Photographer
W A L L E R
Posts: 862
Columbus, Ohio, US
I photographed two minor (one 16 one 18) models. Shots here in my portfolio. The mother of the 16 year old was there. The mother of the 17 year old did not show up. It was a great shoot in a state park. Got some great images. No problems with the parents. I find that the younger models are more likely to show up on time and not flake on you.
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
JWB wrote:
What if they did not tell mom and dad where they were going or who they were going to be with. Dad is a preacher or a red neck or something. It is his only daughter. They don't answer their cell phones and get gets late. I still say avoid it. We heard you.
What if someone decided that people posting online were targets, and decided to hunt them down and shoot them? What if people aimed for you when you stepped outside your house? What if, what if, what if.
Reasonable precautions are just that: reasonable. Unreasonable paranoia is just that as well: unreasonable.
JWB wrote:
To find the truth there must be an opposing thought and the truth will lay in the middle. Not at all. One can start from a ridiculous starting point against a neutral "opposing thought", and end up with the 'middle' way out in wacko-mindset land.
Photographer
Captured by Bree
Posts: 282
Sacramento, California, US
I wont shoot minor models without a signed model release period. Ive shot a few HS senior portraits and HAVE to have a release and will not shoot unless a parent signs it IN FRONT OF ME. They dont have to stay for the shoot. I dont see a problem with shooting minors (its my bread and butter) but never without a signed contract.
Photographer
Doug Lester
Posts: 10591
Atlanta, Georgia, US
This paranoia about photographing minors exists only on the internet forums. In the realworld of brick and mortar photography, minors are photographed every day of the week.
Back before I retired I photographed countless minors with never even the hint of a problem. Get a release signed by the parents, both if poissible.
I no longer photograph them simply because I'm retired and no longer shoot many things. Require a parent of some other close adult relative to be present during the shoot. Keep the shots age appropriate and enjoy the shoot!
Photographer
Nicely Disturbed
Posts: 1765
New York, New York, US
Kevin Connery wrote:
Threads about Minor Models
General Industry > Question on shooting minors...
General Industry > 17 = trouble?? WTF!!
General Industry > Photographing minors without a consent release (4+ pages)
General Industry > shooting underage models (NON-nude, not implied)
General Industry > shooting a minor????
General Industry > So this underage girl wants a shoot.. (3+ pages)
General Industry > Photographing minors
General Industry > OH no. Minor's parents left!
General Industry > Under Age Models (Why are they even on MM?)
General Industry > Shooting Models Under 18....
Model Matters > Underage Models (3+ pages)
Model Matters > working with minors
Model Matters > Underage models for implied shoots?!
Model Colloquy > Legalities, Being a Minor, and General Ignorance
Photography Talk > Shooting an Underage model - Rules and Regulation (Casual/Old Navy)
Photography Talk > Ever feel baited by a minor?
Photography Talk > Minor situation...
Photography Talk > Legal issues while working with minors?
Photography Talk > Shooting with minors (Laws)
Photography Talk > Minors and other legal issues. Criminal vs. Civil
Photography Talk > underage models
Photography Talk > Underage models? Never again.. (6+ pages)
Photography Talk > One Minor Model Thread To Rule Them All...
Photography Talk > Models underage... (who works with them?)
Photography Talk > 17 Year old Models (Headshots, portraits, etc.)
Photography Talk > Do you limit yourself from working with minors? (Including âsenior photographyâ)
Photography Talk > Underage models in Europe
Photography Talk > Models age question (Cars and bikinis)
State Laws regarding Child Pornography or Nudity (USA)
State Child Pornography Statutes (PDF document)
Federal Laws regarding Child Pornography (USA)
All are part of Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 110 (Index)
Note that nudity is not automatically included, and that clothed images can be included.
2251. Sexual exploitation of children
§ 2252. Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors
§ 2252A. Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography
§ 2256. Definitions for chapter
§ 2257. Record keeping requirements
Release Issues for Minors
Photography Talk > Of Minors and Releases
The short answer is:
Most kinds of photography of minors are lawful--some clothed, and some unclothed. In the second category, it may be legal, but it's almost certainly unwise.
