Photographer
Paul Brecht
Posts: 12232
Colton, California, US
Whatagy wrote:
Can a 17 yo buy a car? Nope
Can a 17 yo buy a house? nope
Can a 17 yo contract with a lawn-care service? nope Yes to all 3...
15yo's go into the local mall "Starshots", Glamourshots", etc. & have pictures taken all the time. Does that mean that these companies are breaking the law on a daily basis?
(edit) the Olsen twins bought their penthouse condo's when they were under 18. Britney Spears bought a BMW when she was 17. If a kid came over & handed me $500 for a beat up Toyota that's been sitting in the yard as a paperweight, I'd sell it... (note: the last one is a hypothetical, I don't have any beaters sitting around)
Paul
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
On second thought . . . I said in my first post in this thread that I would limit my comments to one simple observation, because I know what happens in these threads.
And it's happening.
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
Most photographers just see it as more potential hassles working with those under 18 - e.g.: guardians can (and often do) get involved. It just simplifies life (somewhat) to work with models 18 and over (especially when there are plenty of models over 18 to choose from) - fewer potential legal issues (like contracts) and no guardian issues.
I personally don't think that photographers who prefer to not shoot under 18 models are bad people for trying to reduce their risks and potential hassles. Everybody is free to make their own choices.
To those under 18: your time will come - don't be in such a hurry to grow up! You'll be amazed how quickly time passes and you'll wish you were younger!
Photographer
coldrainarts
Posts: 148
Los Angeles, California, US
Valeria Figallo wrote:
most starting models are 16 or 17 sometimes even younger, i dont know why everyone thinks its SO ILLEGAL to shoot a minor, in fact agencies prefer underage models now.
only a perv would think shooting a minor its trouble and illegal, of course, you cant shoot a minor totally nude, but a "shooting" can be fashion, beauty,etc etc etc... It appears that there is a stigma attached to working with minors, based partially both in laziness and fear. Too lazy to have to work with the parental guardian, and too fearful of the consequences for the adult not being able to be adult.
Adam Freeland and many others before him wrote:
FEAR is the MINDKILLER. ...and to anther point:
17 is the ultimate prime age for fashion/glamour/commercial print models. It would take the blind not to see that.
EDIT: I have oversimplified my reply in it's bluntness. I'm o.k. with that.
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
Paul Brecht wrote:
Yes to all 3...
15yo's go into the local mall "Starshots", Glamourshots", etc. & have pictures taken all the time. Does that mean that these companies are breaking the law on a daily basis?
Paul Actually (in the state of Texas anyway) - you have to be 21 to have your name on a legal title like a car or house title.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Cold Rain Arts wrote:
17 is the ultimate prime age for fashion/glamour/commercial print models. It would take the blind not to see that. Err, no. For fashion, it's more like 15-16 as the prime age. It all goes downhill from there. For commercial print, prime age is more like 35. For glamour, I will leave the reader to draw their own conclusions, since I know what they will be no matter what I say.
Photographer
Ben Levis Photography
Posts: 1328
Perth, Western Australia, Australia
AB-11 wrote:
Sorry, I forgot this was your house. told.. lol
I've seen a 15 year old model do implied nude, on a shoot that i was assisting.. was all above board with agency reps everywhere, ended up being published in on of Australia's finest photographic magazines..
As for me.. if there is any sort of nudity involved i will wait until they are 18, just to be safe..
Photographer
Kentsoul
Posts: 9739
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
AB-11 wrote:
Valeria,
Here in the US they are a lot of right-winged double-minded folks that will raise hell from anything involving minors + cameras...
Long live the 'Free World'!! Womack Photo wrote:
Don't you dare blame the right. This has NOTHING to do with that. Oh, and if you don't think you are free...MOVE! Blame the right nothing...I blame Bush personally.
Photographer
NewBoldPhoto
Posts: 5216
PORT MURRAY, New Jersey, US
m erocrush wrote:
AB-11 wrote:
Valeria,
Here in the US they are a lot of right-winged double-minded folks that will raise hell from anything involving minors + cameras...
Long live the 'Free World'!! Blame the right nothing...I blame Bush personally. which one?
