Mary wrote:
just an added note.  Linda was a real model (bikini and car stuff mainly)  and Rathbun was a real photographer (mainly cars) but this job wasnt booked through an agent, she ran into him at a  convention and he set up the job with her.  No agent, no client....he said it was for a car ad and he did rent the car but the car company didn't hire her for the shoot...Rathbun did this on his own.  Rathbun hated Linda, he had told people prior to this shoot he hated her and so this isnt some random model situation.

Yes, it is extremely sad what happened to Linda!  She was a very beautiful person and I don't understand how anyone could hate her, much less kill her.  He was NOT a typical model photographer, and he was NOT a good person.  The photographers who had worked with Linda got together and published a magazine (one issue) that was all about her.  I bought it since the proceeds benefit a non profit, the choice of her family.  She was very much loved by all her friends. Those photographers who worked with her felt guilty sometimes they had worked with her one on one in the past so thought that might have caused her to let her guard down regarding this ... monster who killed her.   Linda was a trusting soul, who made one mistake in trusting this guy, and it cost her life.  I don't wish to cause models to become paranoid over us photographers, but I do think it is better to be safe than sorry.

I'm a California photographer.  Linda was someone I had heard about and was looking forward to meeting in person then shooting with someday. 

Dan Hood MM/Moderator wrote:
Approximately 700 people per year in the US are struck by lightning About 70 or so are killed. Linda Sobek happened 10 years ago so in that time frame around 7,000 people have been struck by lightning and around 700 killed. In the last 10 years we can come up with what 3-4 models. Yet we are still dragging out the Sobek name. You want to talk about how many people die in their own bathtubs too?

Statistically speaking models are pretty damn safe shooting with known photographers. Anomalies do happen,  but rather than use some facts and common sense we would rather all gather around and bang the crucifixion drum........sigh......

Well Dan, this is about murder. Could you remind us how many people get killed by a member of their own family, or the ratio of successful model/photographer shoots vs. model shoots that end up with the model dead?  I'm sure the numbers are very low in comparison.  My mom is freaking out over the Bird Flu, and I'm trting to get through to her that the chances of her dying from that are extremely small compared for example to the number of people killed by lighting strkes.  Many of the people I went to school with have died in car wrecks!  Does that mean I shouldn't drive a car?  Of course not!

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

Mary, first, please don't apologize for trying to make the point that it is important to be safe.  Second, I agree with you that the forums are not the same as the real world.

The only exception I take is that you suggest that glamour equates to danger.  I knew Linda, and while she tended to do sexier things, she was represented by legitimate agents in town.  There are a number of licensed bonded agents in L.A. that will also do appropriate glamour.  Certainly Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition or Victoria's Secret are respectable forms of glamour.

So without trying to argue with you because I understand what you are trying to say, it is not, in my mind glamour that holds the danger, it is the fact that the models are doing glamour outside the mainstream environment.  On the forums and on the net a person can be whoever he says he wants to be and if he says it long enough he gets credibility.  That is the danger.

References are almost worthless.  A photographer can shoot ten models.  He can be inappropriate with seven and a prince with three.  He now has three good references and you may never hear about the bad.

So, if your message is that the net is not the mainstream, I am in total agreement.  If your message is that you need to be cautious, safe and use good judgement, I am in total agreement.

I can say, however, with absolute certainty, while you know of no model from the mainstream, other than Linda who has been killed, I can also say that I know of no glamour model that has been killed at Low Rider, Import Tuner or Playboy as well.

This is about guys who shouldn't be calling themselves photographers using the status to pray on women.  It is not about models, like Linda doing legitimate, but sexy bookings.

But I think we are saying the same thing, and again, please don't apologize for being passionate about safety!

Hi Alan, I to agree with what Mary has said, and I do see your point. Modeling for glamour should not be considered a factor here.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Well Dan, this is about murder. Could you remind us how many people get killed by a member of their own family, or the ratio of successful model/photographer shoots vs. model shoots that end up with the model dead?  I'm sure the numbers are very low in comparison.  My mom is freaking out over the Bird Flu, and I'm trting to get through to her that the chances of her dying from that are extremely small compared for example to the number of people killed by lighting strkes.  Many of the people I went to school with have died in car wrecks!  Does that mean I shouldn't drive a car?  Of course not!

Still safer than flying the safest form of transportation...

Do they let kids fly alone?

(:-------

Hj

Hugh  Jorgen wrote:
Do they let kids fly alone?

Depending on the age, yes. I flew alone when I was 16.

JUST THE JAIMES wrote:
Sometimes you still need a adult to make the correct decisions emancipated or not.

thats right.

Randy B wrote:
If you are a model under 18, do you need to have a parent/chaperone with you?  Or is this decided by the photographer?
Cause I'd rather not have a parent with me if I ever start getting into the business more.

I require a parent signature on the model release form if the model is under 18. Which means the parent needs to be there at least to sign the release. Best if they stick around. (i'm female so i don't need to worry too much about 'issues' of sexual matters arising as some m photogs might need to worry about) But I feel I am responsible for their safety during the shoot. Don't want anyone falling off any cliffs! lmao

Danielle A wrote:
This is from Danielle's mum!!!!!

This is an off topic response but I wanted to say that a teen model does best when he/she has the support and guidance from his/her parents.

There are things that happen in the business that would make any parent or child feel uncomfortable.  Some are appropriate, many are inappropriate.  A supportive parent will help their teen understand what is right, reject what is wrong and in the end, prosper in this business.

I wanted to applaud you for helping your daughter reach her goal!

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

This is an off topic response but I wanted to say that a model does best when he/she has the support and guidance from his/her parents.

There are things that happen in the business that would make any parent or child feel uncomfortable.  Some are appropriate, many are inappropriate.  A supportive parent will help their teen understand what is right, reject what is wrong and in the end, prosper in this business.

I wanted to applaud you for helping your daughter reach her goal!

Randy B wrote:
If you are a model under 18, do you need to have a parent/chaperone with you?  Or is this decided by the photographer?
Cause I'd rather not have a parent with me if I ever start getting into the business more.

If the shoot involves signing a release, you need your parent or legal guardian to sign it. Wait until you're eighteen.