Madcrow Studios wrote:

Have you checked the Cinnabon? What about the Comic Book Store. Those are usual places to find persons of your target demographic...

I actually feel stupid but what is the cinnabon? And comic book store sounds intresting but how? I have this stereotype in my head that all comic book store ppl are kinda geeky, i feel mean for saying that but hey, im being honest

d30john wrote:

d30john wrote:
You fail to consult with her legal guardians before driving out there!!!

It's your fault  not the underage model.

I would be piss too if you ask my child (I don't have any) without my permission 1st.

It doesn't matter who ask who 1st.  She is underage and should be consult with her legal guardians before driving out there.  Wouldn't you want to know what your child is up to?

You fail to see the point.

she made it clear that she was 17 from the get go, yes, but she also told me she was living with her boyfriend, and that the biggest concern was getting time off work, and getting her boyfriend to be ok with it. (He was also set to be an escort, as indicated in her profile - her boyfriend attended all shoots, and actually had a reputation for being extremely helpful and not interfering with shoots)

so, yeah. It might amaze you, but around here, alot of people are out of the nest, on their own and making their own way long before their 18th birthdays. Myself included. I was renting an apartment with roomates/friends before I was 16. And believe me, my parents had absolutely NO say whatsoever about what I did with my life at that point.

Tony Mo wrote:

I actually feel stupid but what is the cinnabon? And comic book store sounds intresting but how? I have this stereotype in my head that all comic book store ppl are kinda geeky, i feel mean for saying that but hey, im being honest

Exactly... Cinnabon is a lame ass breakfast stand found in most malls and that is frequented by goths and emo kiddies. The comic book store is where you're likely to find nerds, who if they're into photography are likely to have lots of high-end equipment.

Also note, my post was intended as humor and not as serious advice.

Madcrow Studios wrote:

Exactly... Cinnabon is a lame ass breakfast stand found in most malls and that is frequented by goths and emo kiddies. The comic book store is where you're likely to find nerds, who if they're into photography are likely to have lots of high-end equipment.

Also note, my post was intended as humor and not as serious advice.

haha...now i feel even more stupid

TXPhotog wrote:
Screw all this repetitive talk about underage.  It's always the same tired claims and arguments.  I wanna see Nick's pictures.

Shoot ain't till thursday. I misread. And I asked first, so take a number!

Nick Zantop wrote:

From the Agencie de la ModeleMayhame

https://modelmayhem.com/member.php?id=304526

Lucky bastard - just rub it in why dontcha....

Hoping Megan might find her way to Cali sometime.

photiesto wrote:
You fail to see the point.

she made it clear that she was 17 from the get go, yes, but she also told me she was living with her boyfriend, and that the biggest concern was getting time off work, and getting her boyfriend to be ok with it. (He was also set to be an escort, as indicated in her profile - her boyfriend attended all shoots, and actually had a reputation for being extremely helpful and not interfering with shoots)

so, yeah. It might amaze you, but around here, alot of people are out of the nest, on their own and making their own way long before their 18th birthdays. Myself included. I was renting an apartment with roomates/friends before I was 16. And believe me, my parents had absolutely NO say whatsoever about what I did with my life at that point.

No it's you who fail to see the point

She is underage (that is set by the LAW, not how mature YOU THINK she is).  By trying to go behind her mother back you

1) Insult the mother for lack of respect 

2) Potential open yourself to a nasty lawsuit, well in California anyway.  I don't know the law in your area.

3) Had you ask the mother 1st, you might have a better chance of her saying yes, or have time to find another model.

BTW I have been on my own since I was 16 too so don't give me that BS.

rp_photo wrote:
In the eyes of the law, she can't ask.

Please quote the law.

You are wrong, BTW. It is no different than if that same 17 year old went into the mall photo studio and got images done. She has contacted the photographer, paid for the images, and taken the product. Just because this photog posting here is not working in the mall doesn't make it any different.

I agree that checking with a parent is a good option, but it is not a legal requirement.

d30john wrote:
No it's you who fail to see the point

She is underage (that is set by the LAW, not how mature YOU THINK she is).  By trying to go behind her mother back you

1) Insult the mother for lack of respect 

2) Potential open yourself to a nasty lawsuit, well in California anyway.  I don't know the law in your area.

3) Had you ask the mother 1st, you might have a better chance of her saying yes, or have time to find another model.

