quaker wrote:
google search and fount this!
http://touchngo.com/ap/html/ap-1958.htm

Were you going to tell us the rest of the story, or simply let your out-of-context quote imply that it is illegal (in Alaska) to simply photograph a minor without parental consent?

Here's the rest of the story that you conveniently left out:

Alaska   Statute  11.61.123(a)  defines   the
offense of indecent viewing or photography.  The  actus
reus of this offense consists of knowingly view[ing] or
produc[ing]  a picture of the private exposure  of  the
genitals, anus, or female breast of another person.  As
used in this statute, the phrase private exposure means
that the victim has exposed their body in a place,  and
under   circumstances,  that  caused  the   victim   to
reasonably believe that their body would not be  viewed
by  the defendant or that pictures of their body  would
not be produced.2

Not even close to what we were discussing.

BasementStudios wrote:
No FIRST I responded to a post that people were saying it was illegal, I responded that no one had said AT THAT point that it was illegal.

That is false.  You had said it was illegal in a post prior to your claim that nobody had said it.

You still have provided no evidence for what I believe to be a false claim that there is such a law in Oregon.

BasementStudios wrote:
Second I posted a response that in some states it is illegal to shoot without parental consent.  Somone asked what states, I told them Oregon it's not a claim it's a fact.

Not to badger or to condemn you, but I couldn't find anything in the Oregon Law Library that's consistant with your statement.

To make it easier, I've provided a link Oregon Law Library, which contains all of the statutes and constitution of the state.  Can you please find the statute that's in question?  I sure couldn't find it. 

http://www.ojd.state.or.us/Web/OJDPubli … s?OpenPage

BasementStudios wrote:
Oregon for one, my brother just went through the whole thing and it cost him a bundle in lawyer fees, court costs, etc.  He shot senior style photos of a 16 year old as a surprise for the girls parents.  They knew the law, he didn't, he got sued for shooting her without their consent.  Any others I'll have to do a search for.

This should be really simple for you.  What law did your brother violate?  Certainly he will know.  Tell us.

Claire Elizabeth wrote:
here comes the legal jargon......

Stop panting, Claire.  It's not ladylike.

TXPhotog wrote:

That is false.  You had said it was illegal in a post prior to your claim that nobody had said it.

You still have provided no evidence for what I believe to be a false claim that there is such a law in Oregon.

I am going to explain this one last time.  After that if the couple of you can't go back read a thread IN THE ORDER THEY WERE POSTED, then it's you're failing.

When I responded that no one had stated that it was illegal, it was in response to an earlier post from someone that said "Um, folks....

Its not against the law to photograph someone who is under 18.  If that were so, then you'd all be breaking the law every time you took a picture at a kids birthday party, etc... "

His was post #7, so I responded to it that no one had.....AT THE POINT THAT POST #7 WAS MADE...stated that it was illegal, my second post, that it was illegal in Oregon, was in response to Alan from Aavian Prod that said "I don't believe there is a law in any state that requires parental consent to shoot a minor in street clothes." His was Post #9.  Two different posts, two different times responding to TWO DIFFERENT STATEMENTS

Statement #1 - "Its not against the law to photograph someone who is under 18."
Response #1 - "No one has stated that it was against the law."

This one was in regards to participants stating that it was illegal.

Statement #2 - "I don't believe there is a law in any state that requires parental consent to shoot a minor in street clothes."
Response #2 - "It is illegal in Oregon...etc....."

It is not a contradiction, because I was addressing two entirely different subjects, if you cannot figure out the difference in these two statements/posts then perhaps a class in basic reading skills is called for.  That is it, I have finished explaining this, I will not revisit it, you are on your own now.

TXPhotog wrote:

Stop panting, Claire.  It's not ladylike.

I can't help it TX!! Everytime you get into these heated legal debates I get soooo excited

BasementStudios wrote:

I am going to explain this one last time.  After that if the couple of you can't go back read a thread IN THE ORDER THEY WERE POSTED, then it's you're failing.

When I responded that no one had stated that it was illegal, it was in response to an earlier post from someone that said "Um, folks....

Its not against the law to photograph someone who is under 18.  If that were so, then you'd all be breaking the law every time you took a picture at a kids birthday party, etc... "

His was post #7, so I responded to it that no one had.....AT THE POINT THAT POST #7 WAS MADE...stated that it was illegal, my second post, that it was illegal in Oregon, was in response to Alan from Aavian Prod that said "I don't believe there is a law in any state that requires parental consent to shoot a minor in street clothes." His was Post #9.  Two different posts, two different times responding to TWO DIFFERENT STATEMENTS

Statement #1 - "Its not against the law to photograph someone who is under 18."
Response #1 - "No one has stated that it was against the law."