Some kinds of photography of minors are unlawful--some clothed, and some unclothed. This whole area is both unlawful and unwise. nicely put 
+1
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
Captured by Bree wrote:
I wont shoot minor models without a signed model release period. Ive shot a few HS senior portraits and HAVE to have a release and will not shoot unless a parent signs it IN FRONT OF ME. They dont have to stay for the shoot. I dont see a problem with shooting minors (its my bread and butter) but never without a signed contract. Why would you get a release from a "senior portrait" client? Aren't they hiring you?
Photographer
KA Style
Posts: 1583
Syracuse, New York, US
I personally will not shoot minors without parent present ever!!
Photographer
Captured by Bree
Posts: 282
Sacramento, California, US
ei Total Productions wrote:
Why would you get a release from a "senior portrait" client? Aren't they hiring you? Yes. They are hiring me. I have to have the contract signed my the parent since they will be doing the purchasing and I have a minimum order, etc. I also have a release attached so I can post them on my website/flickr/FB pages (covering ALL bases here!). They can choose not to sign the release but they cannot choose not to sign the contract and a minor cannot legally sign a contract.
Photographer
Captured by Bree
Posts: 282
Sacramento, California, US
I also shoot minors for portfolio building... I would need a release then too and I have a seperate contract for that. Typically these sessions are with children. Im not understanding why one would choose to shoot for free without using it for their portfolio but to each their own.
Photographer
Blakberi Photography
Posts: 1647
Quebec, Quebec, Canada
I shot a minor in public a couple of weekends ago. Parents did not accompany her, it was a TF, no agreement was signed, she brought a friend.
I have plenty of nudes in my portfolio
All was well.
Relax, the worst bit is people who froth at the mouth that something MIGHT go wrong.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
Kevin Connery wrote:
Federal Laws regarding Child Pornography (USA)
All are part of Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 110 (Index)
Note that nudity is not automatically included, and that clothed images can be included. I have no idea why "chld pornography" always comes up when someone wants to shoot, fully clothed, fully age-appropriate images of a teen model. I don't think that there was any suggestion that the OP would be doing anything that would even come close to being an illegal or suspect image.
What concerns me though is the comment about clothed images can be included. There needs to be a clear understanding here so that there is no fear mongering.
The generally accepted criteria for this is something called the "Dost Test." There is a good Wikipedia article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dost_test. To my knowledge, there has never been a case where an image has been found to be a "lascivious display of the genitals," using the Dost test, where there has been no actual nudity.
An image can't be illegal absent real or simulated sex or a lascivious display of the genitals (some kinds of explicit fetish images may qualify). For a non-nude image to qualify, there either has to be clothed sex or a graphic display of the genitals, but with something like panties on.
Howeverr, even to that extent, the issue is controversial. One court did find that you could have a "lascivious display" even if the genitals, themself, were not discernible. In that particular case, although the model had panties on, the image was quite explicit.
The case went to the Supreme Court, that both reversed the decision, and rendered some very skeptical comments. It had a tough time with the idea that you could have a "lascivious display" in a situation where the genitals were not discernible. It remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
The court again came to the same conclusion and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court again. This time SCOTUS neither sustained nor reversed the decision, they declined to hear it. It remains "unsettled law" and a controversial, rarely cited decision. The Dost test has become the generally accepted standard.
My point is this, while it may be possible to have a lascivious display of the gentials with panties on, while it is possible to have real or simulated sex without being nude, and thus create an unlawful image, there is nothing to suggest that is the intent of the OP. You ahve to go a long, long way, to even come close to pushing the law with a clothed image. Taking a bikini shot on the beach isn't going to get you there.
Let's talk in realistic terms. Threads on MM are just discussions by people here, who are generally over-reacting from a legal standpoint. Let's not treat them as legal treatises.
