Yuriy wrote:

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.

Yes, there are many variables.  Many having to do with location of business, the proposed use, etc. etc. and even some involve personal baise in pricing too.  There are no strict pricing laws as to what we can charge in this country ... at least not yet.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
In a word: Eek!

ROFLMAO!  You don't wanna drop your hat in this one? 

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I guess nobody here runs a portrait studio or does senior pictures.

I don't believe there is a law in any state that requires parental consent to shoot a minor in street clothes.  Obviously it is nice if they participate and you certainly want to have a third person, like a make-up artist with you.

But if what you are doing is lifestyle, portraits or fashion, I don't see the issue.  Remember that if the model signs a release, she can revoke it since she is under age so I wouldn't count on using the images.

But my gosh, a sixteen year old can walk into Glamour Shots at the mall and have a sexy picture taken without her parents present.  All this talk about going to jail, for what?

Use good judgement as to what you shoot and don't worry about it.  You should be a big boy and know what NOT to do with a minor.

EDIT:  The comment above about dealing with an angry parent.  That is a different issue and could be real.  Getting yelled at is different than going to jail.   I just don't see the paranoia by everyone about getting arrested.

I agree with this.  Hell, I shoot out in parks all the time and people of all ages are around.  We think it is sooooo cute to take a picture of a small kid running around, even in a diaper in a park.  As someone else said, just have another person around.  Not a problem here.

scott slusher wrote:
I've been doing photography for a little over 15 years, shooting professionally for the last 8.  I've always required a release to be signed and in those years have photographed a few minors with the parental consent portion of the release signed by the parent/guardian.

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 the implications of photographing a minor without parental consent?  If the images are not to be used for any commercial gain, does a release need to be signed by the parent/guardian.  The example of this situation I keep bringing to mind is this... If I were a 19 year old college art student taking pictures for my class and photographed a minor, would a release need be signed.  As I remember from my college days, I photographed a lot of under aged people (male and female) and never had a release signed.

What are your opinions on this situation?

If the parent/guardian isn't present, then, even if the photographs are innocuous and there are other adults present, you leave yourself open to all sorts of allegations regarding your conduct.  I'm not saying for one second that she would, but the girl could claim you assaulted her, and she could do it at any time within the time limit for the statute of limitations.

If you have a model release signed by the girl's parent, then at least you can claim they were there all the time.  If you have nothing, then you will have a job making any sort of defence.  The thing might not go to trial, but it could seriously damage your reputation.

Visual E wrote:

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.

Besides being crass and unprofessional, did you have to post this twice?

TXPhotog wrote:

Once again, what specifically is the law in Oregon that makes it illegal to take pictures of minors without their consent?  You claim it as "a fact" but provide no evidence for that claimed fact.

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. My point is, it doesn't matter whether it is legal/illegal why risk ANY type of hassle no matter how small or how large over something as stupid as a teenage girl who won't ask her parents for permission to model, it's just plain dumb.

If the above is true then how does a newspaper photographer get shots for the paper? A crowd of people protesting in a public place does not require a release for use. In other words, if you are in a public place, the minor is fully dressed, the poses are not sexually suggestive, and are not used for any commercial purpose, you should be ok.

It would be a very good idea to have not one, but two, other adults[ preferably at least one of them a female ]  with you at all times while working with a minor. I personally require the parent, gaurdian or an agent hired by them to be present at all times while they are on my set. That includes if the parent needs to go to the bathroom, or such. They must take their child with them and not leave them on the set with me, alone. Now that is assuming that the pictures are to used for a commercial purpose and we are in a non-public venue.

What is she paying you for your time? It seems that the only upside here would be te pay, unless you think you are going to get some insider pass for finding the next Tyra Banks, or something.

custom photography wrote:

To the Orgeon guy:
What exactly was your brother sued for? Just taking (fully clothed) photos of a 16 year old? Or was it more complicated than that?

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.

Are you saying that when a custonmer has an image taken at Olan Mills, the customers owns the image outright?

I thought commecial portrait photographers normallly retained rights to the images.

rp_photo wrote:
Although less legally risky, similar problems can arise when an adult is shot without their spouse or SO knowing. Of course, the photographer can't always know this.

I would worry more about the third party knocking on my door than the police.

