PYPI wrote:

iamthemikeb wrote:
just to clarify, the only reason why im making a "big deal" is because

1. I dont work for an agency

2. she doesn't work for an agency

so, in the right persons eyes, this can look like..

Im some pervy dude with a camera trying to snake some shots of an underage (and obviously so incredibly innocent) girl.

If you can't agree with that in some sense, then you obviously are too old, or work for an agency


That being said, Ive a new found confidence in working with this girl due to your shared experiences. I dont play victim to fear mongering. Also, someone said "by 18 their modeling career is 1/2 over anyways" which is a DAMN good point!

99.9% of "models" do not work with an agency... Just look at model mayhem, how many girls are with an agency and actually book work... ??

And about the perv thing, do u think that shooting a girl with an agency or a girl who is 18 yrs 1 day old wont make u a perv if u are?!?! c'mon !!

iamthemikeb wrote:
the difference is that you can easily fallback on the agency for credentials. My credentials is half composed of semi nude girls. If you can't see where Im coming from than you are obviously just trying to be difficult. Keep in mind that I have NEVER shot someone underage so TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE IT MIGHT BE AN ISSUE. However, I see now that people do it all the time.

While half of your online port here is nudes, the other half isn't. Stick to the non-nude work and you're going to be fine.

There won't be any issues if you're doing a TFCD/TFP shoot with an underage model if you are shooting age appropriate work. If you are worried the girl may be a drama queen, then make sure you have an assistant with you. It looks like you usually have someone doing makeup anyway, so have a MUA there and any problems are covered.

It may seem like a big deal, but it's not. While all the stuff I have here is with 18+ models, I've shot photos of kids as young as 2 months. Some of my favorite shots are of underage models. None of them would get me in any trouble as they're age appropriate. Since I don't work for an ad agency, or magazine, and I'm not in the fashion industry I haven't had to worry about 'nude' shoots with underage models.

If you think she's got a look that you want to put in your portfolio then go ahead, just get that release and in her case, the only complication is that you need her legal guardian to sign. Given her foster status that could be a problem, or it could be quite painless. Depends on the guardians I suppose.

Dave

J O N A T H A N wrote:
Though I'm not sure on US laws but i dont even think boobs count you have to see genetalia right?

Incorrect.  There need not be any "naughty bits" showing at all.   There have been several cases in recent years in which a fully-clothed minor in a "sexy" pose was considered illegal under interpretations of the law.  I know that a couple of them went to trial, but I can't remember what the final outcomes were.

Why the paranoia?  Because "obscene" is entirely in the eyes of the DA.  And, quite frankly, it doesn't matter what the final verdict is.   Seizure of assets, court costs and legal fees can yank your entire business away from you.  The publicity of being called a "child pornographer" can assure that you never get it back.

The power to press and pursue charges on these things has been given to a very few individuals, and many of them see gold when the opportunity arises to "convict a child pornographer."  Facts don't matter; it's 100% positive publicity for the DA--especially in an election year.

It's not unreasonable for people to be concerned about the potential problems involved in these situations; this is one of the most emotionally-charged and least-defined areas of law in the US. However, these forums aren't the place to find out the answers.  If you're concerned about the potential for problems, consult your lawyer.  He'll know more about the issues as well as have a better understanding of the local prosecutors and the things that they like to prosecute.

PYPI wrote:

PYPI wrote:

Kayla Muncie wrote:
I feel for you. I went to a shoot recently where the photographer turned out to be 17! This might not bother some people but it did me, and I wish I had been informed. At least she was up front about it.

You weren't doing nudes so why would you care?

scott lanes wrote:

10k posts in 2 years? when do you have time to shoot anyone??

I'm talented that way.

PYPI wrote:

That would be hard. Who's going to hold up the infant?

Oh damn!

