Click Hamilton wrote:
Modeling starts at any age

I love the hand-bra in that picture!

missjenny wrote:
why is it a problem if you shoot under 18 models, as long as you don't shoot them nude?

Not even a problem to shoot them nude, so long as you are not shooting porn.

Click Hamilton wrote:

Modeling starts at any age

I think people sometimes think those images come from outer space!

JJ Art wrote:
Not even a problem to shoot them nude, so long as you are not shooting porn.

What's porn?

And are you going to risk everything just on the chance that "it's not porn" ?

Chris Macan wrote:
You know of course you don't need parental consent to photograph a teenager under the age of 18 in the U.S..... right?

ei Total Productions wrote:
Unless you are in a state like California.  As I have said before, if the model is under sixteen and the shoot is for commercial purposes, a parent must be present at all times.  California isn't the only state that has statutes of that type.

It is covered in the labor code, not the criminal code.

No I'm pretty sure that if a teenager hands me her camera on the Pier on a California beach and says take my picture... I can do so legally.
Commercial is a special situation.


My statement was simply........
you don't need parental consent to shoot a photograph of a child.

Sure the specifics of a commercial shoot may require parental involvement.
And a model release may require a parental signature.
and there are certain subjects that may not be legal.

But the simple act of taking said child's picture does not require parental consent.
Mom and Pop may get upset.... but legally there is not much they can do.

missjenny wrote:
why is it a problem if you shoot under 18 models...

It isn't.  The OP is projecting.  And because no one in this thread is agreeing with him, he hasn't bothered to post again.

/useless thread.

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:

What's porn?

And are you going to risk everything just on the chance that "it's not porn" ?

Porn is still under debate as I said earlier... but there are legal tests of "is it porn", which have been discussed in detail elsewhere.

Your second question is misleading.  I do not shoot porn, so I risk nothing.

JJ Art wrote:
Porn is still under debate as I said earlier... but there are legal tests of "is it porn", which have been discussed in detail elsewhere.

Your second question is misleading.  I do not shoot porn, so I risk nothing.

yes, but the people discussing it have no real pull one way or another (that I've seen on here and elsewhere) as far as what porn is. It goes down to debating it in a court room and what the DA thinks.

JJ Art wrote:
Your second question is misleading.  I do not shoot porn, so I risk nothing.

Really now...

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:
yes, but the people discussing it have no real pull one way or another (that I've seen on here and elsewhere) as far as what porn is. It goes down to debating it in a court room and what the DA thinks.

What the DA thinks is irrelevant to the issue of crime.  As has been proven time and again, you can be sued in court for anything at any time, the charges don't even have to be true.

I was not talking about our discussions of what is and is not porn... I was talking about documented legal decisions and written legal tests of the subject.  They exist.  They have been documented over and over on this forum.  I don't feel like looking up the threads, feel free... the plasticpuppet search function works well.

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:
Really now...

Really.

Chris Macan wrote:
But the simple act of taking said child's picture does not require parental consent.
Mom and Pop may get upset.... but legally there is not much they can do.

I agree with that statement, but, as photographers we do have to be aware of the labor laws of our state.

Taking the picture of a minor doesn't require the consent of a parent.  The hiring of a minor model for a commercial shoot (albeit for payment with cash or a CD), might.

ei Total Productions wrote:
Describe the photos.  Your comments are too vague to evaluate.

Specifically, what do you mean "types of images?"

Nekked behind a glass shower stall. This is what was brought to us anyway. My boss is the one who got the whole ball rolling in this case. We just could not decide on her age. Some of us thought she was of age others of us questioned it. Either way you could tell something just wasn't right. My point is why put yourself into that situation any way. Get proof of age. If not I wouldn't shoot.

James Shuster wrote:
Now lets say you did not find this out until she/he shows up would you still shoot?

NO !
She can't sign the release, unless she's an emancipated minor.

JJ Art wrote:
and what kind of trouble are you going to get in with the law exactly?  There is no "age of modeling" and no legal age of consent for modeling.  So long as you're not trying to execute a contract you'll have no problems.  If you are trying to execute a contract, of course you'll need the parents permission, but I can't see any pitfalls for the photographer's pocket book and/or freedom... only lost time on his/her part.

