S W I N S K E Y wrote:
keep it age appropriate and they'll be no issues...

Yup, no big taboo there.

Liteguy wrote:
Your right about him being too young to sign the release. A minor cannot enter into a contract without a parent or legal guardian present.

Without a parent present to countersign the release, its not a legal document.

I love when people generalize when they say that a model, under 18 can't sign a release.  There is a little bit of irony here.  The OP is in Florida which is a state with some interesting laws, and more importantly, some interesting court decisions.

If you are going to shoot with a minor in Florida, a little head's up.  Since I am not a lawyer, I am not going to give you advice other than this.  Do to a strangeness in Florida law, there are times, when you need to get the signature of the parent for the release to be binding.  There are also circumstances where the parent's signature will be invalid and ONLY the signature of the competent, minor model iss acceptable.  It is strange law which deals with consideration, employment and the rights of the parent to bind their minor child for non-contractual consent.  If you are serious about workign with a mior, you should talk to a Florida attorney to get an explanation as to whose signature, the parent or the underage model is required, and under what circumstnaces.

Anyhow, I am not commenting on the underwear, or whether it is appropriate, but it is interesting.  Florida is a state where you have to be careful.  Unlike most states, in Florida, sometimes you have to get the minor to sign, rather than the parent, or perhaps, both of them (meaning that a parental signature would at least show consent).

Jeffrey Blake Adams wrote:
Parent or LEGAL guardian must sign release and be present. Don't gamble your biz or freedom on "should be ok" do it right and no worries.

Oh, and no, I would suggest NO underwear shots, why risk any crazy accusations? Age appropriate is the only way to go.

I shoot anything legal, meaning whatever a client wants that's legal, -age appropriate for those involved.

Photography by Riddell wrote:
However regardless of the model release photographing a 16yo in underwear is a major grey area and just something to distance yourself from

Why ?   16 year olds wear underwear ( when they're not having sex ).

It is ONLY a major grey area if you let it be.

Jeffrey Blake Adams wrote:
Parent or LEGAL guardian must sign release and be present. Don't gamble your biz or freedom on "should be ok" do it right and no worries.

MUST be present??  Can you cite the law that requires this?  I've lived in Florida for 46 years and I'm not aware of any. You do realize that a good many senior photo sessions do not have a parent at the session, right? Are those companies in legal trouble?  I think not..

Photography by Riddell wrote:
In the UK as far as I know it is not an issue for a 16 yo to sign a model release, under 16, yes. Though I would be much more comfortable with them having an adult present and for an under 16 would not shoot without one.

However regardless of the model release photographing a 16yo in underwear is a major grey area and just something to distance yourself from

Hmmmm, so I'm guessing the likes of WalMart, Target, Sears, J.C. Penny, Kmart, etc are going to be in an assload of trouble for photographing minors in underwear.. And yet, they photograph REALLY young kids in underwear and swimsuits ALL the time...

SitronStudio wrote:
I was contacted by a 16 year old male interested in doing sports type photos. He also mentioned A&F type underwear shots. I told him he's too young to sign a release and would need a guardian to sign one. I'm not sure about doing this. Does a parent or guardian need to be present at the shoot? I've only shot underage once, and the girls parents were both present. He's got a good look and I think I could get some port worthy shots, but am concerned it may be more trouble that it's worth.

I'd say "PASS" on any underaged people.
Use people over 18 and avoid problems. Cover your own ass, no one else will.

George ephrem wrote:
be smart... wouldn't do it

Agreed. I won't do it, too much hassle to much to worry about.

George ephrem wrote:
be smart... wouldn't do it

StudioJoe wrote:
Agreed. I won't do it, too much hassle to much to worry about.

YAY a big WIN for the paranoia and fear mongers!!!!

they have scared someone out of doing something totally legal....YAY!!!!

god bless america!!!

~ we dont deserve our own constitution...

S W I N S K E Y wrote:
god bless america!!!

I agree and I hope he does. We need his blessings more now than ever.

Jiminya DallzBeep wrote:
I agree and I hope he does. We need his blessings more now than ever.

yeah, cause we are becoming a nation of spineless pussies...

S W I N S K E Y wrote:

yeah, cause we are becoming a nation of spineless pussies...

True dat!

David Gaze wrote:
A bunch of fear mongering wimps....  For crying out loud....

I don't think it's a matter of "fear-mongering wimps"...