BTW I have been on my own since I was 16 too so don't give me that BS.

I DIDN'T try going behind her mothers back, you poster child for birth control... Once her mother became part of the equation, I was more than happy to meet with her and jump through her hoops and try to satisfy her questions. I showed her the release, my port, gave her my contacts, references and all the rest. In fact, I can't think of any other photographer that would have put that much effort and time into trying to placate a parent. ANY other photographer would have just said "fuck it" and gone off in search of another model. Period. Why I didn't, is still beyond me.

But arguing with you is like trying to argue with a parent of an underage model - you think you have everything figured out, know everything about the situation, and I REALLY don't care enough about you OR your opinions to try to convince you otherwise. So.. Have fun with that.

d30john wrote:
No it's you who fail to see the point

She is underage (that is set by the LAW, not how mature YOU THINK she is).  By trying to go behind her mother back you

1) Insult the mother for lack of respect 

2) Potential open yourself to a nasty lawsuit, well in California anyway.  I don't know the law in your area.

A lawsuit for what?
Last I checked there is no law against shooting non commercial non Pornographic pictures of 17 year olds.

UCPhotog wrote:

Please quote the law.

You are wrong, BTW. It is no different than if that same 17 year old went into the mall photo studio and got images done. She has contacted the photographer, paid for the images, and taken the product. Just because this photog posting here is not working in the mall doesn't make it any different.

I agree that checking with a parent is a good option, but it is not a legal requirement.

I said it first... Glamour Shits would go out of business if teenagers had to have parental permisission to have their picture taken. Parental permission is only needed when releases and contracts come into play.

d30john wrote:
No it's you who fail to see the point

She is underage (that is set by the LAW, not how mature YOU THINK she is).  By trying to go behind her mother back you

1) Insult the mother for lack of respect 

2) Potential open yourself to a nasty lawsuit, well in California anyway.  I don't know the law in your area.

3) Had you ask the mother 1st, you might have a better chance of her saying yes, or have time to find another model.

BTW I have been on my own since I was 16 too so don't give me that BS.

Please quote the law (even if it's just for California).

There is no law that prevents a photographer from working with a minor without parental permission. He won't get a release signed, and as long as it is not too suggestive to be considered porn, there is nothing stopping the photog. See my response 3 or 4 positions up from this one.

Madcrow Studios wrote:

I said it first... Glamour Shits would go out of business if teenagers had to have parental permisission to have their picture taken. Parental permission is only needed when releases and contracts come into play.

EXACTLY!

photiesto wrote:

I DIDN'T try going behind her mothers back, you poster child for birth control...

Not that I MEAN to sound like a dick, but when some self-righteous, holier-than-thou prick starts accusing me of openly trying to go behind a parent's back, it's a thinly veiled accusation of wrongdoing, and that pisses me off.

Apologies to fellow posters.

TXPhotog wrote:
Screw all this repetitive talk about underage.  It's always the same tired claims and arguments.  I wanna see Nick's pictures.

Me too!

d30john wrote:
OK I will tell you of a story what actually happen to my good friend.  She is a 67 years old gramma.  One day while at the community pool with her grand son, who is 10 years old, she saw another girl with a cute hat, so she took a picture.  The next day at the same pool she approach the little girl mother with the print as a gift, saying you daughter was so adorable yesterday so I thought it would be nice to take the photo for you.  Well two days later a sheriff was at her house with paper and notice that she is being sue.  My friends family lawyer immediately suggest for her to settle cause it will cost her more in court.  End the end her act of kindness costed her $7000.

And that 20 year old model's mom could sue you for the same thing,
Or her fiance..... Or father
Non of them would win the case but your lawyer might still recommend settling cause it's still cheaper.

I could be sued for Flippng my neighbor the bird,
And he won't win either.... But it will still cost some money to defend.

There are lots of silly vindictive people out there,
And they could all sue you.
But I'm not going to make all my decisions in life based on who might sue me once in a blue moon.
That's just a sad irrational way to go through life.

d30john wrote:
OK I will tell you of a story what actually happen to my good friend.  She is a 67 years old gramma.  One day while at the community pool with her grand son, who is 10 years old, she saw another girl with a cute hat, so she took a picture.  The next day at the same pool she approach the little girl mother with the print as a gift, saying you daughter was so adorable yesterday so I thought it would be nice to take the photo for you.  Well two days later a sheriff was at her house with paper and notice that she is being sue.  My friends family lawyer immediately suggest for her to settle cause it will cost her more in court.  End the end her act of kindness costed her $7000.