In a federal indictment announced this week, the U.S. Department of Justice accused Pierson, 43, of being a child pornographer--even though even prosecutors acknowledge there's no evidence he has ever taken a single photograph of an unclothed minor.

Rather, they argue, his models struck poses that were illegally provocative. "The images charged are not legitimate child modeling, but rather lascivious poses one would expect to see in an adult magazine," Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the northern district of Alabama, said in a statement.

news.com

the U.S. Supreme Court has also stated that fully clothed images may constitute child pornography.

freeadvice.com

M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
Just a couple references:

In a federal indictment announced this week, the U.S. Department of Justice accused Pierson, 43, of being a child pornographer--even though even prosecutors acknowledge there's no evidence he has ever taken a single photograph of an unclothed minor.

Rather, they argue, his models struck poses that were illegally provocative. "The images charged are not legitimate child modeling, but rather lascivious poses one would expect to see in an adult magazine," Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the northern district of Alabama, said in a statement.

M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
news.com

the U.S. Supreme Court has also stated that fully clothed images may constitute child pornography.

M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
freeadvice.com

Just bear in mind that the clothed images that were found to be fairily extreme.  In the cited case, the minor had her hand in her pants and was fondling herself.  The prosecution was based on a lascivious display of the genitals.

When you read the Supreme Court Decisions, the Supreme Court didn't uphold that decision, instead they sent it back to the lower court for review.  The lower court expanded on its reasoning but stuck with their decision.  That decision wasn't appealed to SCOTUS again. 

The effect is that ruling is only binding in that particular district, although it can be cited elsewhere.  By the same token, the Supreme Court decision referring it back for further review is also citable.

The bottom line though is that it requires more than just a sexy picture to be considered child porn.  For a clothed picture to fall under the decision, it has to be quite sexual in nature.

PYPI wrote:

iamthemikeb wrote:
The girl is truly a find, but Im not going to be on dateline NBC for some bullsh*t.

Just do age appropriate shots, make her a muse, because if I see you talking to Chis Hanson I'm going to laugh my balls off.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
The bottom line though is that it requires more than just a sexy picture to be considered child porn.  For a clothed picture to fall under the decision, it has to be quite sexual in nature.

To be convicted, perhaps.  But the charges are often enough to destroy a photographer's business.

I agree that these types of prosecutions are uncommon, and they vary greatly depending on the jurisdiction.  It does need to be pointed out that all it takes is one DA with a stick up his butt to take away everything you have.  This is especially true with amateur or small-business photographers who don't have the resources to put up a prolonged fight.

My main point is that there may be reason to be concerned about working with under-age models.  The notion that "there's absolutely nothing to worry about as long as she doesn't get naked" is not correct.  The situation is far more complex, and far less defined than some people believe.

M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
My main point is that there may be reason to be concerned about working with under-age models.  The notion that "there's absolutely nothing to worry about as long as she doesn't get naked" is not correct.  The situation is far more complex, and far less defined than some people believe.

I disagree.  Teens walk into Glamour Shots every day and have their picture taken.

I think I am adult enough to know when something is teen appropriate, teen inappropriate and on the borderline.  So long as everything I do is teen appropriate I have absolutely no reservations about working with teen models.

Where I do agree with you is if you are moving towards that which is on the borderline, it is easy for someone with a hair up their butt to cause you a lot of problems.  I don't think the OP was talking about borderline.

Teens are a major part of the fashion industry.  To be successful as a photographer, you have to learn to deal with them.  Being safe and taking precautions is one thing.  Being paranoid is another.

Personality Imaging wrote:
You should be ok as long as a guardian is around and signs the release,

There need not be a release involved.  The model wants to pay him.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I think you had a good, rational post.  I have absolutely no problem working with a minor. 

Your statement about age discrimination though is a little bit over the top.  As a business owner, you have the right to deny service to anyone, with just a few limitations.  Age discrimination doesn' mean that you can't deny someone service because of their age.  It means that you can't deny someone employment (or certain other services because of their age).  It isn't designed to protect the young, but to protect the old.

