Madcrow Photographics wrote:

I take that particular statistic from these forums, where "Make sure you have a parent or guardian around at all times" seems to be pretty standard advice.

Well lets see... over 700,000 people on MM.   I doubt that many even participate in the forums. Probably not even half. 

When did you take that poll to find that "greatest number of people?"

Madcrow Photographics wrote:
I take that particular statistic from these forums, where "Make sure you have a parent or guardian around at all times" seems to be pretty standard advice.

Anyone who takes the opinions of people on these forums as authoritative deserves what he gets, I suppose.

Do an experiment (one which is done a couple of times a week already, minimum).  Start a thread asking if an agency asks a model for money, is it a scam.  You will get the most amazing number of people saying that it is, along with all sorts of other ignorant advice.  The only thing that means is that a lot of people here are ignorant.

Elliot wrote:

Isn't a 17 yr old (in the USA) unable to enter into a contract? Just wondering if even getting the minor's signature is needed or useful?

What you're really doing is having the under age person say, yes to consent for the image, and the guardian is confirming the consent.

The young lady who wrote this is correct in that it does save a lot of potential heartache.

Again though, it depends on the situation. If the photographer's being hired to shoot, then no release is needed as he does not in fact own copyright of the images anyway. (See my previous post about Canadian Copyright)

Dave

Chris Macan wrote:

Sometimes trouble can be great publicity...........

And EXPENSIVE too!  LOL

Vortex Imaging wrote:
If the photographer's being hired to shoot, then no release is needed as he does not in fact own copyright of the images anyway. (See my previous post about Canadian Copyright)

As a default, you MIGHT be right, if she commissioned the shoot and paid for the pictures.  However, most Canadian photographers solve that problem by having the model assign the copyright to them, which is entirely legal.  That's why I recommended it earlier in this thread.

AlysiaPaige wrote:

I've always had to sign, I don't know if it is needed though.

It probably depends on what State you're in as well.
In this case, the model and photographer are in Canada, and our laws here are different again.

That being said, it's not like 17 year old models don't get portfolio work done every day. It's just another gig. I've shot photos of kids as young as 3 weeks, I've had parents drop their 13 year old daughter off at a studio knowing I was going to take the girl on location to do her shoots and no ones' heads exploded and the child wasn't tramatized by the shoot.

If what you're doing is age appropriate and you are professional about what you're doing, the only trama you're going to have to deal with is helping the model decide which photos are going to be best in her book.

Dave

CarlMaiorinoPhotography wrote:
The model in my avatar is 16, I guess I'm going to jail.  Save me Roger...please???

I can't save you, Carl.  You have gone over to the dark side, and there is no hope for your salvation.

Madcrow Photographics wrote:
I don't know about Canada, but here in the US, shooting a UNemancipated minor (a,k,a, 99.9% of 17 year olds) without a parent or guardian around, even in public, is a HUGE no no...

EDIT: Fixed a rather large typo...

Ya, we're a little more laid back up here, must be the cold.

Dave

TXPhotog wrote:

I can't save you, Carl.  You have gone over to the dark side, and there is no hope for your salvation.

I've shot lots and lots of minors.  What does that mean for me? 

TXPhotog wrote:

I can't save you, Carl.  You have gone over to the dark side, and there is no hope for your salvation.

Roger, the good news is that there probably was never much hope for my slavation anyway, so I guess there is no harm done...

Vortex Imaging wrote:

Not sure why that would be needed. If the model is paying for the shoot she owns the copyright. (Remember the photographer is in Canada and up here, copyright does not always fall to the photographer by default.

Canadian copyrights

In this case, secton 13, subsection 2

A parent is also not needed as, if this is a business transaction it's no different than a 17 year old going into a salon to get her hair done.

As long as the photos are age appropriate the OP has nothing to worry about, and if she's his client there's nothing to do but exchange cash and photos.

Dave

Thanks, Dave. Saved me some cut and paste...