Photographer
RJ Ohrstedt
Posts: 546
Columbus, Ohio, US
Paul Brecht wrote:
Yes to all 3...
15yo's go into the local mall "Starshots", Glamourshots", etc. & have pictures taken all the time. Does that mean that these companies are breaking the law on a daily basis?
(edit) the Olsen twins bought their penthouse condo's when they were under 18. Britney Spears bought a BMW when she was 17. If a kid came over & handed me $500 for a beat up Toyota that's been sitting in the yard as a paperweight, I'd sell it... (note: the last one is a hypothetical, I don't have any beaters sitting around)
Paul I actually did that once; the kid approached me for my project car and I took what he offered. His mom was really mad, but had no recourse because I took cash and signed the title over to him.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Through Garys Eyes wrote:
Actually (in the state of Texas anyway) - you have to be 21 to have your name on a legal title like a car or house title. Since I am in Texas, and have a personal interest in this . . . and this is counter to what I have heard and seen in the law, I would be very interested in citation to an authoritative source for this. It's not in the Texas Statute of Frauds:
http://law.justia.com/texas/codes/bc/00 … 26.00.html
Photographer
Michael Bates
Posts: 1554
Austin, Texas, US
People seem to make so big of a deal about shooting models under 18! I shoot them, I have a parent present, we get kick ass images, and my release is beneficial to both parties....I do keep the sets "age appropriate"..and have references... What's the big deal about shooting underage models "unless" the photographer has ulteriror motives??? Geez!! Get with the real world of professional photography, people!
Michael
Photographer
joe duerr
Posts: 4227
Santa Ana, California, US
My avatar is not 18. Lot of the girls on my page are not 18. I have never had a problem with it. I also never shoot a minor without a parent present on set.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Michael Bates wrote:
Get with the real world of professional photography, people! Michael, Michael, Michael. Have you lost your senses? Where are you? Look at the logo at the top of the page.
Photographer
joe duerr
Posts: 4227
Santa Ana, California, US
Seabrook wrote:
I'll shoot an embryo. Now that's funny!
Photographer
Gone Til Novus-ember
Posts: 11440
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
TXPhotog wrote:
Err, no. For fashion, it's more like 15-16 as the prime age. It all goes downhill from there. For commercial print, prime age is more like 35. For glamour, I will leave the reader to draw their own conclusions, since I know what they will be no matter what I say. and they have
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
TXPhotog wrote:
Since I am in Texas, and have a personal interest in this . . . and this is counter to what I have heard and seen in the law, I would be very interested in citation to an authoritative source for this. It's not in the Texas Statute of Frauds:
http://law.justia.com/texas/codes/bc/00 … 26.00.html The law may have changed since I was a teenager (which admittedly was a few years ago). I was 16 when I bought my first car and every dealership I went to explained that they could sell me a car - but the title could not be in my name since I was under 21. I had to get it in my dad's name. It was the same story when I bought my second car at age 18.
Photographer
David Scott
Posts: 5617
Marion, Iowa, US
ooo dare i enter this thread with my experience shooting minors? nahhh. 
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Photographer
coldrainarts
Posts: 148
Los Angeles, California, US
TXPhotog wrote:
Err, no. For fashion, it's more like 15-16 as the prime age. It all goes downhill from there. For commercial print, prime age is more like 35. For glamour, I will leave the reader to draw their own conclusions, since I know what they will be no matter what I say. Points given. I respect your more specific nature.
As I had said in my edit, I was being blunt, and therefore generalizing a great deal. No regrets there.
My intended point being, that much like you said regarding fashion, young is the prime age, and that it all goes downhill from there. The best opportunities are for those models who start young and can ride the arc, through each phase, for a whole career. It would also seem to be in the best potential interest of some photographers to help these models and therefore themselves by finding and working with them.
That's it in a slightly more expanded way.
Photographer
Dobias Fine Art Photo
Posts: 1697
Haddon Heights, New Jersey, US
The key issue is the second thoughts problem.
Can the 17 year old get a tattoo or a piercing? Not without parental consent. And what happens if the kid says later on that he/she never really wanted the tattoo or piercing in the first place?
Can the 17 year old buy a pack of cigarettes, even with parental consent? No.
