Vito wrote:
Right....and the 16 year olds who go into Glamour Shots without a parent should be turned away....yeah, right.

Diamond Park Photo wrote:
You have to be careful with a minor. You could face charges ranging from child porn to kidnapping. Get the parents involved.

I seriously doubt there has ever been a case where a 16 yearold walked into a glamor shots and the owner operator was charged with Kidnapping or child porn.
Ditto for The Sear, Target, Wallmart.... or any of those other lowend portrait places.

This is just plain old fear mongering at its worst.

Next you'll be telling us they are busting local hair salons for holding underage girls against their will........ "I swear mom, she made me do it this color... Yeah that's my signature on the credit card receipt...... But she had me under a spell!"

d30john wrote:
Chris, there is a big different between

1) Your underage child walking into a photo studio (a business) for glamour shots without telling you.

and

2) A stranger from distance town tried to take your underage child on a trip without asking you.

Judging from his demonstration of short temper on here, I wonder how he would have react if the undersage girl, far from home, refuse to do what he wants.

What is it that turns you on so much about continuously accusing me of trying to lure a "child" out to some far off place, behind the backs of her parents? you do nothing but regurgitate the same old accusations over and over and over. And no matter where the conversation in this thread goes, you feel it nessacary to bring everything back to me as the OP, and a fresh batch of accusations.

And now, you're going so far as to imply that I would somehow have harmed a potential model - the very same one that i "lured" with malicious intent - because she didn't do what I wanted? You're WAY out of line and have gone to making personal attacks about my character as a photographer and human being. next post, you'll be accusing me of being a pedophile and committing child rape or something.

And since you have this fantasy in your head of my luring some poor, innocent child away for some sordid one on one shoot, it was a shoot with several photographers attending, as well as MUAs, hairstylists, and other models, and was in and around the Chateau Lake Louise in Banff, Alberta, in public. And she was only to be there for half day, not overnight. But, it's pointless telling you that, as you have no interest in hearing anything other than what plays into your little fantasy. So enjoy it, and feel free to have the last word.

Christopher Bush wrote:
sounds like you have a problem with amateurs, not underage models.

Those words might be too big.

Chris Macan wrote:

I seriously doubt there has ever been a case where a 16 yearold walked into a glamor shots and the owner operator was charged with Kidnapping or child porn.
Ditto for The Sear, Target, Wallmart.... or any of those other lowend portrait places.

This is just plain old fear mongering at its worst.

Next you'll be telling us they are busting local hair salons for holding underage girls against their will........ "I swear mom, she made me do it this color... Yeah that's my signature on the credit card receipt...... But she had me under a spell!"

I am saying that if the photographer met the child and took her/him to a remote shooting location it could be considered kidnapping. One must consider the circumstances. The police are not going to charge without much more damaging evidence. If a photographer took nude photos of the minor however, that photographer would go to jail, parents approval or not.

Besides, have you ever heard of a child even going on a school field trip without a parent's approval? Any time you take a child without the parent's knowledge you are asking for trouble.

d30john wrote:
Chris, there is a big different between

1) Your underage child walking into a photo studio (a business) for glamour shots without telling you.

and

2) A stranger from distance town tried to take your underage child on a trip without asking you.

Judging from his demonstration of short temper on here, I wonder how he would have react if the undersage girl, far from home, refuse to do what he wants.

Yes they are different situations,
However neither of them appears to be what happened here.

A) Why did you quote the glamour Shots case if it was in fact irrelevant?
b) Why do you keep talking about him taking her on a trip when that was apparently not what was happening in this case? (The shoot was local to her)
C) Why do you feel the need to make the OP out to be a perverted monster when you have no evidence to that “fact”?