A LITTLE kid at a pool? having her picture taken without her knowledge? How the hell does that even come CLOSE to an aspiring model on the cusp of her 18th birthday who sought out a photographer in hopes of having her portfolio expanded?

Yeah, that's a fantastic comparison. What's next, Hippos and gnats? I mean, they're similar in the fact that they're... alive. I guess.

*shakes head in bewilderment*

d30john wrote:
OK I will tell you of a story what actually happen to my good friend.  She is a 67 years old gramma.  One day while at the community pool with her grand son, who is 10 years old, she saw another girl with a cute hat, so she took a picture.  The next day at the same pool she approach the little girl mother with the print as a gift, saying you daughter was so adorable yesterday so I thought it would be nice to take the photo for you.  Well two days later a sheriff was at her house with paper and notice that she is being sue.  My friends family lawyer immediately suggest for her to settle cause it will cost her more in court.  End the end her act of kindness costed her $7000.

And why would the Sheriff serve papers for a civil suit,
Wouldn't that be done by a summons server in a civil suit?
Some thing about your story sounds a little off.

Maybe you just got the details wrong?

d30john wrote:
No it's you who fail to see the point

She is underage (that is set by the LAW, not how mature YOU THINK she is).  By trying to go behind her mother back you

1) Insult the mother for lack of respect 

2) Potential open yourself to a nasty lawsuit, well in California anyway.  I don't know the law in your area.

3) Had you ask the mother 1st, you might have a better chance of her saying yes, or have time to find another model.

BTW I have been on my own since I was 16 too so don't give me that BS.

photiesto wrote:
I DIDN'T try going behind her mothers back, you poster child for birth control... Once her mother became part of the equation, I was more than happy to meet with her and jump through her hoops and try to satisfy her questions. I showed her the release, my port, gave her my contacts, references and all the rest. In fact, I can't think of any other photographer that would have put that much effort and time into trying to placate a parent. ANY other photographer would have just said "fuck it" and gone off in search of another model. Period. Why I didn't, is still beyond me.

But arguing with you is like trying to argue with a parent of an underage model - you think you have everything figured out, know everything about the situation, and I REALLY don't care enough about you OR your opinions to try to convince you otherwise. So.. Have fun with that.

Nice move slick.  I will let the group decide who is the "poster child for birth control..."

Chris Macan wrote:
And why would the Sheriff serve papers for a civil suit,
Wouldn't that be done by a summons server in a civil suit?
Some thing about your story sounds a little off.

Maybe you just got the details wrong?

Perhasps you are right.  You can ask Charles Frey Photos Mayhem #270799 about Patsy's incident.  He knows her too.

photiesto wrote:

A LITTLE kid at a pool? having her picture taken without her knowledge? How the hell does that even come CLOSE to an aspiring model on the cusp of her 18th birthday who sought out a photographer in hopes of having her portfolio expanded?

Yeah, that's a fantastic comparison. What's next, Hippos and gnats? I mean, they're similar in the fact that they're... alive. I guess.

*shakes head in bewilderment*

Honestly I don't see a problem. Especially since it was another kid who took the picture. According to law, there's no such thing as an expectation of privacy in public...

d30john wrote:
OK I will tell you of a story what actually happen to my good friend.  She is a 67 years old gramma.  One day while at the community pool with her grand son, who is 10 years old, she saw another girl with a cute hat, so she took a picture.  The next day at the same pool she approach the little girl mother with the print as a gift, saying you daughter was so adorable yesterday so I thought it would be nice to take the photo for you.  Well two days later a sheriff was at her house with paper and notice that she is being sue.  My friends family lawyer immediately suggest for her to settle cause it will cost her more in court.  End the end her act of kindness costed her $7000.

*mutters under her breath*

effing opportunistic hyenas...

Madcrow Studios wrote:
Honestly I don't see a problem. Especially since it was another kid who took the picture. According to law, there's no such thing as an expectation of privacy in public...

No my frined she shot her grand kid then shot the other kid.  Perhasps her lawyer tell her to settle cause he felt the $7000 to settle will be less then the cost of defending.  I'm not sure, can only guess.

Madcrow Studios wrote:
Honestly I don't see a problem. Especially since it was another kid who took the picture. According to law, there's no such thing as an expectation of privacy in public...