  I am always aghast at how quickly a simple question posed in a Mayhem forum can turn into a pissing match between so many people patently unqualified to answer in the first place.
  The original question was about the legalities of the situation in CANADA, and the OP never mentioned if it was to be a paid or TFP shoot, yet immediately responses of an authoritative tone appear from a wide variety of individuals who could not bother to read enough of the post to establish these simple facts.*

  The question has been asked and answered, Boys and Girls.
  Anything more is a hijack.


* Not to disparage the input from those who DID read properly. You know who you are.

Kenzphotos wrote:

Personally,

I would wait until she is 18 and a legal adult (at least that is the age in the States) before shooting with her.

Side note:  I realize many models begin their careers at an early age, however; I would like to see this site be for people over the age of 18 ONLY.  I feel that way for the simple reason that there is a lot of nudity on ModelMayhem.  Nothing against nudity and nothing against underage girls - but, come on, we all know the two don't mix!

You do realize that 13 to 17 year old girls have figured out how to use a mirror right?

I still haven't figured out why people get so upset about naked bodies and sex. It's not like your parents and grandparents didn't do it at least once! It's probably the most normal and original thing humans have done other than eat and sleep.

Sheesh.

Dave (I'll get off my soap box now)

CarlMaiorinoPhotography wrote:

Roger, the good news is that there probably was never much hope for my slavation anyway, so I guess there is no harm done...

I guess we're in the same boat.  We'll make it through.   

lol

Mike McMillan wrote:
Thanks for all the responses, much appreciated. I will be shooting her tonight.

I'm handling it like this.

No release
No parents or guardian. ( she said she didnt want then or as she put it" what do I need my parents for"

Completely public place
Headshots and portraits only
Jeans and a normal top.

Shes O.K with it and I am to. There will be no weird stuff, just some nice pics, like grad pics.

[/thread]

CGI Images wrote:

Please, Please, Please, I'm freakin begging, please.  Do me two favors.

1. Please show me any statute or law that says shooting "minors" simply nude is illegal.

2.  When you cant find that statute run to your local borders or barnes and noble, pick up one of david hamiltons books and educate yourself.

QFT

I'm always amazed to see this too.

Dave

RB Davis Photography wrote:
It's amazing just how much we have grown up in the past 50 years....

omg, omg, please put nudity behind a cut!   

TXPhotog wrote:

As a default, you MIGHT be right, if she commissioned the shoot and paid for the pictures.  However, most Canadian photographers solve that problem by having the model assign the copyright to them, which is entirely legal.  That's why I recommended it earlier in this thread.

Heh ya I've closed the gov.ca page but I believe that's actually covered in sec13 p2.

This subsection points out that unless there is another agreement, like what you mention, the copyright then falls to the person who is commissioning the image, once valuable consideration has been met. I.E. they've paid their invoice. Until then the photographer would retain copyright.

Dave

RJ Ohrstedt wrote:

All the threads like this seem to confuse what is LEGAL with good sense. It is not illegal to shoot a minor; it is good common sense to have a parent or guardian there. It is not illegal to shoot without a model release; to me it is good common sense that everyone does sign (both model and parent if a minor).

You don't have to have the parent, you don't have to have the release; but to me it's a simple effort and makes sense.

Yes read my post on the first page about practical business CYA doesnt always equate with the letter of the law, however people fear mongering and blowing out of proportion doesnt make sense either.

And most of my business "CYA" is irrelevant to age.  Its situation, circumstance specific.  What drives me crazy is the constant mis-quoting the actual laws and the over blown paranoia about the topic. 

Its akin and probably statistacally about the same as the "models get raped by photographers" crap.  The actual chances (although in rare, VERY rare instances it does happen) are about as likely as slipping in the tub and killing yourself.

Chris Macan wrote:
Sometimes trouble can be great publicity...........

Kenzphotos wrote:
And EXPENSIVE too!  LOL

You just have to look at the long term picture,
and try to get the ACLU to pick up the tab for legal costs.

Vortex Imaging wrote:

You do realize that 13 to 17 year old girls have figured out how to use a mirror right?