While I don't necessarily get the warm fuzzies from the op I also do not know the facts of the case. (much as you do not).
Your willingness to tar and feather him is irresponsible.
I suspect the witches at Salem got a fairer trial than what you would offer the OP.
Just because an adult wanted to photograph an almost adult does not mean either of them was wrong or wronged

MorningLight wrote:
Bummer but nice rant! On a scale of 1-10 a 7.
I have never had a problem with parents and underage,
but they usually find me. I hardly ever go shopping.

6.5

Diamond Park Photo wrote:
I am saying that if the photographer met the child and took her/him to a remote shooting location it could be considered kidnapping. One must consider the circumstances. The police are not going to charge without much more damaging evidence. If a photographer took nude photos of the minor however, that photographer would go to jail, parents approval or not.

Besides, have you ever heard of a child even going on a school field trip without a parent's approval? Any time you take a child without the parent's knowledge you are asking for trouble.

You are taking turnips and seeing blood.
If a 17 year old jumped into a car with her pastor and he drove her to church she could accuse him of very bad things.
The same is true of a 17 year old and a photographer.
It however does not make him wrong, nor is it likely to happen.

I won't even discuss the naked photos theory of yours.
We are discussing the OP trying to set up a legitimate shoot with a qualified model.
I for one am sick of the unprovoked attacks on the OP's intentions.
There is absolutely no evidence on this thread that he did anything inappropriate or that his intentions were anything less than pure.

It is disgusting of all the people who have implied that the OP was only looking to get her naked because she was under 18.
I suspect that a lot of people on this thread have serious issues with young adults and their own sexual desires and are consciously or unconsciously projecting their issues on the OP.
So please deal with your own problems and stop burning the "perverts" on the Internet stake.

Chris Macan wrote:
You are taking turnips and seeing blood.
If a 17 year old jumped into a car with her pastor and he drove her to church she could accuse him of very bad things.
The same is true of a 17 year old and a photographer.
It however does not make him wrong, nor is it likely to happen.

I won't even discuss the naked photos theory of yours.
We are discussing the OP trying to set up a legitimate shoot with a qualified model.
I for one am sick of the unprovoked attacks on the OP's intentions.
There is absolutely no evidence on this thread that he did anything inappropriate or that his intentions were anything less than pure.

It is disgusting of all the people who have implied that the OP was only looking to get her naked because she was under 18.
I suspect that a lot of people on this thread have serious issues with young adults and their own sexual desires and are consciously or unconsciously projecting their issues on the OP.
So please deal with your own problems and stop burning the "perverts" on the Internet stake.

I am not talking about the OP in particular. The naked photos are more than a theory. Anytime you shoot a photo of an underage model nude you are committing a crime. 

You are right about the pastor taking the young-un to church. If he did it without the parent's knowledge, he "could" get in trouble (not saying he will). It is all about the circumstances.

In my State, (Michigan) it is legal to have sex with a person 16-years and older. If you take pictures however, you go to jail.

Nick Zantop wrote:

From the Agencie de la ModeleMayhame

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

You lucky #$%^&!

Saradah Chin wrote:
thats a little harsh.  I'm 20, and my mother would never have reacted that way even if i were a child.  I don't have an attitude, in fact i'm probably alot calmer than most old people.  My ego is what it should be i suppose, i'm not full of myself or anything, and i barely even like hip hop.  in fact, i listen to international music most of the time.  i understand where you're coming from, but please don't generalise.  we're ( us folk under 30) are not all immature, egotistical, rude and disrespectful low pants wearing miscreants.

get to know some of the good before you expound on the bad.

So, how many models have you photographed?  If what you say about yourself is true, you're definitely the exception rather than the rule.  As a former school teacher, I just happen to know a thing or two about today's young people and I do know about the good in many of you.  Unfortunately, far too many of your peers have received some really horrible parenting.

Chris Macan wrote:
b) Why do you keep talking about him taking her on a trip when that was apparently not what was happening in this case? (The shoot was local to her)

Trying to take an underage girl to the local mountain is still a trip in my eyes

Chris Macan wrote:
C) Why do you feel the need to make the OP out to be a perverted monster when you have no evidence to that “fact”?

