the photographer who is over 18 and lies. So why would the reverse be true?

Katalya SS wrote:

I LIKE YOU!!

I like you too.

jhammers wrote:
Disclaimer:
My understanding, based on Oregon laws. Since it is an "understanding" it may not be correct; since it is based on Oregon laws, it may not apply to other states.

This is a well intentioned post, but I am quite about several things ...

jhammers wrote:
Based on that, then a minor CAN photograph a nude model of any age, SO LONG AS the photographer approached the model. If the model receives ANYTHING from the shoot - money, images, etc - then it would fall under solicitation.

Explain to me why every model on MM whose asked to do a nude job hasn't been arrested?  Unless the model is asking for money to have sex with the photographer, I am trying to understand how you make the leap to soliciting.

jhammers wrote:
However, another poster touched on another issue. It is illegal in the USA for someone under 18 years of age to enter into a legally binding contract. If you are under a contract with a minor, it is NOT binding and you have no legal route to take if the minor does not follow the contract.

Can you any statute in any state where it says that it is illegal for a minor to enter into a contract?  People don't seem to understand that there is a big difference between a minor having a right, in some situations, to rescind an agreement and it being illegal for them to enter into a contract.

When a minor goes into a store and orders a bicycle, that is a contract.  It may be that he can change his mind before he picks up the bicycle, but once he takes delivery, he can't wreck it and then rescind the contract. 

Minors enter into contracts all the time.  The problem with these discussions is that they always banter around claims about the law being this or the law being that.   I am not a lawyer so I am not going to tell you what the law says, but I will tell you that you are suggesting things that aren't true.

That having been said, I do commend you for being rational in your comments and I am impressed that there is no fear mongering.

Explain to me why every model on MM whose asked to do a nude job hasn't been arrested?  Unless the model is asking for money to have sex with the photographer, I am trying to understand how you make the leap to soliciting.

I will clarify.

I basically combined a bunch of statutes. First is about public nudity - not nudity in general. In Oregon, if you are outside and naked, you cannot ask for money, etc.

Where that is different from your example is that the arrangement is made BEFORE the nudity, such as a written agreement through this site, or verbal before the shoot and relase after the shoot.

The second part comes into play because when dealing with MINORS, the laws are stricter. If an adult asks a minor for any compensation of an adult nature - and they list nudity specifically - then it's solicitation, when it happens in "public."

So, adding those togather, if the minor approaches the adult for an outdoor nude shoot, it's fine. But the adult cannot request compensation.

While "solicitation" generally is throught of in reference to prostitution, that is not how the Oregon laws are written and defined. Solicitation is defined as any illegal or immoral act - offering a 17 year old a beer falls under solicitation, by statute definition. (Assumming that the 17 year old is not your child, mind you.)

Can you any statute in any state where it says that it is illegal for a minor to enter into a contract?  People don't seem to understand that there is a big difference between a minor having a right, in some situations, to rescind an agreement and it being illegal for them to enter into a contract.

http://law.freeadvice.com/general_pract … _valid.htm

My 15-year old son, who looks older, just signed a contract to purchase a computer. Is the contract valid?

No, the contract is not valid. As your son is a minor (under age of 18), he is not old enough to enter into a legally binding contract without parental consent except for "necessities" . The computer is not a necessity. The store will have to refund the payment he made, regardless of their return policy, when he returns the computer.

It's also implied in a great many federal laws. For one example, Title 12 of Banks and Banking, Part 626 - Non-discrimination state, "c) Prohibited practices under this section include, but are not limited to, discrimination in fixing the amount, interest rate, duration, or other terms or conditions of any loan or a financial service involving a credit transaction or in the purchase of loans and securities on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status (having one or more children under the age of 18), marital status, age (provided the applicant has the capacity to enter into a binding contract), or national origin."

The "providing the applicant has the capacity" in reference to age is just one of the times that the Federal Laws echo the lower court's decision that until a person reaches 18 years of age, they cannot enter a binding contract UNLESS there is a need.


