Re: Photographing minors without parental consent

There is no law in New York State against taking photos of any person (children included) so long as the photo is taken on public property, on the photographer's own private property, or the photo is one that can be seen with clear sight from public view onto private property (no surveillance).

What one cannot do is take photos of a person without their consent on the photo subject's own private property (absent a warrant and judicial oversight), use any picture of another person for commercial purposes with out their, or in the case of a minor their parent or legal custodian's consent (maybe this is what you're thinking about) or take any photograph that encompasses child pornography at any location, at any time, irregardless of consent.

What you describe, without further information, seems legal.

Should you like to discuss this or any other legal matter, you can call my office to schedule an appointment for a consultation or in the alternative, I can be reached for on-phone low-cost legal consultation at 1-800-275-5336 x0233699.
Stephen Loeb
Law Office of Stephen R. Loeb
75 Maiden Lane, Suite 339
New York, NY 10038

Re: Photographing minors without parental consent

There is no law in New York State against taking photos of any person (children included) so long as the photo is taken on public property, on the photographer's own private property, or the photo is one that can be seen with clear sight from public view onto private property (no surveillance).

What one cannot do is take photos of a person without their consent on the photo subject's own private property (absent a warrant and judicial oversight), use any picture of another person for commercial purposes with out their, or in the case of a minor their parent or legal custodian's consent (maybe this is what you're thinking about) or take any photograph that encompasses child pornography at any location, at any time, irregardless of consent.

What you describe, without further information, seems legal.

Should you like to discuss this or any other legal matter, you can call my office to schedule an appointment for a consultation or in the alternative, I can be reached for on-phone low-cost legal consultation at 1-800-275-5336 x0233699.
Stephen Loeb
Law Office of Stephen R. Loeb
75 Maiden Lane, Suite 339
New York, NY 10038

Paindancer Productions wrote:
2257 laws are at a federal level, and would supersede any state laws.  They are written, by intent, to be so broad and unspecific, they can apply to nearly any situation if the prosecutor deemed it.  Unless your only publication is art galleries, of course.

huh?

Farenell Photography wrote:
Opinion:

This entire thread based on an opinion.

Shooting a person is not illegal or immoral regardless of the age. What matters is the context, what the pictures are going to be used for, & how they are meant to be presented.

It is not illegal for Photographer X to photograph a minor in the nude while bathing in the cooking kettle (yes, we're talking about youngin's) or w/ her naked mom. While Photographer Y could seriously get into trouble in shooting the same minor if their poses are considered sexualized or not. Its a completely grey area.

Also business practices are a personal preference of each individual Photographer A could easily have no problem shooting senior portrait style pictures of a minor. Yet Photographer B would not want to touch that same kind of content w/ a 10 foot pole for fear of "something happening". Its completely subjective.

This thread is also flawed on a number of levels. What many people cite as the illegal statute(s) in regards to photographing minors, doesn't really apply to 90% of the content here on MM. Just look at the how hypersensitive people are over 2257.

Understood. OP edited. I didn't want to turn this into a discussion on nudes, porn, 2257, etc. Just simply photographing children. In the other thread, if you read it, there were a few who insisted that a photographer can not photograph children in a public setting without parental permission. I'm merely trying to clear this up since it seems to be an area where there is much confusion.

Farenell Photography wrote:
Opinion:
This thread is also flawed on a number of levels. What many people cite as the illegal statute(s) in regards to photographing minors, doesn't really apply to 90% of the content here on MM. Just look at the how hypersensitive people are over 2257.

No, its not hypersensitivity.  Its an issue with a ongoing legal battle regarding a very broadly written legislation which is very open to interpretation.

VanityForce Imaging LLC wrote:
Opinion/Personal Business Practice:

We always have a parent or legal guardian present when we shoot minors, even senior pictures, and a release/permission form is always required from the parents or legal guardians before hand.  No exceptions, no complications, no problems for us!

Mike

Sounds perfect, this is my policy as well.  One caveat is that a minor can disaffirm most contracts previously entered into, the moment s/he becomes of legal age (this is my understanding as a person without legal background, please check link below)

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/a … tract.html

Numael Hernandez wrote:
Sounds perfect, this is my policy as well.  One caveat is that a minor can disaffirm most contracts previously entered into, the moment s/he becomes of legal age (this is my understanding as a person without legal background, please check link below)

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/a … tract.html

LEGAL OPINION
This is true to an extent. However, the person in question who rescinds the contract is also responsible for making the other party whole.

Numael Hernandez wrote:
Sounds perfect, this is my policy as well.  One caveat is that a minor can disaffirm most contracts previously entered into, the moment s/he becomes of legal age (this is my understanding as a person without legal background, please check link below)

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/a … tract.html

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
LEGAL OPINION
This is true to an extent. However, the person in question who rescinds the contract is also responsible for making the other party whole.

If the minor backs out, it is as though there had never been a contract.  You are responsible for knowing that you are dealing with a minor, and if things go bad, you need to accept the consequences like a man.