For that matter, there is risk in stepping out the door to go photograph the nearest train wreck!  LOL 

I think we may have determined a few things here.  That laws may OR may not be broken depending on what the photographer does with this 16 year old and maybe which State he lives in? (Still waiting ... )  That selling copyrights and pricing for weddings is not strictly regulated by our governement, at least not yet?  That parents might not be happy about this teenager taking pictures with this older male photographer?  (He could get yelled at or accused of something he didn't do.)  That I'm a goofy guy who gets an "F" for my business practices?   

So what it really comes down to for the OP is what he gets out of it worth the risk?  Only he knows the answer.

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.

rp_photo wrote:
Are you saying that when a custonmer has an image taken at Olan Mills, the customers owns the image outright?

I thought commecial portrait photographers normallly retained rights to the images.

NO, I did not say that.  It's been a long time, but from what I remember about Olan Mills is that we were not to display a customers photos in our waiting room. That the images we were allowed to display were all framed product sent from the main store.  The pictures were the same from store to store ... and it was of models posing for the specific reason of those framed images being on display. 

The sales people would show the finished images from previous photo sessions in private rooms.  The customer would sign a bill of sale after making a purchase.  What this paper said, I can not recall.  I don't believe Olan Mills gave the customer complete and full copyright at all ... since there was always an "Olan Mills" copyright on the finished product.  But I do know that the images that were not purchased would be destroyed along with the negatives after a certain time.  Probably the agreement was to protect Olan Mills from lawsuits? 

A customer and photographer negotiate the rights depending on the circumstances.  With most commerical portrait studies, the photographer retains most of the rights.  The customer pays for what they need.   

But my point is that a teenager can go to one of these "shopping mall" portrait studios and walk out with pictures without a parents signature.

Claire Elizabeth wrote:
To sum up:

minor+not telling parents DOES NOT= jail

BUT

minor+not telling parents=fiasco

Hey, and some people probably thought learning algebra wasn't going to be useful in the "real world"!!!

Yuriy wrote:
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 have no rule of thumb.  For some clients, particularly Playboy, it is simply expected that you sign over the copyright for certain things you do for them.  You get faced with the single question, do you want to be published by them or not?  They set the rules.

For other clients, the negotiated fee is high enough that it justifies the transfer if I am asked (or I add an appriate premium, but nowhere near 500%).  Some commercial gigs are that way.  The rate justifies the transfer.

I don't shoot portraits, weddings or portfolios at all, so they don't come into play.  However, since fees are based on usage, where it comes into play is smaller clients.  My interest in retaining copyright is not to re-use the photos, although it has occassionally happened.  It is to bill them for re-use in the future if they want to use the image again.  In those cases, there is a substantial upcharge if they want an all uses agreement.

littlegett wrote:
This Thread makes me wish I never became a member of this site.  Why is it that everyone is soo damn stupid????

Not everyone here is "soo damn stupid" as you say.  If you think this site is not worth your while, then why don't you leave?  Instead you are reading this and posting ... hmm?   It's not nice to put your colleagues down in a public forum.  We are all trying to learn some things here.  So stick around!

littlegett wrote:
Im not saying I know everything.. Hell I don't know anything...   Im just guessing at things here.

OK ... That is true! 

littlegett wrote:
Portrait shots (i.e. olan mills, sears)  are 100% Differnt than Modeling Shots.

This is NOT true!  My background in shooting portraits has helped my model shooting tremendously!  It's not 100% different as you say ... read on!

littlegett wrote:
Portrait shooting, the same, Sit on the stool, look this direction.  Blam.  shot taken.  Nothing to worry about.  It is constantly in a studio, constantly availbe for anyone to walk off the street and 'Purchase' images that look just like what is on the wall.

Modeling shooting, which sounds like this girl wants, is totaly differnt.  Does not always take place in a studio, is not always the same, Lots and lots of variables and creativity go into modeling photography.  Full body, half body, wierd angles, and such.  Way differnt than 'generic portrait' that you get from places like those said above.

You are missing some very important information.  Portrait shooting is not all alike. 
One of the reasons I branched off away from the institutional portrait studios is that to take a truly good portrait, you can not treat all people the same.  Any great portrait photographer will tell you that!   Obviously you have not been shooting senior portraits otherwise you'd know that more seniors are asking for environmental or outdoor shoots.  A true portrait photographer has the freedom from stiff studio shots with standard lighting. 