And, actually, in the State of New Jersey, it is illegal to take the pictures of any minors without parental consent, even if they are just incidental to public events. This was a paranoid law that got in the books when missing children on milk cartons were the rage and there were enough paranoid parents out there to get a law through because they thought that if you were taking pictures of their kids, you were actually setting them up for kidnapping. That's the paranoid side.
The second thought side? I would definitely want one parent/guardian, and one assistant available, and not simply with a signed note, just so the little scamp doesn't turn around and make various allegations simply for the excitement of it. I saw one message in one of these threads about a jealous boyfriend making bunches 'o allegations that were totally unfounded, especially considering it was a clothed shoot.
Nevermind the conservative folk on the right. An imaginative 17 year old and anxious, paranoid parents can't be a problem?
Photographer
Michael Bates
Posts: 1554
Austin, Texas, US
Michael, Michael, Michael. Have you lost your senses? Where are you? Look at the logo at the top of the page. You're right...this IS the Mayhem....LOL
Michael
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
TXPhotog wrote:
http://law.justia.com/texas/codes/cp/006.00.000129.00.html
It appears that the law changed in 1985. You know TX, when I posted that original post - I knew I shouldn't do it because you'll make me find the legal document backing it up. LOL
I'm glad you found the link above - I wasn't having any luck finding anything in my searches.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Dobias Fine Art Photo wrote:
And, actually, in the State of New Jersey, it is illegal to take the pictures of any minors without parental consent, even if they are just incidental to public events. As is common to claims that "there is a law", I would really like to see a citation to this statute. I'm not ready to say that it doesn't exist, but I suspect that if it does, it's not as broad as has been claimed here.
Photographer
SunArcher Photography
Posts: 7669
Washington, District of Columbia, US
Dobias Fine Art Photo wrote:
Can the 17 year old get a tattoo or a piercing? EDIT: A 17-year-old could get their ears pierced without parental consent prior to 2005. The law that allowed it was repealed in 2005. Louisiana Revised Statute 14:93.2 deals with body art and now prohibits all body art and all piercings for those under 18 without parental or custodial consent. Check your jurisdiction's laws to see if such restrictions apply to your jurisdiction.
As such, I acknowledge that my previous answer (yes, they can) is incorrect as of 2005. My apologies.
Dobias Fine Art Photo wrote:
And what happens if the kid says later on that he/she never really wanted the tattoo or piercing in the first place? The receipt and the rendering of payment would presumably say otherwise in a court of law, especially from a tattoo parlor where no other services are rendered.
Dobias Fine Art Photo wrote:
Can the 17 year old buy a pack of cigarettes, even with parental consent? No. That has what to do with contract law?
If anything, the last thing you wrote has more to do with the topic at hand than the first two questions. Because it involved the LAW. And more specifically, it involves the law in your particular jurisdiction. And until more photographers learn about it, instead of listening to the hypemongers who themselves have no clue about the law in their own jurisdictions, let alone the law somewhere else, we wouldn't have all of these slugfests on MM about shooting underaged people.
Photographer
HoIR Photogtaphy
Posts: 85
Longwood, Florida, US
Womack Photo wrote:
Don't you dare blame the right. This has NOTHING to do with that. Oh, and if you don't think you are free...MOVE! I thought they were using their 1st amendment in that statement?
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
HoIR Photogtaphy wrote:
I thought they were using their 1st amendment in that statement? Do we still have a 1st Amendment? Or have they done away with that too?
Photographer
NewBoldPhoto
Posts: 5216
PORT MURRAY, New Jersey, US
Dobias Fine Art Photo wrote:
And, actually, in the State of New Jersey, it is illegal to take the pictures of any minors without parental consent, even if they are just incidental to public events. TXPhotog wrote:
As is common to claims that "there is a law", I would really like to see a citation to this statute. I'm not ready to say that it doesn't exist, but I suspect that if it does, it's not as broad as has been claimed here. Dobias May not be completely whacked on this one just a bit confused.
We do have a law in New Jersey that prohibits the publication of personally identifiable information of minors. but I am having a hell of a time locating the exact code.