Photographer
ontherocks
Posts: 23575
Salem, Oregon, US
if the parents aren't at the shoot i feel better at least having a release signed by them. that way if someone asks what we're doing i can pull out the paperwork and say it was ok with the parents. that said i have shot minors in the studio without parents or a release (they showed up by themselves and we just did an age-appropriate shoot).
Photographer
KA Style
Posts: 1583
Syracuse, New York, US
JWB wrote:
If you think these questions are to much you should hear what my wife would ask if our daughter was going to get pictures taken. Exactly. I am a female photographer so I have an advantage when it comes to this and I still want a parent present at the shoot for under 18. Everyone is sue happy!!
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
ei Total Productions wrote:
Why would you get a release from a "senior portrait" client? Aren't they hiring you? Captured by Bree wrote:
Yes. They are hiring me. I have to have the contract signed my the parent since they will be doing the purchasing and I have a minimum order, etc. I also have a release attached so I can post them on my website/flickr/FB pages (covering ALL bases here!). They can choose not to sign the release but they cannot choose not to sign the contract and a minor cannot legally sign a contract. Fair enough, but now you are saying something completely different. Seniors contract all the time to have their pictures taken without a parental signature, but there is a small amount of risk, in terms of preventing cancellation. The issues are far less than most perceive, since, if the minor rescinds, they still have to make you whole. But I do fully understand having a parent sign the shoot contract, if it makes you feel more confident.
What you said differently though is that the release is optional. With that caveat, I am in complete agreement with how you are doing things. When a client hires you, they are under no obligation to allow you to display their pictures online. It is their choice, so I thnk you are doing it right.
Photographer
Captured by Bree
Posts: 282
Sacramento, California, US
Better safe than sorry. The world is sue happy - as stupid as it is to me - I even have releases from friends/family. Last thing I need it to do a portfolio session and have them not like the photos and tell me to take them down - now, honestly, if someone really didn't want them up I would take them down but having the contract stating they can be used is good to have. I dont see why someone would NOT get a release/contract signed. You put time, money, equipment use, editing time, yadda yadda into that session and to not be able to use the images because someone backs out of their agreement (especially a minor who cannot MAKE this agreement) doesn't make sense to me. Takes 1 second to sign a piece of paper.
Photographer
Captured by Bree
Posts: 282
Sacramento, California, US
ei Total Productions wrote:
Fair enough, but now you are saying something completely different. Seniors contract all the time to have their pictures taken without a parental signature, but there is a small amount of risk, in terms of preventing cancellation. The issues are far less than most perceive, since, if the minor rescinds, they still have to make you whole. But I do fully understand having a parent sign the shoot contract, if it makes you feel more confident.
What you said differently though is that the release is optional. With that caveat, I am in complete agreement with how you are doing things. When a client hires you, they are under no obligation to allow you to display their pictures online. It is their choice, so I thnk you are doing it right. We were typing at the same time. Correct - the only time I REQUIRE a release is for a portfolio building session. Paid clients are not under any obligation to sign a release but are under an obligation to sign a contract.
I do, from time to time give incentives to sign it. For instance, I really really wanted newborn twins for my portfolio so I offered a waived session fee ($100) to the parents which they gladly took and signed the release... and ended up making a $1300 order. So it all worked out for me! I have the twins, they have the pics, I made a sale.
Photographer
Second Chance Imaging
Posts: 364
Houston, Texas, US
STAY away. no release... no shoot... not 18??? dont shoot... too many issue... end of story...
Model
Jessica-Elizabeth
Posts: 890
Bay Springs, Mississippi, US
As a minor model. For me, when a parent can not be present at the shoot for whatever reason, I schedule a phone call between the photographer and parent, then get the release signed in advance and include a copy of my parent's drivers license as well as occasionally mine.
Photographer
Lucas Chapman
Posts: 6129
Scottsdale, Arizona, US
JWB wrote:
I don't get it. 99 percent are saying go for it but take precautions. Why is it so important to shoot 16 year olds when he can't use their pictures in his portfolio. Gee isn't there any 18 year olds that model anywhere. I was wondering this myself. What IS the whole purpose of this, if you can't use the images???