I still haven't figured out why people get so upset about naked bodies and sex. It's not like your parents and grandparents didn't do it at least once! It's probably the most normal and original thing humans have done other than eat and sleep.

Sheesh.

Dave (I'll get off my soap box now)

Come on, now your starting to interject logic, education and pleasant human behavior into things.  Dont you know its much more acceptable to be violent, grotesgue and mean to your fellow man?

Chris Macan wrote:
Sometimes trouble can be great publicity...........

Studio 48 Photography wrote:
Ya, when you are finally let out of jail after months and months of trying to clear your name.

Someday the pendulum will swing back the other way and the photography of children will not be such a hazard to photographers everywhere.  There are way to many misconceptions out there.

Ummmmm maybe on TV.....

But in reality for a simple charge of taking inappropriate images of a teenager.......
You will not sit in jail while awaiting a trial or until they dismiss the charges

Stop feeding the paranoia.

Chris Macan wrote:
But in reality for a simple charge of taking inappropriate images of a teenager.......
You will not sit in jail while awaiting a trial or until they dismiss the charges

Not to switch sides, but James Grady sat in jail for about a year awaiting trial on those kinds of charges.  Then he was acquitted.

Studio 48 Photography wrote:
Chris, not trying to feed the paranoia, totally against it.

Against the paranoia or against shooting 17 year olds in possibly risque ways?

Chris Macan wrote:

Against the paranoia or against shooting 17 year olds in possibly risque ways?

Against the paranoia. 

Like I said, way too many misconceptions out there today about what is legal / illegal what is protected and not protected.

TXPhotog wrote:

Not to switch sides, but James Grady sat in jail for about a year awaiting trial on those kinds of charges.  Then he was acquitted.

James Grady would be a bit of an extreme case....
And I would suspect that the prosecutor played up his alleged status as a child predator.

But you are correct in pointing out that it is possible in extreme cases to not be granted bail.

CGI Images wrote:

Come on, now your starting to interject logic, education and pleasant human behavior into things.  Dont you know its much more acceptable to be violent, grotesgue and mean to your fellow man?

Doh, I'll go back to my rose coloured clouds now.

D

Chris Macan wrote:
James Grady would be a bit of an extreme case....

He is an extreme case.  No question.

One of the things that bothers me about these kinds of situations is that, yes, extreme cases do exist, and yes, once in a while somebody gets bit by them.  And that undeniable fact is then used by people of a risk-averse mindset to prescribe to all the rest of us that whatever Bad Thing happened to bite someone else meant that nobody should ever allow themselves to assume any risk of similar type, no matter how unlikely it was to come home to roost.

I've been having a conversation along those lines with a thoughtful gentleman in PM, as a matter of fact.  As my text, I proposed to him that the risk of taking a bus was much too high, so we all need to avoid it.

www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/07/31/c … ?eref=rss_

Yes, I can understand that there is at least some level of rationality in coming to these kinds of decisions, but I do think that for most of us, common sense and balance would suggest different choices are possible.

TXPhotog wrote:
I've been having a conversation along those lines with a thoughtful gentleman in PM, as a matter of fact.  As my text, I proposed to him that the risk of taking a bus was much too high, so we all need to avoid it.

Funny we use similar examples.....
My example that I often use in these discussions is the risk of being hit by a bus while standing on the street corner.

Chris Macan wrote:

Funny we use similar examples.....
My example that I often use in these discussions is the risk of being hit by a bus while standing on the street corner.

Ya I think the difference here is that the beheading in Manitoba happened yesterday.

Got me a little freaked out. Mostly 'cause it's just not the kind of thing you would ever expect to happen outside of crime shows.

D

Mike McMillan wrote:
Probably been asked a million times ,so heres 1 million and 1.

I was approached by a model , female 17 to shoot her. nothing in appropriate. Headshots , portraits. What the right thing to do here or the legal thing. I'm in Canada.

What can they be photographed wearing and when does it just become plain wrong?

Any experience with this or how it should be handled or just stay away?

Thanks

Check with an attorney in your area.

JT Hodges wrote:

Check with an attorney in your area.