A definition of portraiture can be many things.  A portrait can be a headshot or a head and shoulders shot just like what you'd shoot for models.  Heck, I shot a picture of my brother out in the field while he was hunting quail.  He is kneeled down by a stump with quail he had shot, his shotgun in one hand and his other around his dog.  It is a picture that expresses who my brother is more than any other!  I got an "A" for it when I turned it in as a "Portrait" for my assignment in photography class.  It's an environmental portrait, but it's still a "Portrait!"

littlegett wrote:
Now, the question was, what is our opinion of shooting a 16 year old girl, model style, without her parents knowing, so this 'girl' can test the reaction of her images. 

but yet, everyone has to blah blah blah about what is right in front of them.  We are not talking if it is against the law or not.  Because if it was, why would the photographer even ask for our 'OPINIONS'?

Yet, like I said before, Me Personaly, Will not 'model shoot' anyone without a parent or guardian there.  no siblings, No friends, it has to be those legaly responcible for the person.  Why?  because I don't want anything biting me in the ass.   Better safe than sorry.  Even if it is a paid shoot and a Lot of money It isn't worth 'possible repercussions'.

So now, everyone can continue to bitch piss and moan because they all know better about something that doesn't even really matter right.

because bottom line is...

... is taking these pictures worth losing your business/hobby/reputation/respect...?

OK, I agree with you bottom line.  Although it is important, some people are getting distracted by the arguement of if it's legal or not to photograph a 16 year old.  They are missing the point.  Really I think that original poster wanted opinions to back up his doubts about doing this photography.  There is something wrong about a 16 year old girl wanting to hide this from her parents.  He knows it ... and it is too risky to go forward on something that could blow up into something bad. 

He maybe alright. It's not "illegal"  ... but why risk the embarrassment of parents getting angry, accusing him of things or even worse?  If the girl did turn on him ... things could get ugly! Regardless of if there is a conviction or even a trial ... an arrest looks bad! 

When in doubt, don't do it!

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I have no rule of thumb.  For some clients, particularly Playboy, it is simply expected that you sign over the copyright for certain things you do for them.  You get faced with the single question, do you want to be published by them or not?  They set the rules.
...

Haha!
It's so funny that you bring up Playboy.
Recently I was talking to some friends (one of whom wants to model for playboy) and this girl couldn't seem to understand why I didn't want to submit to Playboy.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
If the shots are taken in a studio or used *at all* by anyone other than the minor then you need a release.

It makes no difference where the shots were taken. The only thing governing if a release is needed is where the photos will be used.

*However*

If the shots were not to be used commercially you could shoot them "in public" at a mall, in a park, in front of a police station, or any other public place and they would fall under public domain images...the same as papparazi do not need permission from celebrities to use publicly taken shots of them.

The papparazi/celeb relationship is different than the "ordinary" citizen. You cannot take a photo on the street (in a public place) and use it where otherwise a model release would be required.

littlegett wrote:
This Thread makes me wish I never became a member of this site.  Why is it that everyone is soo damn stupid????

Im not saying I know everything.. Hell I don't know anything...



People never cease to amaze me.

littlegett wrote:
This Thread makes me wish I never became a member of this site.  Why is it that everyone is soo damn stupid????

Im not saying I know everything.. Hell I don't know anything...   Im just guessing at things here.

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

littlegett wrote:
And seeing on how every state is differnt and from what I can tell, Nobody here has a Law Degree Specialising in Photography Law for all the States and Internationaly,  It makes me laugh that everybody has to add their two cents on the 'legalites'.  And that is why I made my comment about everybody being stupid... because it seems everything gets turned around to something else and the whole point of what needs to be discussed is lost.  To me, that is stupid.

I don't understand how you get a vote in "what needs to be discussed".

If someone makes an unfounded claim that an activity commonly done by photographers "is illegal", whether or not that comment is most central to what you think "needs to be discussed", then an issue has arisen which is of concern to many people, and needs to be further explored.