Photographer
Blakberi Photography
Posts: 1647
Quebec, Quebec, Canada
Second Chance Imaging wrote:
STAY away. no release... no shoot... not 18??? dont shoot... too many issue... end of story... What issues?
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
Jessica-Elizabeth wrote:
As a minor model. For me, when a parent can not be present at the shoot for whatever reason, I schedule a phone call between the photographer and parent, then get the release signed in advance and include a copy of my parent's drivers license as well as occasionally mine. Don't take offense at this, but I am going to ask you a question; "At seventeen, do you know how to keep your clothes on?"
Of course you do and I would be happy to shoot with you. Seriously, you and I are on the same wavelength here Jessica.
Photographer
Tropical Photography
Posts: 35564
Sarasota, Florida, US
JWB wrote:
Maybe my last comment was off base. The facts are why risk getting into trouble when you do not have to. You live in a different world than most photographers on this site. You have a reputation that has been earned. We don't. I do not understand why someone would shoot someone with any benefit to himself.
Morally I do not think there is a thing wrong with it. It is just the fact that we have to deal with people who will sue you or have you arrested at the drop of a hat. You are right age has nothing to do with it. I was wrong to ask but I needed a frame of reference. Shoot he may be 15 year old and that would make a big difference. Yea, because lord knows a 15 year old wouldn't want them to do anything sexual. You are familiar with sexting, right? Minors have been getting tapped for distributing and in possession of child porn because of it.
To the OP, just photograph them but I would make certain to speak with the parents so as to be assured that they are aware of the shoot and where it will take place. Also, I would send them the release ahead of time and the girls bring it with them. That way you can avoid the he said she said in terms of what they will receive and how the images will be used.
Photographer
Light Writer
Posts: 18391
Phoenix, Arizona, US
What do I know?
So take this with a ton of salt.
The issue it seems to me is that in order to use modeling images commercially, you have to enter into an agreement with the model this amounts to a contract and in most jurisdictions minors cannot enter into contractual agreements. So you don't have a contract which gives you full control over the images, thus the salability of those images is impaired. In the worst case scenario, suppose that image gets published and earns you a ton of money, the publisher and you may be subject to all sorts of hassle about the value of those images. If the model entered into the agreement which says they have no right to more money that the fee paid for modeling, you are covered. If the contract is void, then the possibility of being sued is higher thus you may lose all the money from the images and have to pay a lawyer.
If the images have no commercial value in the sense mentioned, then there is no problem as others have suggested, so it seems to me that the key for having a contract is to protect the commercial value of the images.
Any lawyers want to chime in and correct me? what am I missing in this hypothetical?
Photographer
Tropical Photography
Posts: 35564
Sarasota, Florida, US
Niall Photo wrote:
What do I know?
So take this with a ton of salt.
The issue it seems to me is that in order to use modeling images commercially, you have to enter into an agreement with the model this amounts to a contract and in most jurisdictions minors cannot enter into contractual agreements. So you don't have a contract which gives you full control over the images, thus the salability of those images is impaired. In the worst case scenario, suppose that image gets published and earns you a ton of money, the publisher and you may be subject to all sorts of hassle about the value of those images. If the model entered into the agreement which says they have no right to more money that the fee paid for modeling, you are covered. If the contract is void, then the possibility of being sued is higher thus you may lose all the money from the images and have to pay a lawyer.
If the images have no commercial value in the sense mentioned, then there is no problem as others have suggested, so it seems to me that the key for having a contract is to protect the commercial value of the images.
Any lawyers want to chime in and correct me? what am I missing in this hypothetical? Not a lawyer, but I do believe you are correct. However, there could be differences from state to state. As I understand it, a release is not required as long as the images are not being used for profit. That said, some could argue that even portfolio/promotional usage could be deemed as profit since you are using them to garner business. Thus making you money..
Personally, I see the idea of profit as being outright selling the images.