I never call him out as a perverted monster.  In fact I used "Creepy" the same wording you once used to describe him.  His desire to work with the model after being drilled by the mother, where others have expressed they would have cut the lost and walk away, further reinforce my belief he is creepy.

The OP did demonstrated that he does have short temper so my pondering of what it would be like if he doesn't get his ways in the field has merritt.  Perhasps had the OP did not gone "over the top" as you called it, and tried to  intimidate me with verbal abuse, I might have left this thread long ago. But now I'm here to stay, hoping more people, specially those who lives in his area to see this thread and makes their own assessment.

Speaking of assessment, trying to take an underage girl to the local mountain without making any attempt to ask her parent for permission first is going behind the mother back.  He can argue that there is a different all he wants it will not change my mind.

What I'm surprise and sad is that there are few rush in and support his moral of the story that working with underage is bad and their mother is bad, who is this case have every rights to be angry and suspicious of this distance stranger actions.  I applaud her for making the right decision. Her calling a meeting with him to collect his personal info was just brilliance. I think the moral of the story should be there is nothing wrong with working with an underage, but you need to ask for approval first.

Chris Macan wrote:
You are taking turnips and seeing blood.
If a 17 year old jumped into a car with her pastor and he drove her to church she could accuse him of very bad things.
The same is true of a 17 year old and a photographer.
It however does not make him wrong, nor is it likely to happen.

I won't even discuss the naked photos theory of yours.
We are discussing the OP trying to set up a legitimate shoot with a qualified model.
I for one am sick of the unprovoked attacks on the OP's intentions.
There is absolutely no evidence on this thread that he did anything inappropriate or that his intentions were anything less than pure.

It is disgusting of all the people who have implied that the OP was only looking to get her naked because she was under 18.
I suspect that a lot of people on this thread have serious issues with young adults and their own sexual desires and are consciously or unconsciously projecting their issues on the OP.
So please deal with your own problems and stop burning the "perverts" on the Internet stake.

Diamond Park Photo wrote:
I am not talking about the OP in particular. The naked photos are more than a theory. Anytime you shoot a photo of an underage model nude you are committing a crime. 

You are right about the pastor taking the young-un to church. If he did it without the parent's knowledge, he "could" get in trouble (not saying he will). It is all about the circumstances.

In my State, (Michigan) it is legal to have sex with a person 16-years and older. If you take pictures however, you go to jail.

1) False..... It is not illegal to take nude photographs of a person under the age of 18.
It is illegal to take a pornographic image of an under 18 person.
There is a difference between the two.
(True the exact line between them is wonderfully undefined)

2) Said pastor only gets in trouble if he misbehaves, or the kid lies, or the parents are total whack jobs...... But once again this is not an age issue it's a whack job issue and he could get in the same trouble with an 18 year old or a whacked out housewife.
It's life... lets not blame it on the kids.

3) Once again.... just don't take sexual pictures of the 16 year olds.
That is not what this thread was about and I find it disturbing that so many MMers associate photographing 16 year olds with fucking them.
I'm sorry that I don't understand that association, but then..... I don't fuck my models.

SeeScapes Photography wrote:
I have only shot one underage model. However, the shoot also included the underaged models mother. So, I agree with not shooting any underaged model especially in todays corrupt society.

However, I know I am a professional and I asure the world if they ask anyone who has modeled for me..."did he ever lay a finger on you?" The answer would always be "no".
It is a shame the efforts an artist must go through even if the model or muse is of age or under. They all want to see my portfolio. They all want to be shot. When in all reality, when the time comes, 70% of them freeze.

In short...Welcome to todays world of photography. There are a ton of GWC's out there corrupting "OUR society". Society needs to strengthen the punishments on child porn, underaged nudity is something that should NEVER be respected. But, who am I? I am a photographer.