As an example, if you chose to hire a twenty-five year old instead of a forty-five year old because of he was younger, that might be age discrimination.  Here is a link that you can use to look at what age discrimination is:

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/age.html

I might have no problem shooting a fourteen year old in a bikini, but ... if you chose to deny a fourteen year old service because you felt that it was age inappropriate, there are no legal repercussions.   That is your right as a business owner.

The bottom line is that I liked your post, but was concerned only about the age discrimination assertion.

There was a situation here in MN, where a home owner told an 18 year old buyer that he would not sell his home to him on a contract for deed, even though the 18 year old buyer had the best of three offers. The seller said he wanted to sell it to someone older and admitted that the young man's age was the primary issue. The young man sued the seller for $22,000 after the seller sold the property to someone else.

The young man claimed that the seller could not discriminate because of age and that he should have been allowed to purchase the home.  He brought in appraisers and Realtors who verified the young man's allegation that the home sold for about $22,000 less than homes of comparable value. The court agreed that the seller did discriminate illegally due to age, and ordered the seller to pay the young man $22,000 so he could purchase a comparable home.

Age discrimination applies to many things other than employment. It also applies to lending. My friend's mother, who is 82, just took out a 30 year mortgage.

I did post in my original reply that I thought it was a stretch to think that anyone would use age discrimination to push the issue, but I think it's still a possibility.

Personality Imaging wrote:
You should be ok as long as a guardian is around and signs the release, don't ask me how you make sure they are a legal guardian, I'll leave that one to an atty.
Be aware that 18 is the magic age for shooting most anything, but in some states 18 year olds do not have the right to sign a legally binding release or any other contract.
It's 19 in Alabama, for example.  So you can shoot nudies at 18, but have to get a parent to sign the release until they are 19.  This makes perfect sense to me.

Yet you can have consensual sex younger then that.  Is it clearer now?

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
The young man claimed that the seller could not discriminate because of age and that he should have been allowed to purchase the home.  He brought in appraisers and Realtors who verified the young man's allegation that the home sold for about $22,000 less than homes of comparable value. The court agreed that the seller did discriminate illegally due to age, and ordered the seller to pay the young man $22,000 so he could purchase a comparable home.

I am not saying that I don't believe you, but ... I would like to see a citation to that case or at least a credible news article.  I just did a Westlaw search and found nothing.  I also did a search for age discrimination statutes in Minnesota and found references only to the two basic ones which are pretty standard.  The first is age descrimination in Employment.  The Federal law deals with employees over forty but the Minnesota law doesn't recognize a minimum age.  The second is with respect to federally funded programs.  It falls under civil rights legistation.

What I could not find was any kind of statutes relating to age discrimination in housing.  That is why I would love to read this case if you can show it to me.

I did, however, find a number of cases where business denied services to clients because they felt it was inappropriate for minors and I could find none where anyone prevailed against the business.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I disagree.  Teens walk into Glamour Shots every day and have their picture taken.

Yes. And Glamour Shots is a very known quantity with a national presence.  "Photos by Bob" isn't.

I think I am adult enough to know when something is teen appropriate, teen inappropriate and on the borderline.  So long as everything I do is teen appropriate I have absolutely no reservations about working with teen models.

What is "teen appropriate"?  And does the local DA agree with you on that line?

Teens are a major part of the fashion industry.  To be successful as a photographer, you have to learn to deal with them.  Being safe and taking precautions is one thing.  Being paranoid is another.

The fashion industry is backed by big money and powerful lawyers.  They're not a tempting target for a DA with chip on his shoulder.

As for paranoia... 

A teacher I worked with did some private tutoring with a couple of students.  The students always came together, the parents knew where they were and gave permission.  A classmate decided that something kinky was going on.  The teacher denied it.  The students denied it.  Only the fact that the investigating officer had known this teacher since childhood saved him from a prison term.  He was fired from the school and, because of these charges, will never be able to work as a teacher again.

