|
Forums >
General Industry >
Age Verification - Opinions Please!
My current policy in regard to age verification is to ask that the model provide a valid/current, state issued ID or drivers license. I also ask her to allow me to do a head shot with the ID beside her face so that I can further "attach" the ID to the person. I like this approach because it is a simple but effective way to verify the age of the model. There is one problem with this approach, however. In an era where identification theft and photographer/stalkers are a concern, I can understand why some models might be reluctant to do this. I know that I am neither but it is only fair for me to consider the model's point of view. It has occurred to me that I probably don't need to have the ID/License number and the address recorded in the image so covering it with something, while leaving the rest of the ID visible, might be a good thing to do. There is another part of me that feels that, since we all have to provide complete ID information for any other form of employment, why should a paid shoot for a model be any different? Any expert opinions out there in MM world? Before any one brings it up, though, I am not shooting "sexual situations" (porn) so 18 U.S.C. 2257 rules do not apply. Feb 19 06 06:09 pm Link i generally just copy down the state issued "ID number" onto the release, this way i can prove that ive looked at it, though in some instances ive made a photocopy of it and attached it to the release Feb 19 06 07:49 pm Link This is one of several reasons why I insist on having my releases notraized :-) I have the notary stamp as proof of inspection of the ID. Feb 19 06 07:56 pm Link You take the model to a notary or have a notary at the shoot? No notary that I know of will verify anything without the relevant parties present. They will not certify a signature or copy of anything unless they were made in front of them. If you have found a way to do this, I'm all ears! Feb 19 06 08:02 pm Link I only take ID info for full nude shoots, or for those that might be construed as provocative in some way to the point that it might be an 18 USC 2257 issue. Generally I offer the model the chance to black out the SSN in states where it is shown (on my current California license it is not, on my old Illinois one quite a few years ago it was). Some care, some don't. Feb 19 06 08:04 pm Link Always get a copy of the ID and have it unaltered and on file. This way, you have proof that the model was at the shoot and did sign the paperwork, even if you are not shooting stuff covered by 2257. It's important even if you have a notary or are a notary...always have photographic proof that the person you say was there was there and signed the paperwork! In this litigious society, you can never have enough documentation. Feb 19 06 08:08 pm Link I err on the side of caution. If I am shooting anything that is nude (or even clothed but provocative in any way), I shoot a photo of their ID. If they are signing a model release, regardless of photo content, I shoot their ID (they have to be 18 to sign their own model release). I don't bother with ID if I am being paid to do simple portraits or headshots where I am not getting a model release. Feb 19 06 11:10 pm Link Ken Mierzwa wrote: Be carefull here. I used to only require ID for nude shoots as well. But then I found out that a couple of models (non nude shoot) had signed my model release using their alias. I had no idea the name was an alias. Looked just like a normal first and last name. So, needless to say, their release is worthless to me. Feb 19 06 11:15 pm Link John Jebbia wrote: Just because a model uses a screen name doesn't make the release invalid. In fact, if it were done to invalidate the release, it could be fraud. A person can use any name they want, legal or not, so long as fraud is not the intent. Feb 19 06 11:36 pm Link |