This one was in regards to participants stating that it was illegal.

Statement #2 - "I don't believe there is a law in any state that requires parental consent to shoot a minor in street clothes."
Response #2 - "It is illegal in Oregon...etc....."

It is not a contradiction, because I was addressing two entirely different subjects, if you cannot figure out the difference in these two statements/posts then perhaps a class in basic reading skills is called for.  That is it, I have finished explaining this, I will not revisit it, you are on your own now.

May you please  post the  such called law.

Thank you it will be greatly aprecciated.

MAD Creativity, Inc wrote:
All legalities aside it is just bad business to do a photo shoot with a minor without parental consent.

The last thing any parent wants to hear is that their underage kids are doing something they don't know about. The VERY LAST thing they want to hear is that they are doing something they don't know about with another adult at least twice their age.

After all if this girl is serious about going into modeling and she does get the go ahead from her parents you would want them to know that you are on the same page they are. Not some guy that will do things with their daughter and not tell them about it.

After all it is her parents that have to eventaually sign releases, and they would be the ones that would be your paying customers if this girl now needs other portfolio shoots down the line.
Shooting a 16 year old is not worth losing $$$ down the line or more importantly your reputation.

Now that I agree with!  Of all the teenaged "models" I've shot over the years, most all (there is one ...) were done with complete approval of a parent or both parents.  I was getting paid and they were involved in the process of photography to at least some extent.  The one 16 or 17 year old girl that I shot photos of years ago had fooled me into thinking someone was her mom that wasn't.  Then the real mom called me and gave me an earful!  She knew her daughter did things like that and was trying to get some control of her.  I got yelled at, but not accused of doing anything inappropriate or illegal.  It's made me more careful, but I do still photograph teenagers ... once I've established who the parent is and GET PAID!   

BasementStudios wrote:
I am going to explain this one last time.  After that if the couple of you can't go back read a thread IN THE ORDER THEY WERE POSTED, then it's you're failing. [followed by a long rant that ignores his own words]

The upshot of your argument is that when you say something is illegal it doesn't count, so that you can later (yes, that's the order it happened in) claim that nobody said it.

We are still waiting for you to deal with the important issue:  what is this Oregon law you keep claiming exists?

Claire Elizabeth wrote:
To sum up:

minor+not telling parents DOES NOT= jail

BUT

minor+not telling parents=fiasco

You are right!

You were once under 18 years old ... did you do any modeling then?  It's wonderful if you have supportive parents, but not everyone does. 

Any time a teenager is doing something behind their parents back ... it's for a reason.  Probably NOT a good reason ... so why take the chance of getting pulled into some families fiasco?

TXPhotog wrote:
We are still waiting for you to deal with the important issue:  what is this Oregon law you keep claiming exists?

Look smart a** have you heard of the word PATIENCE?  I've emailed my brother for all the information, court case number, docket id, everything.  Once I hear back from him I will post it.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
It's not illegal to photograph a minor without a parent signing a release.  I did it thousands of times when I worked for Olan Mills and other portrait studios.  What DID get signed was a bill of sale.  Sometimes a model release would be signed if we were going to want to display photos, but Olan Mills provided manufactured photos for us to put on display.  They PAID the models who posed so that there would be no legal problems, and they got the parents to sign any release if the image was to be on display in our portrait studio. 

My answer to you is this ... if you are worried about what could happen if you photograph her, then don't do it!  It's NOT illegal, but implication that you went behind the backs of her parents could cause alarm.  There could be accusations and yelling.  You probably wont be arrested, but why chance it?  I'm sure you can find other 16 year olds who have the support of parents. 

If you DO photograph her, then CHARGE her and have her sign a sales invoice!  It's not important as to the amount you charge her, but what is important is that this is on paper as a sales contract.  She paid you to do this and she owns the copyrights.  You must never display or sell her images because by her paying for them, the images belong to her.  This is how minor aged teenagers can go into shopping malls to the photo studios there and walk out with pictures.  They BUY them!  It's NOT illegal for a minor to buy "non pornographic" images of him/herself.  I've shot plenty of senior portraits without a model release.  The bill of sale is enough!

WHAT?!
Are you serious?!

Edit: Photographers always have to educate their clients about copyrights... Who's going to educate this guy?

BasementStudios wrote:

Look smart a** have you heard of the word PATIENCE?  I've emailed my brother for all the information, court case number, docket id, everything.  Once I hear back from him I will post it.

While you are waiting, you promised us you would post similar laws from other states also.  I assume your brother isn't being charged with violating those, so you can find them on your own.  How's it going?

Yuriy wrote:
WHAT?!
Are you serious?!

I suppose it could be true if Olan Mills policy is to transfer copyright to the client upon payment of the sales invoice.  It could even be written into the invoice.