I have a friend who, at this very moment, is sitting in jail--and will be for the next 7 months--because he found some child porn and reported it to the police.  The DA saw an easy target and went after him.  After 2 years, tens of thousands of dollars, and the threat of taking the case federal, my friend felt he had no choice but to accept a plea bargain.

I've got plenty more personal experiences that have opened my eyes to the dangers of small-minded conservatives with too much power.

You're in California--one of the most liberal states in the union, and a nexus for the fashion industry.  Most of us live in states with a far less forgiving attitude.  Some of us live in states which are outright hostile to anything with a "less than Biblical sense of propriety".   Blanket statements aren't valid in this situation. 

And under 2257, having images of minors on the same website as "adult" images can get you into trouble with the DoJ. That's a federal matter.  The OP displays shots of a distinctly "adult" nature.  This can be a point of concern.

If you feel comfortable with your legal position, that's great.   Not everyone is as sure of where they stand in the legal landscape.  And many of us have good cause to be concerned.

Love of Photography wrote:
...but you are loveable and harmless...

PYPI wrote:
No man has ever called my loveable. Are you hitting on me?

What would you like your loveable to be called? 

Tiffany Wei Ling wrote:

DKLEE STUDIO wrote:
... people shoot girls under 18 all the time..

Ok, now I get it! This is how these 16 and 17 yr olds have photos of themselves!

Sometimes you just have to spell it out!

PYPI wrote:

What is it about this post that is causing both males and females to hit on me? I put this on a t-shirt so I can walk around with it to increase my chance of scoring.

LOL LOL

Lost Viking wrote:
If the girl is in the "system" (Foster Kid) get her social worker involved.The session would be considered a self esteem building therapy. I used to do it all the time when I worked at the Psychiatric Hospital.
You may even end up with a lot of referrals, or a paid contract.

Oooooooooooh, that's productively creative solution.

& no, I'm actually not being sarcastic for once.

iamthemikeb wrote:
On (another popular model site) I was browsing ports and came across a very good looking that had nothing but crappy friendtookmypictureforme shots. She doesn't live that far from me so, thinking that she was a great find/new face, I contacted her with the following email:

Hey there,

Are you still relatively active and looking to do some TFCD maybe? I live in Oakland and would love to help you develop your portfolio. Just hit me back if you're interested!

Take Care,

--mikeb

hmmmm....it has never been illegal to photograph children in this country.....i don' know why every photographer thinks Homeland Security is going to show up if he shoots a girl under 18. contact her guardians and tell them you want to shoot tgheir daughter....case closed

a few weeks later she responds with:


Hi, sorry for the late response. I'd love to do a tfcd if youre still available.
-suzy

Great!! So, as I do with everyone that wants to shoot, I try and find out a little on who THEY are so I can keep all my ducks inline here.. ESPECIALLY WITH "18" YEAR OLDS. So, I bounce her email off of the myspace database and get nothing.. so I take and bounce her model name off google and find her page... it says shes 17.

SHIT.

So...


Hey suzy!

Okay first things first.. are you really 18? If not, its fine, we'll just have to work something out a little differently.

Benefit of the doubt because the myspace picture was so incredibly small it was hard to tell who it was at all... and the location was "California" and there are QUITE a bit of girls in california....[/sarcasm]

yeah im 17 i put down 18 to make things simple because im in foster care. what would need to be worked out?

Should I just drop it and wait a year? What the hell would I need to do here? Would there be some kind of issue taking photos (appropriate for her age) and posting them to my portfolio (inappropriate for her age)??

The girl is truly a find, but Im not going to be on dateline NBC for some bullsh*t.

Farenell Photography wrote:

Oooooooooooh, that's productively creative solution.

& no, I'm actually not being sarcastic for once.