Demeter Photography wrote:
General state age of consent likely applies.  For eg.  In my Province age of concent is 16.  So if a model that is 16 wants to model but her parents do not want her too...  tough beans. 

no... it doesn't... unless it is for some commercial purpose where you need someone of the age of majority to make what you are doing legally binding.  In a typical shoot there is nothing legally binding that need be done.

Aleksey Bykov wrote:
That's why you sign a model release and look into her ID.

I dont know of any laws that require either if the images arent going to be used commercially.

JJ Art wrote:
I was not talking about our discussions of what is and is not porn... I was talking about documented legal decisions and written legal tests of the subject.  They exist.  They have been documented over and over on this forum.  I don't feel like looking up the threads, feel free... the plasticpuppet search function works well.

I've read though them too, and I'm saying that it's sometimes (or most of the time) not worth the risk to venture into nude or sexual pictures of minors.

The problem is this big internet machine of misinformation and horney photographers comes in and twists that into "well, you're going to get into trouble if you even think about taking a picture of a minor in clothing let alone a bikini... " and so on.

Plus, porn, sexual, and so on isn't defined well if this "debate" is going on as far as what is what, which means it hasn't been brought up in the courts as much as we think it has, which means as long as a person keeps their little self in their pants and is reasonable they aren't going to get into much trouble.

JJ Art wrote:
Poppy cock...

My comment about the model lodging a complaint of something inappropriate is nothing to be taken lightly. She can claim you touched her breasts or her crotch or worse, tried to rape her. If it's her word against yours because there was no one else present, you better have a good lawyer. I think it's wise to have someone of legal age present (not someone that works for you or the model's boyfriend) that the model feels comfortable with. If that is not a parent, then I am most likely to pass on the shoot, because if the parents are not supportive, then I am not comfortable shooting even a fully clothed minor.

Bill Mason Images wrote:
My comment about the model lodging a complaint of something inappropriate is nothing to be taken lightly.

The sad thing is ANYONE can say that about you, doesn't have to be a minor.

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:

The sad thing is ANYONE can say that about you, doesn't have to be a minor.

Very true. Then we get into the whole escort thang...

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:
I've read though them too, and I'm saying that it's sometimes (or most of the time) not worth the risk to venture into nude or sexual pictures of minors.

And I don't think that is a decision you can make for anyone other than yourself.  The problem that I have with all these threads is that people already know what is right and wrong according to their own morality as far as, "how far is too far," and if following one's own morality 9 times out of 10 the person will not violate any sort of law, since this particular group of laws comes from the general morality of society balanced against artistic pursuit and endeavor.

In the 1 time out of 10 that someone will get in trouble for what they do, it is important that they do, whether guilty of a crime or not, these things *need* to be tested in court and it is *ALWAYS* worth the risk... if you think what you do is right, and have no question about the morality of it in your own mind, then that deserves the chance for a test in court.

If you consistently "play it safe" and never test the limits, then society stagnates and dies...

Leave the decision of if it is "safe" or not to yourself is my point.  Realize that you can play it safer, but also realize that even "playing it safe" you can be arrested, prosecuted, and put in prison.

Bill Mason Images wrote:

My comment about the model lodging a complaint of something inappropriate is nothing to be taken lightly. She can claim you touched her breasts or her crotch or worse, tried to rape her. If it's her word against yours because there was no one else present, you better have a good lawyer. I think it's wise to have someone of legal age present (not someone that works for you or the model's boyfriend) that the model feels comfortable with. If that is not a parent, then I am most likely to pass on the shoot, because if the parents are not supportive, then I am not comfortable shooting even a fully clothed minor.

You honestly think that just because her parents are present that precludes a false accusation?  Have we learned nothing from the "fashion guru" in New York who was sued for rape while the parents were on set (supposedly he raped her in the changing room)?  You think any amount of people is going to protect you from false prosecution?

I too think that a supportive parent is important... hence why I said the first part of your post was good advice.  Having the parent on set a *must* is pure poppy cock.

Bill Mason Images wrote:
Pedophiles don't usually last long in prison and I don't think inmates will make much of a distinction if they find out you are incarcerated for photographing anything close to nudes of minors. Personally I don't think risking my life in prison is worth pushing the limits and testing the courts. If you think this cause is noble enough to be sodomized with a broomstick by lifers with nothing else to lose, then be my guest.