Photographer
Calvin Wallace
Posts: 671
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
They won't be naked, its fine.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
Keith aka Wolfie wrote:
However, there could be differences from state to state. As I understand it, a release is not required as long as the images are not being used for profit. That said, some could argue that even portfolio/promotional usage could be deemed as profit since you are using them to garner business. Thus making you money.. Good observation. I am glad to see someone pick up on that, because it is often true.
Model
Jessica-Elizabeth
Posts: 890
Bay Springs, Mississippi, US
ei Total Productions wrote:
Don't take offense at this, but I am going to ask you a question; "At seventeen, do you know how to keep your clothes on?"
Of course you do and I would be happy to shoot with you. Seriously, you and I are on the same wavelength here Jessica. Thanks (:
Photographer
JWB2
Posts: 5965
Evansville, Indiana, US
Keith aka Wolfie wrote:
Yea, because lord knows a 15 year old wouldn't want them to do anything sexual. You are familiar with sexting, right? Minors have been getting tapped for distributing and in possession of child porn because of it.
To the OP, just photograph them but I would make certain to speak with the parents so as to be assured that they are aware of the shoot and where it will take place. Also, I would send them the release ahead of time and the girls bring it with them. That way you can avoid the he said she said in terms of what they will receive and how the images will be used. Hey can you do that? I will sue you for everything you own. That statement was tampered with. I did not put anything in bold. Just Kidding.
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45196
San Juan Bautista, California, US
Blakberi Photography wrote:
I shot a minor in public a couple of weekends ago. Parents did not accompany her, it was a TF, no agreement was signed, she brought a friend.
I have plenty of nudes in my portfolio
All was well.
Relax, the worst bit is people who froth at the mouth that something MIGHT go wrong. Like many others here, I have photographed children and teenagers. I've shot many 15 year olds for their zed cards or acting cards. In those cases where I'm being paid, there was no need for them to sign anything. It's quite common place, as it's a sales transaction. Depending on the circumstances, parents may or may not have been involved during the shoot.
In cases where I shot in trade or testing, the parents may or may not have been involved in the shoot. It's their choice. There are only a few projects where I've needed to hire a minor aged model, but if I am paying the minor aged model then I have a parent(s) sign a release. In nearly 30 years of shooting, I've never had any problems with photographing minors.
It was the OP mentioning taking them to the State Park that threw a red flag up for me. That is where you have to be careful about getting fined. The Golden Gate Park in particular! I have shot there and have a picture or two in my portfolio from there. So my advise of look like you are a tourist, move quickly, and don't carry a lot of equipment is still valid no matter the age of your models. The last time I was warned, it was $2,000 for shooting the Golden Gate without a license. Don't "look" like a pro!
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45196
San Juan Bautista, California, US
Wow! The fear mongering in this thread is mind blowing!  Photographing minors is about as controversial as "flakes and escorts!" For 20 years I never knew anyone had problems with such things until the Internet came along! 
Photographer
Random Shutter Clicks
Posts: 4114
PORTER CORNERS, New York, US
I've shot hundreds of "underage" teens. OMG! I'm still alive! I'm not in jail!
Teens are a cash cow. Bigger than babies - bigger than weddings.
And yes teens are used to model for teens.
Photographer
Tropical Photography
Posts: 35564
Sarasota, Florida, US
Patrick Walberg wrote:
Wow! The fear mongering in this thread is mind blowing! Photographing minors is about as controversial as "flakes and escorts!" For 20 years I never knew anyone had problems with such things until the Internet came along! It's like a reality show without any reality..
Photographer
2days Photos
Posts: 1270
Warrington, Pennsylvania, US
I only shoot minors with a parent or guardian present.
Photographer
Random Shutter Clicks
Posts: 4114
PORTER CORNERS, New York, US
Jim Gupta-Carlson wrote:
I've shot hundreds of "underage" teens. OMG! I'm still alive! I'm not in jail!
Teens are a cash cow. Bigger than babies - bigger than weddings.
And yes teens are used to model for teens. And most of the time their parents weren't even around during the shoot! OMG!