Doesn't seem likely, though.

TXPhotog wrote:

I suppose it could be true if Olan Mills policy is to transfer copyright to the client upon payment of the sales invoice.  It could even be written into the invoice.

Doesn't seem likely, though.

You might as well start cooking your left arm for dinner if you have such business practices.

BasementStudios wrote:
Actually there are some states where it is illegal to photograph anyone under the age of 18 without consent, period, has nothing to do with a release, just to photograph a minor period requires parental permission in some states.  In today's society it's not worth it.  Remember, you can sue anyone for anything and it only costs $16.00 for someone to file the lawsuit (at least here that's all it costs), the defense is up to you.

And you said something similar later.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.  If something is illegal, you don't get "sued" for it, you are charged with a crime.  The government takes you to court, not the "victim".

When you are "sued" (the victim files a lawsuit) is is for a tort, not for a violation of criminal law.  Torts are often specified in statute - but that simply creates a cause of action of one private party against another, not an "illegal act".

TXPhotog wrote:
While you are waiting, you promised us you would post similar laws from other states also.  I assume your brother isn't being charged with violating those, so you can find them on your own.  How's it going?

Actually that's NOT what I said.  Here, (since you're ability to read and comprehend is somewhat crippled), I have copied the post for you and pasted it below....you really should work on that patience issue that you have.

SayCheeZ! wrote:
Where?  Can you show any law which cites this information?
I'm not criticizing... I'd just like the information for personal knowledge.

BasementStudios wrote:
Oregon for one, my brother just went through the whole thing and it cost him a bundle in lawyer fees, court costs, etc.  He shot senior style photos of a 16 year old as a surprise for the girls parents.  They knew the law, he didn't, he got sued for shooting her without their consent.  Any others I'll have to do a search for.

Yuriy wrote:
WHAT?!
Are you serious?!

Yes, I'm serious.  When I get paid, there are many times that I include the copyright.  It depends on the job.  With weddings, I sell them the negatives and all copyrights ... but then I'm getting paid thousands of dollars and there is a release in the contract allowing me to show the pictures and/or use for promotional purposes.   It's all written out in the contract.  I've such a good reputation that I don't bother to advertise and have had the honor of being hired by many artists including other photographers.  We speak the same language and they appreciate being able to own the images. 

Now if I get hired to shoot Tom and Kates wedding, you don't think I'd do something stupid like leak a photo to the media do you?  LOL 

Maybe I should make it more clear.  She doesn't own the copyrights simply because she pays ... it is because I agree to it.  The reverse is true.  When I pay models, then in many cases I am the one who own the copyright.  It all depends on what is agreed upon.  A minor can engage in a sales transaction.  They do everytime they buy something at a store.  So Yuriy, are you are going to tell me that I can't sell copyrights to the images I shoot?  I'm aware of copyright laws, thank you.

scott slusher wrote:
My question here is...  A 16 year old girl has approached me about doing some images for her.  She really has a great look and in my opinion she may be able to do something in the modeling industry.  The issue is this, she doesn't want her parents to know about this, yet.  She wants to see what kinds of looks she can get and if it's worth her time to pursue this before she expresses an interest to her parents.

What are your real motives in considering this?

You're just trying to do the kid (and modeling industry) a favor? Is that it?

Or are you just trying to legitimize your inner desire to have a good look at her titties and ass and have her perform for you.

I tell 16yr old wannabes to get their girl friends to take their photos.  They don't need a "old photographer" to make it.

Anything can go wrong with your plan. If (when) she gets pissed off and makes a complaint, it'll be your word against hers and who will the authorities believe? You'll have no leg to stand on. You'll be screwed.

BasementStudios wrote:
Any others I'll have to do a search for.

And I asked how it (the search) was going.  You really are trying hard to avoid the issue, aren't you?

So how is the search that you again reminded us of going?  Find any of those laws yet?  Even one?

TXPhotog wrote:

I suppose it could be true if Olan Mills policy is to transfer copyright to the client upon payment of the sales invoice.  It could even be written into the invoice.

Doesn't seem likely, though.

It seems to me that they wanted to keep the studios uniform looking.  The same photos were on the walls through out the States.  By the way, Olan Mills is/was a Texas based company too.  I don't know if they still exist?  There are no more studios that I know of in California.  But I do remember that the sales people would have customers sign something before they bought the photos.

They had some "better safe than sorry" policies and I only worked there for one month.  I learned to be fast and liked working there until the Saturday that we were triple booked and most all the clients showed up!  I worked a long 9 hour day non stop ... I remember it was 54 sittings, and that means less than 10 minutes to shoot on each sitting.  Once the store was closed, I called the manager and told her I was never coming back to work there ever again!