Edit: but it appears it only applies to schools...http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2000/Bills/AL01/402_.PDF
Photographer
Dobias Fine Art Photo
Posts: 1697
Haddon Heights, New Jersey, US
SunArcher Photography wrote:
Dobias Fine Art Photo wrote:
Can the 17 year old get a tattoo or a piercing? EDIT: A 17-year-old could get their ears pierced without parental consent prior to 2005. The law that allowed it was repealed in 2005. Louisiana Revised Statute 14:93.2 deals with body art and now prohibits all body art and all piercings for those under 18 without parental or custodial consent. Check your jurisdiction's laws to see if such restrictions apply to your jurisdiction.
As such, I acknowledge that my previous answer (yes, they can) is incorrect as of 2005. My apologies.
Dobias Fine Art Photo wrote:
And what happens if the kid says later on that he/she never really wanted the tattoo or piercing in the first place? The receipt and the rendering of payment would presumably say otherwise in a court of law, especially from a tattoo parlor where no other services are rendered.
That has what to do with contract law?
If anything, the last thing you wrote has more to do with the topic at hand than the first two questions. Because it involved the LAW. And more specifically, it involves the law in your particular jurisdiction. And until more photographers learn about it, instead of listening to the hypemongers who themselves have no clue about the law in their own jurisdictions, let alone the law somewhere else, we wouldn't have all of these slugfests on MM about shooting underaged people. Well, if you want to centralize strictly on contract law, then the point is entirely moot. Under 18, you are legally classified as an infant. Infants can not make binding contracts. Period.
Photographer
rickspix
Posts: 1304
Vallejo, California, US
why do they call it the religious right when they are so wrong?
Photographer
SunArcher Photography
Posts: 7669
Washington, District of Columbia, US
Dobias Fine Art Photo wrote:
Well, if you want to centralize strictly on contract law, then the point is entirely moot. Under 18, you are legally classified as an infant. Infants can not make binding contracts. Period. Which brings us back full circle to TX's point: you don't have to have a contract to shoot a minor.
And my own point: know the law in your jurisdiction before just 1) making a blanket statement about shooting minors and 2) making assumptions about the legality of shooting minors (general, not specifically to you, Dobias).
Photographer
Kevin Greggain Photography
Posts: 6769
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
I'm sure it has been stated already, but we have no issues working with under 18 models, but with all the fear and panic over photographers and photographers with underage models, it's just not worth my time and investment. For example, a 15 year old model contacts me and wants fashion shots with some outfits she has. I indicate that I must talk to a parent first before I can accept to work with model (this is a TFP shoot). Parent gets on the line and gives me the third degree -- 1) Why am I offering to shoot for free (I didn't, I was asked) 2) I'll have to think about this and get back to you (don't bother) 3) We heard about a photographer in 1492 that killed 8 models so we are nervous (damn, how can I possibly kidnap your child now that you know that my great great great great great grandfather was a serial model murderer who sailed with Columbus? 4) What are you going with these photos ? (Uh, post them on my portfolio) 5) We want all images at the time of shoot ( Ok, but they are not going to be perfect and then you will complain because I made your kid look ugly ) 6) you shoot nudes, you are obviously a perverted stalker (SWC ? stalker with camera) Obviously I'm exaggerating here, but the main issues I have is just with the paranoia that goes with a shoot, and for me, it's just not worth my time to educate, reassure, or encourage this type of shoot. I'm sure others are more patient than I am, but as a rule, I'm not afraid of shooting under 18's, I would just rather donate my free time and effort to a model 18+ who's a little clearer about what she / he wants and are able to shoot without parental permission. Now.. I have to get parental permission to shoot nudes because my prudish parents are very much against it.. And I'm 47 -- Apparently because I have shot nudes with a telephoto lens, I'm a pornographer.
Photographer
Quay Lude
Posts: 6386
Madison, Wisconsin, US
TXPhotog wrote:
A sale.
If you were to walk into the store and purchase some toothpaste, and pay for it, do you need a contract? Can someone under 18 do it legally? Oh... come on. Geezy Chreezy. Apples and dildos.
Photographer
AB-11
Posts: 273
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
joe duerr wrote:
My avatar is not 18... I forgot to mention, neither it's mine.