Agreed! Play it straight and it will pay off.

M Blaze Miskulin wrote:
If you feel comfortable with your legal position, that's great.   Not everyone is as sure of where they stand in the legal landscape.  And many of us have good cause to be concerned.

I understand your feelings but I hope everyone isn't as paranoid as you.  I'm not going to bother to respond to the rest your post.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

I am not saying that I don't believe you, but ... I would like to see a citation to that case or at least a credible news article.  I just did a Westlaw search and found nothing.  I also did a search for age discrimination statutes in Minnesota and found references only to the two basic ones which are pretty standard.  The first is age descrimination in Employment.  The Federal law deals with employees over forty but the Minnesota law doesn't recognize a minimum age.  The second is with respect to federally funded programs.  It falls under civil rights legistation.

What I could not find was any kind of statutes relating to age discrimination in housing.  That is why I would love to read this case if you can show it to me.

I did, however, find a number of cases where business denied services to clients because they felt it was inappropriate for minors and I could find none where anyone prevailed against the business.

Alan,  I'm a licensed Realtor and discrimination based on age is illegal here. Discrimination based on age, familial status, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, disability,  or public assistance status, is prohibited. I don't know if it's a State or Federal Law, it might be part of the equal housing act or the Minnesota Human Rights act. The case I was referring to was something an instructor for a continuing ed. class talked about during a class I took. I believe that age and sexual orientation might not be legally protected in all states, but they are in Minnesota.

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
Alan,  I'm a licensed Realtor and discrimination based on age is illegal here. Discrimination based on age, familial status, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, disability,  or public assistance status, is prohibited. I don't know if it's a State or Federal Law, it might be part of the equal housing act or the Minnesota Human Rights act. The case I was referring to was something an instructor for a continuing ed. class talked about during a class I took. I believe that age and sexual orientation might not be legally protected in all states, but they are in Minnesota.

I'm not saying I don't believe you, I am saying that I would like to see the case and the statute.  I have done a fair amount of research on westlaw.  I am curious where this is coming from.

Disability, gender, national origin, etc, those are normal civil rights laws.  I haven't seen age mentioned anywhere other than employment or federal programs.  I am wondering if you are confusing the ban on age discrimination with respect to HUD which is a federal program?  Perhaps that is the underlying fact that you are missing.

That is why I would like you to show me rather than tell me.  It would be interesting to see where these things are coming from.  I would also like to know all the facts of the case you are discussing rather than a second hand restatement.  There is often something more than we are hearing in the story.

Farenell Photography wrote:

Oooooooooooh, that's productively creative solution.

& no, I'm actually not being sarcastic for once.

I do agree.
I like that idea a lot...
Personally, as a underage girl looking to model, I say you have to start out somewhere.
As said, if you think she's got a good face and a good style and you like it, chances are taken in all businesses. Also, as said, if you think she's sketchy, then look into it. Don't do it if you don't think it's right. Don't do it because everyone else has.
As far as my look on this system goes, photographers have to go with their gut feeling a lot. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but, just as models can, if you're not comfortable with doing the shoot, then simply..don't.
Personally I hate this label on underage girls; that they're all trouble. It makes it hard to find someone to shoot me. I don't want some crappy photographer who has no idea what he/she's doing taking photos of me to start my portfolio and to show to other people. Chances are, the only reason they agree with no question is because they don't know about this stuff. 
It's a tricky thing, but it really just depends on the photographer. Do what you think is best, but hear me out on this. It's hard to find someone who's good and willing to shoot an underage girl. Some of us need chances.

Lost Viking wrote:
If the girl is in the "system" (Foster Kid) get her social worker involved.The session would be considered a self esteem building therapy. I used to do it all the time when I worked at the Psychiatric Hospital.
You may even end up with a lot of referrals, or a paid contract.

In the Uk, a foster carer can sign legal documents on the child's behalf. It's not any different than getting a parent to do it