Yes but there is an expectation of cost to go in front of a judge to argue that the case lacks merit.

It is a fine example of some peoples love of frivolous lawsuits (not unlike the judge that sued his dry cleaner for 50+ million dollars for losing a pair of pants)
But it is virtually un-winnable by the person who filed suit... however many people will simply settle so as to not have to spend the money to defend it.

It is a poor example of a reason to not shoot Under 18 models as there is no grounds for the suit. You could just as easily be sued for shooting a 37 year old in public and giving her a copy of the picture.

Chris Macan wrote:

Yes but there is an expectation of cost to go in front of a judge to argue that the case lacks merit.

It is a fine example of some peoples love of frivolous lawsuits (not unlike the judge that sued his dry cleaner for 50+ million dollars for losing a pair of pants)
It is virtually un-winnable buy the person who filed suit... But many people will simply settle so as to not have to spend the money to defend it.

It is a poor example of a reason to not shoot Under 18 models as there is no grounds for the suit. You could just as easily be sued for shooting a 37 year old in public and giving her a copy of the picture.

It's cases like that which make we had a system like the UK, where if a case is deemed to be without merit, the plaintiff has to pay all of the defendant's legal fees...

d30john wrote:
No my frined she shot her grand kid then shot the other kid.  Perhasps her lawyer tell her to settle cause he felt the $7000 to settle will be less then the cost of defending.  I'm not sure, can only guess.

Why only guess, it's your friend.. Ask what WTF!!

I call b.s.

Rick Jolly wrote:
Why only guess, it's your friend.. Ask what WTF!!

I call b.s.

If you think I'm lying  You can ask Charles Frey Photos Mayhem #270799 about Patsy's incident at the pool.  He knows her too.

PierJes wrote:

I agree with you.

My most recent problem were underage girls passing themselves for adults with fake IDs.

So, I realize IDs are not full-proof.
I'll have to relate on my instinct and judgement from now on... in addition to proper pieces of identities.

Madcrow Studios wrote:
It's cases like that which make we had a system like the UK, where if a case is deemed to be without merit, the plaintiff has to pay all of the defendant's legal fees...

Living in California, I envy  you for this.

d30john wrote:
I still stand by had the OP ask the mother 1st, he might have a better chance of her saying yes, or have time to find another model.   This incident could have been prevented with a simple phone call.

Despite what I said earlier, i feel compelled to ask... Are you stupid?

Honest to Christ, you either have to be completely and TOTALLY devoid of anything resembling intelligence, or just completely incapable of reading a sentence and figuring out it's meaning.

So, for the last time, in little words and sentences so that you can understand:

Photographer (me) puts out a call, looking for models.

Woman answers call. Wants to pose.

Arrangements are made, details set forth, date is set, shoot is planned.

While driving TO shoot, model calls. Turns out, she's still living with her mother - a fact she left out - and her mother wants to meet with me. I agree, without hesitation.

At that point, I do everything within my power - when other photographers wouldn't - to make mom happy.

Having that particular model for my shoot didn't pan out. So she was replaced.

End of story.

Now.. I know you're probably too stupid to actually COMPREHEND (that means "understand") what the situation was, but I don't - and never have - felt it necessary to ask every model that comes across my path if I can talk to her mommy before we go off to shoot, so it's actually laughable that you continue to beat the "you should have asked her mommy first" drum, despite having the situation explained to you several times by myself and others.

It's amusing, in a sad sort of way, that the only argument you're able to make is that I somehow tried to maliciously circumvent the mother for the purpose of shooting an underage girl. It's almost as though this scenario excites you somehow, because despite being told CLEARLY that that isn't what happened... you continue to claim that it's exactly what happened.

Obviously, you're a moron, big words confuse you, and if the context and spelling of your own posts are any indication, you're not terribly educated, which might explain why it is that you just can't grasp what has been explained to you multiple times.

David Scott wrote:
Just going back to early in your rant... why were you defending yourself to the 17 year old?  She didnt think you were going to kidnap her.. her mother thought so.

Honestly?

It was my impression that the 17 year old girl really wanted to shoot, had her poop in a group, had experience, and all the rest of it, but couldn't afford to live on her own, was under her mothers roof, and therefore subject to her mothers rules. Her mother was micromanaging her, and ultimately, was the reason the shoot never happened.

Sometimes, parents are more immature and irresponsible than the kids, in my opinion.