Yuriy wrote:

You might as well start cooking your left arm for dinner if you have such business practices.

Maybe that's why I don't hear of Olan Mills anymore?  LOL

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Yes, I'm serious.  When I get paid, there are many times that I include the copyright.  It depends on the job.  With weddings, I sell them the negatives and all copyrights ... but then I'm getting paid thousands of dollars and there is a release in the contract allowing me to show the pictures and/or use for promotional purposes.   It's all written out in the contract.  I've such a good reputation that I don't bother to advertise and have had the honor of being hired by many artists including other photographers.  We speak the same language and they appreciate being able to own the images. 

Now if I get hired to shoot Tom and Kates wedding, you don't think I'd do something stupid like leak a photo to the media do you?  LOL 

Maybe I should make it more clear.  She doesn't own the copyrights simply because she pays ... it is because I agree to it.  The reverse is true.  When I pay models, then in many cases I am the one who own the copyright.  It all depends on what is agreed upon.  A minor can engage in a sales transaction.  They do everytime they buy something at a store.  So Yuriy, are you are going to tell me that I can't sell copyrights to the images I shoot?  I'm aware of copyright laws, thank you.

Oh no, you can sell your copyrights, license them exclusively or not... W/E
You are all within your right to sell your copyright.

I just happen to disagree with the sale of copyright without fair compensation. Currently, there are way too many photographers that are price slashing, giving away copyrights, etc and this worries me as it leads to the steady decline of our noble profession.
But, with that said, I don’t know how much you sell your copyright for so I can’t judge whether or not “it’s about rightâ€?.

Now, with all the above said, I don’t really care what businesses practices you use as long as their repercussions do not affect me. :-)

Yuriy wrote:
Photographing anyone of any age in a public place (where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy) is fine.

If someone under 18 want to hire me to shoot normal or traditional photographs/portraits of them without telling their parents, no problem (since when do you need to be 18 to buy a product or service?).

I agree with you there.  I just wouldn't go selling the images to others or proudly displaying the images if the parents might complain.  Why push it?

So how much money do you need to get paid before you sell or release the copyright?  That's a business choice we each can make.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Yes, I'm serious.  When I get paid, there are many times that I include the copyright.  It depends on the job.  With weddings, I sell them the negatives and all copyrights ... but then I'm getting paid thousands of dollars and there is a release in the contract allowing me to show the pictures and/or use for promotional purposes.   It's all written out in the contract.  I've such a good reputation that I don't bother to advertise and have had the honor of being hired by many artists including other photographers.  We speak the same language and they appreciate being able to own the images. 

Now if I get hired to shoot Tom and Kates wedding, you don't think I'd do something stupid like leak a photo to the media do you?  LOL 

Maybe I should make it more clear.  She doesn't own the copyrights simply because she pays ... it is because I agree to it.  The reverse is true.  When I pay models, then in many cases I am the one who own the copyright.  It all depends on what is agreed upon.  A minor can engage in a sales transaction.  They do everytime they buy something at a store.  So Yuriy, are you are going to tell me that I can't sell copyrights to the images I shoot?  I'm aware of copyright laws, thank you.

You may be aware of copyright laws, but you get an "F" in business. I know of no wedding photographer (in NYC) that signs away copyright to wedding photos, nor gives up the negatives. That's what generates return business, for reprints etc...
And they charge $3000-12,000 for a wedding (I know real good ones).

Patrick Walberg wrote:

I agree with you there.  I just wouldn't go selling the images to others or proudly displaying the images if the parents might complain.  Why push it?

So how much money do you need to get paid before you sell or release the copyright?  That's a business choice we each can make.

In the rare instance I would sell my copyright (over, say, exclusivity for a period of time), it would be 500%-800% more than 'normal' use rights would cost.

I realize the above is very simplified, but I’m sure you know how many variables can affect an images licensing cost.

Vito wrote:

You may be aware of copyright laws, but you get an "F" in business. I know of no wedding photographer (in NYC) that signs away copyright to wedding photos, nor gives up the negatives. That's what generates return business, for reprints etc...
And they charge $3000-12,000 for a wedding (I know real good ones).

Well that's fine for those photographers.  I don't advertise, nor do I have any sort of mainstream portrait/wedding studio.  Therefore my overhead is low, and I don't care to do more than a handful of weddings a year.  All booked through word of mouth by friends.  It's not my main source of income, and I do not wish to deal with return business since many times I've moved, and/or the clients move so that it's hard to keep track of the couples or for them to keep track of me.  Besides, why should I care what you think of my business practices?  I'm not causing photographers in NYC any competition.  The real harm to mainstream wedding photographers income is the cut throat practices of those who advertise they'll do a wedding for cheap in Craigslist. 

So give me an "F" in business ... but it's none of yours!  LOL