You are another one of these stupid people who equate photographing underage models with f^@king them.  You should quit photography and become a Taliban.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Chris Macan wrote:
1) False..... It is not illegal to take nude photographs of a person under the age of 18.
It is illegal to take a pornographic image of an under 18 person.
There is a difference between the two.
(True the exact line between them is wonderfully undefined)

2) Said pastor only gets in trouble if he misbehaves, or the kid lies, or the parents are total whack jobs...... But once again this is not an age issue it's a whack job issue and he could get in the same trouble with an 18 year old or a whacked out housewife.
It's life... lets not blame it on the kids.

3) Once again.... just don't take sexual pictures of the 16 year olds.
That is not what this thread was about and I find it disturbing that so many MMers associate photographing 16 year olds with fucking them.
I'm sorry that I don't understand that association, but then..... I don't fuck my models.

I stand corrected. I looked it up on wikipedia. Here is what it says.

"Prohibition generally covers visual representations of sexual behavior by children under a given age but may also include all images of nude children, unless an artistic or medical justification can be provided."

Therefore you have to be able to justify your photos as "artistic." Where is the line for artistic merit? I am reading the *all* images of nude children line. I heard about a situation where parents took photos of their children nude in the bath tub and the cops showed up after they sent them in to the processor to get developed. Do you want to take the time to explain your artistic merit in front of a judge?

The pastor can indeed get in more trouble with a minor than with an 18-year-old. Why put yourself in that situation? For what reason?

Diamond Park Photo wrote:

I stand corrected. I looked it up on wikipedia. Here is what it says.

"Prohibition generally covers visual representations of sexual behavior by children under a given age but may also include all images of nude children, unless an artistic or medical justification can be provided."

Therefore you have to be able to justify your photos as "artistic." Where is the line for artistic merit? I am reading the *all* images of nude children line. I heard about a situation where parents took photos of their children nude in the bath tub and the cops showed up after they sent them in to the processor to get developed. Do you want to take the time to explain your artistic merit in front of a judge?

The pastor can indeed get in more trouble with a minor than with an 18-year-old. Why put yourself in that situation? For what reason?

We understand that you don't trust yourself with underage models.  Go photograph sheep or some such thing. 

Meanwhile, the rest of us upstanding photographers will help young models get their start in their careers.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

JAY carreon wrote:

We understand that you don't trust yourself with underage models.  Go photograph sheep or some such thing. 

Meanwhile, the rest of us upstanding photographers will help young models get their start in their careers.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

I can tell by the tone of your post that you may NOT be an upstanding photographer. I don't see anything wrong with working with underage models as long as you have the parent's permission.

The fact that you read more into my post than was actually there tells me that you are not dealing with a full deck and should be avoided.

Diamond Park Photo wrote:
I can tell by the tone of your post that you may NOT be an upstanding photographer. I don't see anything wrong with working with underage models as long as you have the parent's permission.

The fact that you read more into my post than was actually there tells me that you are not dealing with a full deck and should be avoided.

When did I say that you shouldn't have the cooperation of the parents?  You are really lacking in intelligence and are sheep-like in your dullness of mind.

I may or may not have a full deck - but judging from the amateurishness of your pictures, no model - underage or not - would benefit from working with you.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

P.S.  I stand corrected - you DO photograph farm animals!  You really should stick to that!

Diamond Park Photo wrote:
I stand corrected. I looked it up on wikipedia. Here is what it says.

"Prohibition generally covers visual representations of sexual behavior by children under a given age but may also include all images of nude children, unless an artistic or medical justification can be provided."

Therefore you have to be able to justify your photos as "artistic." Where is the line for artistic merit? I am reading the *all* images of nude children line. I heard about a situation where parents took photos of their children nude in the bath tub and the cops showed up after they sent them in to the processor to get developed. Do you want to take the time to explain your artistic merit in front of a judge?