Just do a search using "Age of Majority" and "contracts" and you will find more examples.

And if you are REALLY curious, this site has compiled a list of what age is required to do different things, listed both by Federal rules, then by State rules:

http://firstclinical.com/journal/2008/0 … nt_Age.pdf

Hope that clarifies things.

le provocateur wrote:
come on people, unless the little shooter is bopping the model, there is no issue.

If a 16 year old goes to a nude beach are the police going to come and arrest all of the nudists for indecent exposure in front of a minor?

Nude beaches consist of a pre-determined area and that area is posted as 18+. The nudists have a legal right to be there so the minor is the one in violation and would be removed.

I'd be willing to bet the minor wouldn't be escorted off a nude shoot with a hand slap. The adult would be held responsible whether knowingly engaging in the shoot with a minor or not. I doubt an officer would see it as a case of miscommunication. They'd see it as a PR bonanza.

The nude model would probably be hauled off and crucified in the media for aiding in the delinquency of a minor and a host of other charges that would paint her to be some deviant.

Cybersport wrote:
There seems to be a lot of legal advice being thrown around by people who are not members of the bar.

Remember, even if you exonerated in court, you still have to bear the cost of defending yourself....

I would never shoot with a model 18 under any circumstances.

I am not giving any advice at all.  My advice is for people not to give advice unless they are attorneys.  That is the entire point.

BTW, this thread isn't about shooting an underage model.  It is about the photographer being under eighteen, not the model.

CGI Images wrote:
Legal age for what exactly?

Lol well that's exactly the point isn't it...there is no legal age limit for looking at a naked person.

jhammers wrote:

I will clarify.

I won't bother to quote the whole thing

I basically combined a bunch of statutes. First is about public nudity - not nudity in general. In Oregon, if you are outside and naked, you cannot ask for money, etc.

Hope that clarifies things.

You have clarified things.  What you are showing is that your post is well intentioned, but you are really making very bad conclusions and making statements which are simply incorrect.

You have lumped together a lot of things in your first example, but you are missing something.  It isn't necessarily illegal for a model to pose for a photographer under the age of eighteen.  If it were, a minor couldn't take a photo of his twenty-one year old sister on the beach or a minor couldn't attend a figure drawing class at the local university.

You are correct, there are some circumstances where there could be an issue of solicitation or other inappropriate conduct.  The problem though is that merely offering to model doesn't necessarily cross the line.  With every crime there are specific elements that have to be met.  One of the elements is that the model is going to have to be soliciting to do something illegal.  Your conclusions are wrong because you haven't researched the elements of the crime and then created a hypothetical which demonstrates that all the elements have been met.  In legal terms, it is an "incomplete hypothetical."  So it is possible, in some circumstances you might be correct, but your conclusion is way over-broad.

Your conclusion about minors and contracts are way off base as well.  We all know and agree that most contracts entered into by a minor are rescindible by the minor (but not the adult party).  Right off the bat there is an immediate thing you have to realize.  An adult can sign a model release and give it to the minor.  When there is a contract entered into with a minor, the contract will generally be enforceable against the adult party, even the the minor can rescind.  Put another way, if the minor doesn't rescind, you are going to be obligated to uphold your end of the bargain.

Where you are entirely missing this though is that a contract with a minor isn't invalid, it is rescindible.  You need to read your own examples and understand them.  What that means is that the minor can change his mind.  If he buys a bicycle, he can return it, within a reasonable period, and you have to give him his money back.  What if he wrecks the bicycle first?

That is the problem.  Under the rules of rescission, in order to rescind the contract, you must make the other party whole.  For the child to get his refund, he has to return the bicycle.  He can't rescind the contract but still keep the merchandise.  If he wrecks the bicycle, he won't be able to give it back, or at a minimum, he will have to pay the cost of the repair.

When you apply this to modeling, the minor has received the service.  He might, for example, be able to rescind the license granted to the model to use the images he has delivered to her.  If he does that, in a TF* arrangement though, he is going to have to make her whole.