Wow, thats a leap.  I heard of a guy one time that bought a used computer that had tons of childporn on the hard drive, after he took it to best buy for some repairs, he was shortly arrested.  After a stint with a very over zealous DA, and a really bad defense team, he was in prison.

Would you never buy a used computer?

And FYI: taking nude pictures of "minors" (assuming you mean under 18) does NOT make one a "pedophile" in and of itself.

JJ Art wrote:

You honestly think that just because her parents are present that precludes a false accusation?  Have we learned nothing from the "fashion guru" in New York who was sued for rape while the parents were on set (supposedly he raped her in the changing room)?  You think any amount of people is going to protect you from false prosecution?

I too think that a supportive parent is important... hence why I said the first part of your post was good advice.  Having the parent on set a *must* is pure poppy cock.

I think having parents on set far lessens the chances of being accused. I'm much more willing to take that chance than to be paranoid about a conspiracy by the entire family.

Bill Mason Images wrote:
If you think this cause is noble enough... then be my guest.

Which is just what I said...

The rest is just bull shit filler.

Bill Mason Images wrote:
I think having parents on set far lessens the chances of being accused. I'm much more willing to take that chance than to be paranoid about a conspiracy by the entire family.

Are you and the model each never out of the site of the parents?  Do you always make sure one of you is in the room with them at all times?  Because if you ever don't... well who're the parents going to believe... skeevy photographer or baby princess girl?

Are the parents well off?  Do they maybe not have much money and not much moral compunction about blackmailing the nice wealthy photographer with *all* that expensive gear, and clearly he's well off enough to pay for a few house payments?  How much money would you pay to avoid your theoretical trip to jail?

ei Total Productions wrote:
I'm thinking that is a big leap.

that's what we're known for.  the big leaps.

Dave the design student wrote:

that's what we're known for.  the big leaps.

lol, as if that werent predictable.

JJ Art wrote:

no... it doesn't... unless it is for some commercial purpose where you need someone of the age of majority to make what you are doing legally binding.  In a typical shoot there is nothing legally binding that need be done.

i'm not so sure here....unless you are strictly shooting for the practice and have no intent to use the images in any way, the you don't need anything.

HOWEVER, if you do, then you need a release...even for TFP/TFCD.  And that release is a CONTRACT.  call it what you want...it's a contract.  and then contract law for YOUR state/country would apply as far as the age goes.  Contracts are required when something is given or done in consideration for something else.  Key word is "consideration".....

Collins-Photo wrote:
HOWEVER, if you do, then you need a release...even for TFP/TFCD.  And that release is a CONTRACT.  call it what you want...it's a contract.  and then contract law for YOUR state/country would apply as far as the age goes.  Contracts are required when something is given or done in consideration for something else.  Key word is "consideration".....

No... for most uses you do not need a release.

Yes a release needs a signature from someone of the age of majority.

You do not need to give anything for a successful rights release document... it is not a contract.

ei Total Productions wrote:

I agree with that statement, but, as photographers we do have to be aware of the labor laws of our state.

Taking the picture of a minor doesn't require the consent of a parent.  The hiring of a minor model for a commercial shoot (albeit for payment with cash or a CD), might.

Exactly, which is why I posted earlier about pointing out the difference between philosophical opinions and business requirments/decisions.

Collins-Photo wrote:

i'm not so sure here....unless you are strictly shooting for the practice and have no intent to use the images in any way, the you don't need anything.

HOWEVER, if you do, then you need a release...even for TFP/TFCD.  And that release is a CONTRACT.  call it what you want...it's a contract.  and then contract law for YOUR state/country would apply as far as the age goes.  Contracts are required when something is given or done in consideration for something else.  Key word is "consideration".....

again.. Exactly...   

For example, my next door neighbors know I'm a photographer, they have a 15yr old daughter. 

I'm out in my front yard one day experimenting with some skrims and reflectors, she walks over and says "need some help" and I say "Yeah, if you dont mind, could you stand right there and let me get a couple of shots to see the light" and she complies.  Do you really think I need to stop, get a release etc? No way.