The pastor can indeed get in more trouble with a minor than with an 18-year-old. Why put yourself in that situation? For what reason?

Wikipedia is not legal text,
It is a decent source of general information but is prone to errors as it is written and edited by laypeople.

Mom, Pop and the grandparents have been taking pictures of nude kids frolicking in the tub and front yard for as long a Kodak has been making film. Most of said image have no artistic merit, but have great sentimental and nostalgic merit. Every so often you hear a case where the police stop by and question the parents and every so often the photos are inappropriate (think weird uncle Billy).
But generally speaking these images are perfectly legal and in reality you have a have a greater chance of being stuck by lightning that being visited by the police for that cute nude photo of you baby daughter in the tub.

Nudists.... photographs of nudists doing their nudist thing and publications on their lifestyle are perfectly legal (as long as they are non sexual) even if they include photos of their kids. Once again not all the photos have even the slightest bit of artistic merit.

Art.... Yep you noted the art loophole, It's a biggie. Sturgis, Mann and Hamilton are the most notable artists who have proved that the full frontal kiddy loophole exists.
Like them or not they have demonstrated the dangers and freedoms afforded to art photographers working with nude children.

So I would say your wiki definition is a bit tighter than the reality of the law,
But it still has little to do with the OPs situation because as far as we know he was not intending to shoot the girl nude. And yet he was attacked as a pervert.... Why is that?

JAY carreon wrote:

When did I say that you shouldn't have the cooperation of the parents?  You are really lacking in intelligence and are sheep-like in your dullness of mind.

I may or may not have a full deck - but judging from the amateurishness of your pictures, no model - underage or not - would benefit from working with you.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

P.S.  I stand corrected - you DO photograph farm animals!  You really should stick to that!

Peace brother. It may pay you to lose the attitude. I think people would respond more favorably to you if you weren't such a scary person.

JAY carreon wrote:
When did I say that you shouldn't have the cooperation of the parents?  You are really lacking in intelligence and are sheep-like in your dullness of mind.

I may or may not have a full deck - but judging from the amateurishness of your pictures, no model - underage or not - would benefit from working with you.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

P.S.  I stand corrected - you DO photograph farm animals!  You really should stick to that!

now now you two play nice but iagree with jay..again why work with an underage model if you know she don't have that look that agencies are looking for..pass her on..and say sorry i'm booked..
i had a agencie send me a 14yr model and i was stuck what can i put on a 14yer girl that make her sexy.. i didn't so i pass on that model..
edgy m

NY PPM wrote:

now now you two play nice but iagree with jay..
edgy m

Merci Beaucoups!

Warm Regards,
JAY

Diamond Park Photo wrote:

Peace brother. It may pay you to lose the attitude. I think people would respond more favorably to you if you weren't such a scary person.

What makes you think people don't respond to me favorably?  I get more enquiries from models wanting to test (and yes - that includes models under the age of 18) than I could possibly make time for.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Chris Macan wrote:

Wikipedia is not legal text,
It is a decent source of general information but is prone to errors as it is written and edited by laypeople.

Mom, Pop and the grandparents have been taking pictures of nude kids frolicking in the tub and front yard for as long a Kodak has been making film. Most of said image have no artistic merit, but have great sentimental and nostalgic merit. Every so often you hear a case where the police stop by and question the parents and every so often the photos are inappropriate (think weird uncle Billy).
But generally speaking these images are perfectly legal and in reality you have a have a greater chance of being stuck by lightning that being visited by the police for that cute nude photo of you baby daughter in the tub.

Nudists.... photographs of nudists doing their nudist thing and publications on their lifestyle are perfectly legal (as long as they are non sexual) even if they include photos of their kids. Once again not all the photos have even the slightest bit of artistic merit.

Art.... Yep you noted the art loophole, It's a biggie. Sturgis, Mann and Hamilton are the most notable artists who have proved that the full frontal kiddy loophole exists.
Like them or not they have demonstrated the dangers and freedoms afforded to art photographers working with nude children.