Model
Janos
Posts: 1572
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Valeria Figallo wrote:
most starting models are 16 or 17 sometimes even younger, i dont know why everyone thinks its SO ILLEGAL to shoot a minor, in fact agencies prefer underage models now.
only a perv would think shooting a minor its trouble and illegal, of course, you cant shoot a minor totally nude, but a "shooting" can be fashion, beauty,etc etc etc... Welcome to close minded USA!
Photographer
Dobias Fine Art Photo
Posts: 1697
Haddon Heights, New Jersey, US
DigitalArticulation wrote:
I'm sure it has been stated already, but we have no issues working with under 18 models, but with all the fear and panic over photographers and photographers with underage models, it's just not worth my time and investment.
For example, a 15 year old model contacts me and wants fashion shots with some outfits she has. I indicate that I must talk to a parent first before I can accept to work with model (this is a TFP shoot).
Parent gets on the line and gives me the third degree --
1) Why am I offering to shoot for free (I didn't, I was asked)
2) I'll have to think about this and get back to you (don't bother)
3) We heard about a photographer in 1492 that killed 8 models so we are nervous (damn, how can I possibly kidnap your child now that you know that my great great great great great grandfather was a serial model murderer who sailed with Columbus?
4) What are you going with these photos ? (Uh, post them on my portfolio)
5) We want all images at the time of shoot ( Ok, but they are not going to be perfect and then you will complain because I made your kid look ugly )
6) you shoot nudes, you are obviously a perverted stalker (SWC ? stalker with camera)
Obviously I'm exaggerating here, but the main issues I have is just with the paranoia that goes with a shoot, and for me, it's just not worth my time to educate, reassure, or encourage this type of shoot.
I'm sure others are more patient than I am, but as a rule, I'm not afraid of shooting under 18's, I would just rather donate my free time and effort to a model 18+ who's a little clearer about what she / he wants and are able to shoot without parental permission.
Now.. I have to get parental permission to shoot nudes because my prudish parents are very much against it.. And I'm 47 -- Apparently because I have shot nudes with a telephoto lens, I'm a pornographer. Let's keep this one to a more harmless side.
The 15 year old comes to your studio with a bunch of outfits and contracts for $4K worth of photo work.
The parents find out what she has done. The pictures are totally harmless, and they agree to that. BUT, $4K???
You didn't have their signature on that contract.
Go ahead and try to collect.
Photographer
Wolfs Eye Photography
Posts: 1830
Wills Point, Texas, US
Michael Bates wrote:
People seem to make so big of a deal about shooting models under 18! I shoot them, I have a parent present, we get kick ass images, and my release is beneficial to both parties....I do keep the sets "age appropriate"..and have references... What's the big deal about shooting underage models "unless" the photographer has ulteriror motives??? Geez!! Get with the real world of professional photography, people!
Michael Totaly agreed.
I've had a number of minors who I would consider better then the older models actually. Parent present is a must with me though.
Even nude B&W shots for one family. Guess what folks, when there's no "ulterior motive" it's amazing what an innocent shoot can produce.
I think those who may be quilty of something or contsantly are thinking of something wrong, are the ones who accuse the most. Those who accuse without justification is why most photographers feel the way they do about shooting minors.
GEEEEEEESH...........don't get me started.....
Photographer
Wolfs Eye Photography
Posts: 1830
Wills Point, Texas, US
Dobias Fine Art Photo wrote:
Let's keep this one to a more harmless side.
The 15 year old comes to your studio with a bunch of outfits and contracts for $4K worth of photo work.
The parents find out what she has done. The pictures are totally harmless, and they agree to that. BUT, $4K???
You didn't have their signature on that contract.
Go ahead and try to collect. Easy, get paid up front as I do.
With or without parent.
Photographer
Dobias Fine Art Photo
Posts: 1697
Haddon Heights, New Jersey, US
Wolfs Eye Photography wrote:
Easy, get paid up front as I do.
With or without parent. I was bringing up the point to demonstrate an issue on contracts. If they are underaged, and therefore legally classified as an "infant" (which is actually a good point regarding where lines are drawn. 17? 15? 10? 5?), how valid is a contract?
I simply state, "If underaged, ensure the parents are fully involved."
Brooke Shields's mom Ok'd the contract and release for nude pictures of her when she was 13. BUT, do we notice two important words? "Mom Ok'd?"
|