*blink*

You yank photographers must be made of money. A phone call like that in Edmonton would cost me between $100 to $200 bucks.
Possibly more.
And that's if I actually had the guy on retainer.
Cold calling a law office and I might as well cut up my credit card afterwards 'cause they're going to max the thing out.

How about just using a little common sense.

Dave

Chris Macan wrote:
If she is hiring the photographer to shoot pictures of her
he will not be selling the images.....
So a model release is not needed or even appropriate.

It is interesting, I have read this entire thread and I noticed one thing totally missing.  Chris has commented that a release is inappropriate if a model pays the photographer.  Others have commented that if they were to pay a photographer, they would refuse to sign a release.  Tx commented that a release is probably not needed unless the photographer intended to use the photos for someone.

What nobody has pointed out is that, depending on the locality, a release signed under those circumstances may or may not even be enforceable.  I do understand that the OP is from Canada, and the answer will vary from state to state as well.  It is a complex issue for which you would need a lawyer, experienced in entertainment law, local to the shoot to give you a correct answer, but here is the issue.

In some places, a release may only be given with consideration (in others that may not necessarily be required).  In some places, a person can consent to use their likeness without consideration, but if it is a release, and alludes to consideration, then it will be tested as any other contract for sufficiency.

The point is, if the model is paying you, what is the consideration to her?  Is it the photographer's position that, merely by offering her the privilege of being able to pay him, that is consideration to her?  That is the problem.  If you write a release, based on the premise of consideration, someone could challenge the release and claim the consideration to be insufficient.  A court might well agree.

If there is no consideration, there is a gift.  In some places, consent without consideration may be revocable (although not retroactively).  In other places, it may, itself be challenged if the granter claims it was not freely given.  I can go on and on.  If the model is paying you, if it is ever challenged, it is hard to prove that she received any benefits by signing the release.  A court might simply find the bargain to be so out of balance as to find the release void.  I am not saying that this would happen.  I am saying that it is possible that it would happen.  I know at least on attorney on these forums who would tell you that it would happen.

The way the big portrait houses deal with this is quite clever.  Generally speaking, they want one image from each client so that they have something to put on the walls of their studios or to put into their ads.  What they do is to deliberately inflate their prices, but then offer to "buy back" one picture in return for signing a release.  So, for example, they might charge you $300 for their normal package, but reduce the price to $200 if you sign a release for a single image.  What that does is to put tangible consideration onto the table to be tested for sufficiency.

Quite frankly, I don't know why a photographer who is being paid would generally need a release.  Why would a person hire you with the expectation that you would be selling their pictures.  A release will also make no difference as to whether a shoot was legal or not (although I see nothing even remotely inappropriate about what the OP is proposing).

In the end though, everybody beats their chest "release, release, release" when in fact, a release signed under these circumstances, may or may not be enforceable, depending on the state, province or country where it was signed.

Karl Blessing wrote:

Well... quite simple... it's not about you.

I think its better to mention the caveat of having a release than not at all, because we don't know if the OP might decide later down the road that he wants to put something up on istock and stuff like that. So mentioning it now helps keep that in mind in case that issue comes up later down the road. And not everyone realizes that a minor cannot enter into a legally binding contract (so not just releases...), so its a good thing to know from a practical business standpoint.

So from there the OP can pretty much be like "well... I'm not going to be doing this, so I won't need it, but good to know."

Well said.

Reed Photographic wrote:
If there's "nothing inappropriate" then I fail to see your concern.  Just have the model's parent or guardian on-site and you will be fine.

Also to add to this have a release form for the model and parents to sign releasing you of legal action and liability  if those standards are not met or they don't want to sign then on to the next person.

Binding contracts/releases protect big time

RB Davis Photography wrote:
It's amazing just how much we have grown up in the past 50 years....


[edit] for those of you who are under 40, that was an image on frigging BILLBOARDS all across the country.

What's even more funny is that the ad was drawn from the photograph of the owner's daughter that he shot. He'd be on trial today with all of the white knights and crazy ass fucking parents.