Guss W wrote:

Numael Hernandez wrote:
Sounds perfect, this is my policy as well.  One caveat is that a minor can disaffirm most contracts previously entered into, the moment s/he becomes of legal age (this is my understanding as a person without legal background, please check link below)

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/a … tract.html

If the minor backs out, it is as though there had never been a contract.  You are responsible for knowing that you are dealing with a minor, and if things go bad, you need to accept the consequences like a man.

Not true. The rescinding party must make the other party whole. But this is getting off topic to this discussion. Start another thread and we can discuss contract law there.

Broken Star Photography wrote:
Opinion:

I refuse to shoot with minors.

Thats just, me though

Not just you!

I won't work with minors unless I have signed permission from a parent/legal guardian and they MUST be present. Plus I have my wife present at all time regardless.

We, unfortunately, live in a litigous society where even the smallest incident can easily escalate into a major problem.

FKVPhotoGraphics wrote:

Not just you!

I won't work with minors unless I have signed permission from a parent/legal guardian and they MUST be present. Plus I have my wife present at all time regardless.

We, unfortunately, live in a litigous society where even the smallest incident can easily escalate into a major problem.

Our thoughts exactly...without question!

M

Fotographia Fantastique wrote:
Opinion

In the USA, in some cases minor subjects in public places or at newsworthy events should be covered by freedom of speech/press.

Do you have any thoughts as to when it would not be OK to shoot minors in public places? Both morally/socially and legally.

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
Do you have any thoughts as to when it would not be OK to shoot minors in public places? Both morally/socially and legally.

Opinion
That is one of those lines that (assuming it is legal) I go by feel or gut instinct.
I generally do not shoot with minors, but as a news camera operator I have been in situations where not shooting minors as part of a news story was impossible - and releases not required and/or too impractical and deemed by production to be worth the risk.

Generally I do think there are times when I feel - for me at least - it would not be O.K. to shoot minors in a public place - but articulating that is not something easy to do - I am better at pictures than words.

I certainly wouldn't have a problem shooting Cosplayers showing off in the halls of ComiCon (the example mentioned above). A child that had experienced a devastating tragedy and did not want to be photographed I would have a much harder time justifying.

Paindancer Productions wrote:
No, its not hypersensitivity.  Its an issue with a ongoing legal battle regarding a very broadly written legislation which is very open to interpretation.

Which you just prove my point.

One side will argue that it was written & designed to target the porno industry & markets that cater to the child exploitation pedophiles & will argue that it has no baring on the hobbyist/art market. Another side will argue that it completely does encompass those other two.

On top of that, some would argue that the federal statues conflict w/ state perrogatives (supported by multiple Supreme Court decisions) & places a heavy burden on the government in its attempt to restrict free speech. See Jacobellis v. Ohio, Stanley v Georgia, Smith v California, & most importantly, Miller v California.

Fotographia Fantastique wrote:

Opinion
That is one of those lines that (assuming it is legal) I go by feel or gut instinct.
I generally do not shoot with minors, but as a news camera operator I have been in situations where not shooting minors as part of a news story was impossible - and releases not required and/or too impractical and deemed by production to be worth the risk.

Generally I do think there are times when I feel - for me at least - it would not be O.K. to shoot minors in a public place - but articulating that is not something easy to do - I am better at pictures than words.

I certainly wouldn't have a problem shooting Cosplayers showing off in the halls of ComiCon (the example mentioned above). A child that had experienced a devastating tragedy and did not want to be photographed I would have a much harder time justifying.

OPINION
I agree, there are times when it should be OK both legally and socially, then there are times when even though it may be legal, it probably should not be done for moral/compassion type issues.

I will typically ask a parent if I can photograph their child but sometimes it isn't possible. A few cases come to mind. One when a kid caught a huge trout on the first day of fishing season. As he hauled it out of the water, I asked his dad if I could take a photo of it. He was more than willing and I gave him my email address and sent him a copy of the photo.

Another time I was shooting near some waterfalls and a boy and his girlfriend were sitting on the rocks. They asked if I could get some simple photos of them so I said sure. There were no parents around to ask, but I didn't think it would become an issue. Legally, I was OK to do so as they were in a state park that doesn't prohibit photography.

Paindancer Productions wrote:
2257 laws are at a federal level, and would supersede any state laws.  They are written, by intent, to be so broad and unspecific, they can apply to nearly any situation if the prosecutor deemed it.  Unless your only publication is art galleries, of course.

Sound like Totalinarism to me.

It's beyond infuriating to have the bad aspects of Liberalism forced upon us without getting the benefits such as increased tolerence of art and nudity.

Barry Kidd Photography wrote:
It's not a problem unless you have some state/local law that we don't know about.  Boyfriends and girlfriends often go to portrait studios (chains lie "The Picture People", or Wal-Mart Studios." to have their photos done.  No one gives it a second thought.

Society will always deem a "brick and mortar" business to be more above reproach than a freelancer.

rp_photo wrote:

Society will always deem a "brick and mortar" business to be more above reproach than a freelancer.

Bingo!