It's a matter of knowing that ANYTHING involving people under 18 in underwear is dangerous.

In fact some girls were recently arrested and charged for "kiddy porn" because they texted images of THEMSELVES in UNDERWEAR.

And they were 16.

DEP E510 wrote:

I don't think it's a matter of "fear-mongering wimps"...

It's a matter of knowing that ANYTHING involving people under 18 in underwear is dangerous.

In fact some girls were recently arrested and charged for "kiddy porn" because they texted images of THEMSELVES in UNDERWEAR.

And they were 16.

can you send me a link to this please.

London Sinclair wrote:

can you send me a link to this please.

I wish.

Don't remember where I read it...

Reiner Schutz Fashion wrote:

Why ?   16 year olds wear underwear ( when they're not having sex ).

It is ONLY a major grey area if you let it be.

It becomes a grey area, because some would see it as sexual titulation.

If I see Kylie Minogue in her underwear, that is sexy, and there are unfortunatly other people who see younger models in the same way.

And those laws have been placed there to protect children its as simple as that.

Photography by Riddell wrote:

It becomes a grey area, because some would see it as sexual titulation.

If I see Kylie Minogue in her underwear, that is sexy, and there are unfortunatly other people who see younger models in the same way.

And those laws have been placed there to protect children its as simple as that.

The laws were NOT enacted to protect "children."

In fact most places have sexual consent laws well under 18, but any remotely revealing photography has to be 18 or over...

To say that people under 18 are old enough for sex, but not underwear modelling is dubious at best...

Kevin Connery wrote:
OP, take a look at some of the other threads about working with minors.

You will probably notice some recurring themes:

Some people will insist it's 100% unlawful, immoral, and fattening.
Some people will insist it's perfectly safe.
Some people will note the differences between legal, safe, and wise.

This is an area where many peoples' beliefs are at odds with the law, yet many of them insist that There Is A Law, apparently because they feel there should be one.

I agree, it's been done to death and most people just spout their opinions and have no knowledge of the actual law.

I shoot under 18 all the time and I have the parent present and don't have any problems. In many cases, they are easier to work with than older models.

A 16 year old in his underwear is fine. Just don't have him rubbing his crotch or anything overly provocative.

DEP E510 wrote:

Photography by Riddell wrote:
In fact most places have sexual consent laws well under 18, but any remotely revealing photography has to be 18 or over...

Has to be? Not true. There are examples of nude pictures people under 18 all over the place.

As a side note, go watch Pretty Baby and you'll see Brooke Shield fully nude at age 12 numerous times throughout the movie.  It's on DVD at Blockbuster.

It's a great movie about a girl growing up in a whorehouse in the late 1800's. Has Susan Sarrandon as her mom.  The sets and costumes are fantastic. The madam of the house is very old but funny, at one point, she hits a john over the head with a hammer when he gets out of line. Also has a photographer who takes pictures of the whores and ends up marrying the young girl.  Watching the movie really gives you a feel of what life was like back then. Great movie.

Chanel Rene wrote:
Jeez people!
What's with all the fear mongering??

OP, just use common sense.
When dealing with a minor model from MM, I ask for their parent's number. We discuss the shoot, the wardrobe, the location, etc. Then book the shoot.
Parent's come to the studio or location, we go over everything again, and they choose whether they want to stay for the shoot or go and come back.
Then we shoot.
During the shoot, I do make sure to communicate with the parent if I feel them hovering. But in most cases, the mom just sits and browses through magazines and lets me do my thing.

Maybe it's because I'm a female photographer... I just don't have any issues with parents. I've had agencies send me girls as young as 13 and ask for them to be shot in edgy fashion look. I keep it age appropriate, but I'm not going to tip toe and shoot them like a smiling child if that's not what the shoot calls for.

Why be scared and miss out on shooting with someone you like?

I completely agree with Chanel. I shoot minors all the time and that's usually how it goes.

Check out my younger models page of website:

http://falaterphotography.com/Photograp … /index.htm

S W I N S K E Y wrote:

George ephrem wrote:
be smart... wouldn't do it

YAY a big WIN for the paranoia and fear mongers!!!!

they have scared someone out of doing something totally legal....YAY!!!!

god bless america!!!

~ we dont deserve our own constitution...

Swinskey for president!!

S W I N S K E Y wrote:

yeah, cause we are becoming a nation of spineless pussies...

I second the original nomination....if I can? Or would I just cancel myself out?