So I would say your wiki definition is a bit tighter than the reality of the law,
But it still has little to do with the OPs situation because as far as we know he was not intending to shoot the girl nude. And yet he was attacked as a pervert.... Why is that?

I didn't attack anyone. I simply stated that if you choose to work with underage models without parent's permission you are asking for trouble. I am sure that Sturgis, Mann and Hamilton all had the permission of the parents.

Photographing nudists for publication is a journalistic endeavor. However, if the faces of the children are identifiable you should get the permission to publish the photos. Taking photos of children in a nudist camp for personal, non-published use is asking for trouble.

The header for this post is "never again." I am just saying that it is unwise to work without the parent's approval.

Diamond Park Photo wrote:
I stand corrected. I looked it up on wikipedia. Here is what it says.

"Prohibition generally covers visual representations of sexual behavior by children under a given age but may also include all images of nude children, unless an artistic or medical justification can be provided."

Therefore you have to be able to justify your photos as "artistic." Where is the line for artistic merit? I am reading the *all* images of nude children line. I heard about a situation where parents took photos of their children nude in the bath tub and the cops showed up after they sent them in to the processor to get developed. Do you want to take the time to explain your artistic merit in front of a judge?

The pastor can indeed get in more trouble with a minor than with an 18-year-old. Why put yourself in that situation? For what reason?

Chris Macan wrote:
Wikipedia is not legal text,
It is a decent source of general information but is prone to errors as it is written and edited by laypeople.

Mom, Pop and the grandparents have been taking pictures of nude kids frolicking in the tub and front yard for as long a Kodak has been making film. Most of said image have no artistic merit, but have great sentimental and nostalgic merit. Every so often you hear a case where the police stop by and question the parents and every so often the photos are inappropriate (think weird uncle Billy).
But generally speaking these images are perfectly legal and in reality you have a have a greater chance of being stuck by lightning that being visited by the police for that cute nude photo of you baby daughter in the tub.

Nudists.... photographs of nudists doing their nudist thing and publications on their lifestyle are perfectly legal (as long as they are non sexual) even if they include photos of their kids. Once again not all the photos have even the slightest bit of artistic merit.

Art.... Yep you noted the art loophole, It's a biggie. Sturgis, Mann and Hamilton are the most notable artists who have proved that the full frontal kiddy loophole exists.
Like them or not they have demonstrated the dangers and freedoms afforded to art photographers working with nude children.

So I would say your wiki definition is a bit tighter than the reality of the law,
But it still has little to do with the OPs situation because as far as we know he was not intending to shoot the girl nude. And yet he was attacked as a pervert.... Why is that?

"But it still has little to do with the OPs situation because as far as we know he was not intending to shoot the girl nude. And yet he was attacked as a pervert.... Why is that?"

Chris,

People often project what is darkest and most hideous in their own hearts on to other people.  Often, the people who cry "Wolf!" are wolves themselves!

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

JAY carreon wrote:

What makes you think people don't respond to me favorably?  I get more enquiries from models wanting to test (and yes - that includes models under the age of 18) than I could possibly make time for.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

I'm not sure the models are coming to you because of your sweet disposition.
I would think that it's more because you shoot fashion pretty well,
And models need good fashion.

Maybe you have a great fun personality too,
But you do come on "a bit" strong in the forums.
(Even " bit" obnoxious from time to time)
I would think you could make your point in a less aggressive manner.

Chris Macan wrote:

I'm not sure the models are coming to you because of your sweet disposition.
I would think that it's more because you shoot fashion pretty well,
And models need good fashion.

Maybe you have a great fun personality too,
But you do come on "a bit" strong in the forums.
(Even " bit" obnoxious from time to time)
I would think you could make your point in a less aggressive manner.

Point taken.

J

JAY carreon wrote:
Chris,

People often project what is darkest and most hideous in their own hearts on to other people.  Often, the people who cry "Wolf!" are wolves themselves!

