Fred Prose wrote:
OP, not quite sure what the question is here?  Can an underage photographer with with an (of age) model in an 18+ situation?

I think if I were that model I'd be very carefull.

I was contacted for a paying shoot by an underage photographer. She wants to do some swimsuit stuff. She is 17, and I am 19.

While I think that due to the fact that we are both girls, and there isn't nudity, no one would take issue. Wanted other opinions though.

This also, as one poster said, leads me to questions like, if it's a 16 year old model, and 17 year old photographer...Is it kosher? Or 18 and 16, since that is legal for sex in my state?

Kayla Savina wrote:
I was contacted for a paying shoot by an underage photographer. She wants to do some swimsuit stuff. She is 17, and I am 19.

If you are talking about swimsuits, I don't see how there would be a problem if it were a male or female photographer.  The impression I had was that you were considering doing nudes.

markpix wrote:
There are enough photographers AND models over 18 that it isn't worth the potential trouble - AT ALL.

Gotta love blanket ignorant statements.

*le sigh*

There's nothing wrong w/ shooting underage minors nor of one who is underage shooting nudework of an adult. Its called context.

Ever shoot an infant or child bathing in a kettle on the stove? I doubt there's a prude in America that'd consider that "troubleworthy". Ever shoot a behind the scenes fashion show? Sorry, no time for modesty. Boobs are flying everywhere in the mad rush to get changed.

It does get problematic where it was shot (pornographic statutes wildly over various parts of the country...conservative Cinncinatti is constantly battling over "free speech" vs "obscenity" whereas the same issues in NYC wouldn't raise an eyebrow).

Futhermore going back to context, it also gets problematic w/ how said images are viewed. Are they exploitive or no? That answer is going to be tricky because in a lot of areas what the DA's office decides to prosecute is often a political matter & what kind of name he can make for himself? Think along the Duke lacrosse players debacle.

A lot of times to, its going to depend on how much of a stink the offending parents are going to make out of it. Will the parents of a 17-year old male make a stink out of  him shooting his 19-year old girlfriend? Or even a 19-year old male photographer shooting his 17-year old girlfriend? The permutations could go on but you get the idea.

The best thing to do is to be aware of the mood of your community as well as checking w/ a lawyer, specifically because those "community standards" are so varied even w/n the same state.

Kayla Savina wrote:
I am assuming that the same rules regarding nudity, too much of the sexiness, etc, apply if the photographer is under 18 and the model is 18+. Is that correct?

Nope... different set of considerations entirely.

Luminos wrote:
A photographer of any age may shoot a person of any age nude, so long as there is no explicit sex involved, anywhere in the US (but some states have tried to outlaw it unsuccessfully).

If there is explicit sexual content, then the model must be over 18 (and records kept).  Whether the photographer has to be 18 or not will depend on the local and state laws regarding lewd conduct (or other such laws) before minors.  I suspect the laws regarding the sale or distribution of sexually explicit material to minors might also be streached to cover the situation.

And how many times is this subject going to be beaten to death?

Sorry. I didn't realize that it had been discussed before.

Please realize that not everyone has been modeling/photographing for the same length of time that you have.

It is an issue that came up in my life, and I was curious as to how it should be handled. This thread has helped me, as well as at least one other person who was curious about these sort of rules.

I understand that you may have seen this a hundred times before, but the search is a waste of energy. Starting a thread garnered enough replies, that now my questions are answered. Yours was not necessary.

Farenell Photography wrote:

markpix wrote:
Ever shoot an infant or child bathing in a kettle on the stove? I doubt there's a prude in America that'd consider that "troubleworthy".

Total bullshit.

I can't remember he name, (but in doing so I found a dozen similar stories,) of a known NAME Female photographer who took fine art photos of her children. The photos eventually got Gallery Representation, and as a result she was sued as a child pornographer.