Really. There are under 18 model releases on the net ready for download. It's easy. No drama necessary.
Photographer
Tropical Photography
Posts: 35564
Sarasota, Florida, US
Jim Gupta-Carlson wrote:
And most of the time their parents weren't even around during the shoot! OMG!
Really. There are under 18 model releases on the net ready for download. It's easy. No drama necessary. Criminal!!!! (immense sarcasm)
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45196
San Juan Bautista, California, US
Keith aka Wolfie wrote:
It's like a reality show without any reality.. Keith, I feel so naive and uneducated! I never knew that models always flake, photographers went to prison for photographing minors, that photographers raped models, and models brought "escorts" along to rob and kill the photographers. I mean ... it's like I've missed out on all this excitement! When did all this happen? I never knew about any of it until I started reading the Mayhem forums!
Photographer
Tropical Photography
Posts: 35564
Sarasota, Florida, US
Patrick Walberg wrote:
Keith, I feel so naive and uneducated! I never knew that models always flake, photographers went to prison for photographing minors, that photographers raped models, and models brought "escorts" along to rob and kill the photographers. I mean ... it's like I've missed out on all this excitement! When did all this happen? I never knew about any of it until I started reading the Mayhem forums! I know!!! And to think I use to ask people in malls, work, clubs to pose for me that I thought had a good look. I never new all the dangers myself.. And given all the kids I've photographed, I'm surprised I'm not in jail!!! Thank god for the well informed forums of the Mayhem!!
It does baffle me the paranoia that exists... In the spirit of BuschCo and Homeland Security, CODE RED!!!!!! 
And if the OP is still around, I hope you do the shoot and even more, show us what your collaboration has produced!!
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Bruce Hart wrote:
if the parents aren't at the shoot i feel better at least having a release signed by them. that way if someone asks what we're doing i can pull out the paperwork and say it was ok with the parents. that said i have shot minors in the studio without parents or a release (they showed up by themselves and we just did an age-appropriate shoot). 80% of the "Minors" I've photographed in my career the parents were NOT present. Whether running all over town with seniors for portraits or on different locations for high school sports magazines with the athletes.
I was commissioned to shoot a high school cross country distance runner for the cover of a sports magazine, the shot was at night on a path in a forested park. Set the time for 10pm after the sun went down, when the "minor" showed up for the shoot she was alone, no parents in sight at all.
Big whoop, if I listened to half the paranoid bs about minors on MM I would have turned down a $1,000 job for 3hrs work.
Whatever, you have paying clients that are minors, send them to me, I'll let them hire me. I'll start turning down their money when the photo machine at the mall does.
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Patrick Walberg wrote:
Keith, I feel so naive and uneducated! I never knew that models always flake, photographers went to prison for photographing minors, that photographers raped models, and models brought "escorts" along to rob and kill the photographers. I mean ... it's like I've missed out on all this excitement! When did all this happen? I never knew about any of it until I started reading the Mayhem forums! Keith aka Wolfie wrote:
I know!!! And to think I use to ask people in malls, work, clubs to pose for me that I thought had a good look. I never new all the dangers myself.. And given all the kids I've photographed, I'm surprised I'm not in jail!!! Thank god for the well informed forums of the Mayhem!!
It does baffle me the paranoia that exists... In the spirit of BuschCo and Homeland Security, CODE RED!!!!!!
And if the OP is still around, I hope you do the shoot and even more, show us what your collaboration has produced!! Personally I think all the paranoia exists on MM because the vast majority of people here, be it models or photographers are hobbyists that really have never stepped foot in the actual photography business world. Their source of experience and information is the other equally un-knowledgeable hobbyists and internet experts.
When it comes to the whole "minor" thing, I also blame the media the last decade or so, "minors" and "predators" have become a very trendy thing on many levels so the definitions, laws and situations have been distorted beyond recognition to procure ratings.
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45196
San Juan Bautista, California, US
|
Photographing minors is about as controversial as "flakes and escorts!" For 20 years I never knew anyone had problems with such things until the Internet came along! 