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

Yeah I get that,
But as you have noted lot's of the "Wolfs" are in denial on that.

In his defence... I don't think Diamond Park Photo is really in the wolf camp,
Just in the "posting incorrect info" camp.
I have no problem with his personal decision to not shoot under 18,
But I do take issue with his assertions that the world is scarier that it really is.
And his tendency to pass along his beleifs as fact.
But I guess that's life too.

Chris Macan wrote:

Yeah I get that,
But as you have noted lot's of the "Wolfs" are in denial on that.

In his defence... I don't think Diamond Park Photo is really in the wolf camp,
Just in the "posting incorrect info" camp.
I have no problem with his personal decision to not shoot under 18,
But I do take issue with his assertions that the world is scarier that it really is.
And his tendency to pass along his beleifs as fact.
But I guess that's life too.

See? You are reading it all wrong. I never said don't shoot under 18. A lot of models are in that category. All I said was to get the parent's approval.

The world is more difficult for shooting underage nudes. That is a fact. Maybe you want to be the pied piper for the practice but I don't.

Diamond Park Photo wrote:

See? You are reading it all wrong. I never said don't shoot under 18. A lot of models are in that category. All I said was to get the parent's approval.

The world is more difficult for shooting underage nudes. That is a fact. Maybe you want to be the pied piper for the practice but I don't.

Yeah you are right I mis-phrased
You are in the strict parental approval first camp.
and you were pretty clear about that. (my bad for mis quoteing)
And that's fine.

I don't think it is always nessesary or desired,
I've known more than a few 16 and 17 year olds who are on their own and for all practical (if not legal) purposes are adults.
It's a common sense thing to not get over involved or shoot risty material but a general shoot is fine (think portraits, fashion, commercial style.....)
Sure you may once in a blue moon hear from an angry parent but if you kept it legal there there is little they can do but rant and rave.
You are not going to get arrested for kidnapping.
The police are not going to get involved beyond asking what happened.
and it is unlikely that anyone will actually sue.

I'm sure somebody's brother's uncle's sister heard about a photographer who was locked in the clink for three years without a trial for talking to a 16 year old model...... But no one ever posts an actual documented case of this happening.

Everyone should figure out for themselves what their policy will be,
But we should not be calling people creepy or wrong for having a policy that differs from our own.

Marker220 wrote:
I skipped ahead from the OP...

you spent half an hour on the phone.... and another hour defending yourself? And it was obvious to you that the mom was unfriendly?


What the hell is wrong with you?


How does anyone have ANY time for crap like that? How important was this model that you allowed yourself to go through that?

Finally, a question worth replying to.

Anyways, it's simple. Being fairly new to model photography, I'm still trying to figure out the whole "customer relations" aspect. Simply put, I'm not a seasoned professional who has dealing with clients, models, MUA's, etc down to a science. I got my start shooting  things like Northern Lights, Storms, scenery, etc. My first successes as a photographer came as a freelance media photographer, shooting car accidents, fires, and news in general. I sort of fell into working with PEOPLE entirely by accident. So, no, my client relations still need work. I'm a bit naive in that respect, I freely admit. So, yeah, I felt kinda like I had something to prove when my intentions were called into question. Won't be making that mistake twice.

That's where MM and similar boards come into play for me - learning from fellow photographers. I don't come here to have other photographers (or try hard photographers) tear me, my work or my character to pieces and hung on a cross.

Bottom line is, the opinions of idiots like djohn really don't mean much to me. They know absolutely NOTHING whatsoever about me other that what they think they've gleaned from a few of my posts.. The fact is, I have clients, friends, co-workers, peers and family galore that really know me, and It's what THOSE people know about me that makes a WHIT of difference at the end of the day... I know who, and what I am, and I won' waste another second defending myself to people who don't matter - clients, online posters or otherwise.