This is my point, you are making very specific generalizations under the law by simply reading websites that give you some advice.  The advice on the site you referenced is good advice.  The advice is to never enter into a contract with a minor because it may well be rescindible.  That is true.  It may well be a bad idea for a model to pose for a minor for a variety of reasons.  What you have done those is to state that it is "illegal" to enter into a contract with a minor.  There is not state anywhere in the country where you will be charged with a crime for entering into a contract with a minor.  Selling a minor a pack of gum at Kmart is entering into a contract. 

That is the danger of all of these conversations.  I know your intentions are good, but you need to leave the law to attorneys.  You will notice that I have given no advice in this thread other than pointing out that those who are making legal statements are missing all kinds of critical issues that may come into play.

I am not a lawyer.  It happens that my brother is an attorney and a law professor.  I have studied to take the bar in California (although, much to my brother's disappointment, I chose not to do).  I shared an office with my brother for several years and have written dozens of briefs helping him out and have Sheppardized more statutes than I care to admit.

The bottom line is that the law is for more complex that you are making it out to be and your conclusions, although laudable, are very incomplete.  Again, it is not a flame, your generalizations are just wrong.  If we are going to talk about the law, let's have lawyers explain things to us, not lay people.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
Nude beaches consist of a pre-determined area and that area is posted as 18+. The nudists have a legal right to be there so the minor is the one in violation and would be removed.

I'd be willing to bet the minor wouldn't be escorted off a nude shoot with a hand slap. The adult would be held responsible whether knowingly engaging in the shoot with a minor or not. I doubt an officer would see it as a case of miscommunication. They'd see it as a PR bonanza.

The nude model would probably be hauled off and crucified in the media for aiding in the delinquency of a minor and a host of other charges that would paint her to be some deviant.

Oh my gosh.  Let's clarify something.  We are not talking about a 16 year old photographer shooting a 16 year old model.  We are talking about a 16 year old photographer shooting a 19 year old model.  There is no child pornography.

There are obviously things that a minor would shoot which would be illegal.  There are going to be things that are not illegal.  The bigger danger will be to the model than to the photographer.

The problem is, without a lot more facts, such as what exactly is being shot, where is it being shot, what is the age of the photographer, what is the age of the model, etc.?  For a crime to be committed, all the elements of the crime will have to be in play.

I have been to nude beaches and naturist colonies.  There are minors all over the place.  No police officers come and escort them off.  I have never seen a sign which shows a minimum age to go onto the beach.

Enough of the hysteria.  If this thread is going to be meaningful, wouldn't it be better to talk about specific facts, states and situations to know what the degree of risk is?  These generalizations just don't fly and so much of what is being said is simply wrong.

Isaiah Brink wrote:
The last time I checked, the photographer had to be of legal age as well, not just to enter into a legally binding contract, but to view that sort of work, which is at least 18 in most areas.

Art museums welcome minors to view nude paintings which are depictions of real nude models. Many of these paintings are just as realistic and often very graphic in their depiction of genitalia. Art galleries display nude photos and also welcome minors to view the photography. Your comment on it being illegal to view "that sort of work" is ridiculous. Do you think there is a difference if nudity is viewed by a minor firsthand rather than framed on a wall?

AshleyV1989 wrote:
i think the biggest argument that is being thrown back and forth here is the idea of "minors" being allowed into art classes where they draw nude models. However, as stated multiple times, they did have parental permission. Same thing with taking a kid to a rated R movie. A kid would get ID'd if they were not with a parent.

BUT.... why then is the age to get into rated R movies 17 instead of 18??

Everyone can have their own opinions on this, but as far as actual LAW goes, I think this might be one of those grey areas, a loophole maybe? Heaven knows our laws are full of them!

Just my two cents, I know I didn't actually answer any question here. 

No, you are absolutely right.  To give an answer you need to know all the circumstances and facts.  In some situations there could be some culpability for the model and in other situations there will not.

The problem here is not that there are circumstances where it would be illegal for a model to pose for a minor, it is that people are over generalizing.  The law is always more complex than that.