Or are you one of those who thinks it's just fine for people to go around willy-nilly making unfounded claims, and never having them challenged because "it doesn't need to be discussed"?

scott slusher wrote:
A 16 year old girl  she doesn't want her parents to know about this, yet.

dont touch it!

first you dont know 100% that she is telling the truth and if you truly think she has something with all your years of experience that should be enough for her to talk to her parents.

second, I wouldnt want to shoot her without someone like a parent there, what if she claims you did something inappropriate? Is your career worth the risk for this girl's portfolio?

The laws do vary from state to state and you can check with a local lawyer for all the details but I dont see how the risk can be worth it for you. but if you insist on doing something, I would do outside images only taken in a very public place, I would not do any work on them and just give her the images to take as if you were just walking around and took some candids outside. then once she "talks" with your parents and they are supportive then set up a real shoot.

also, I did have a lawyer tell me that without a consent form (adult or minor) you cant even use those images for your own promotion. It isnt getting paid for them, technically you cant post those images on mayhem without a consent being signed.

good luck

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
If the shots are taken in a studio or used *at all* by anyone other than the minor then you need a release.

Vito wrote:
It makes no difference where the shots were taken. The only thing governing if a release is needed is where the photos will be used.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
*However*

If the shots were not to be used commercially you could shoot them "in public" at a mall, in a park, in front of a police station, or any other public place and they would fall under public domain images...the same as papparazi do not need permission from celebrities to use publicly taken shots of them.

Vito wrote:
The papparazi/celeb relationship is different than the "ordinary" citizen. You cannot take a photo on the street (in a public place) and use it where otherwise a model release would be required.

Vito, you are quite right.  When a release is and is not required is often misunderstood.  It has more to do with use than location (although sometimes a model can grant her consent by her conduct, as happened in the "Girls Gone Wild" case).

My suggestion is to always consult a good lawyer when in doubt, but here is a very well written article on model releases:  http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

I think Gold Rush is making an interesting point.  You just need to be careful when shooting in public not to presume that you have acquired the rights to use an image commercially.

TXPhotog wrote:
Or are you one of those who thinks it's just fine for people to go around willy-nilly making unfounded claims, and never having them challenged because "it doesn't need to be discussed"?

No, I am one of those types of People who think it is smarter to go ask A proffessional whom Knows the Letter of the Law, for the State/County/Country/Village you are in.

littlegett wrote:
No, I am one of those types of People who think it is smarter to go ask A proffessional whom Knows the Letter of the Law, for the State/County/Country/Village you are in.

The usual dodge.

Apparently you are NOT smart enough to know that the great majority of photographers will not, in fact, do that.  And for such people, allowing misinformation to go unchallenged on the 'net creates a problem.  There is a huge amount of "urban legend" that people continue to cite and act on as "fact" - and if uncontroverted, it continues to unnecessarily influence the lives and activities of many.

A question for you:

Have you ever taken a picture of a person under the age of 18, under any circumstances at all?  Did you go see your lawyer the moment the urge to do so arose?  Do you think it's practical to go see a lawyer each and ever time some new situation arises that may or may not have legal consequences?  (Hint:  there are thousands of such things.)

So tell us, how much time have you spent in a lawyer's office asking these kinds of questions?

TXPhotog wrote:

The usual dodge.

Apparently you are NOT smart enough to know that the great majority of photographers will not, in fact, do that.  And for such people, allowing misinformation to go unchallenged on the 'net creates a problem.  There is a huge amount of "urban legend" that people continue to cite and act on as "fact" - and if uncontroverted, it continues to unnecessarily influence the lives and activities of many.

A question for you:

Have you ever taken a picture of a person under the age of 18, under any circumstances at all?  Did you go see your lawyer the moment the urge to do so arose?  Do you think it's practical to go see a lawyer each and ever time some new situation arises that may or may not have legal consequences?  (Hint:  there are thousands of such things.)

So tell us, how much time have you spent in a lawyer's office asking these kinds of questions?

L()L your funny.  Im not dodgeing anything... I did not try to presume to offer legal advice in any manner what so ever.

And IF you bothered to read my posts you may understand what I am thinking.

1. Prediscribed portrait studios such as (sears) has set patterns in the manner in which they shoot, with less chance for altercation... Remember I said less.

2. A Individual owned studio, being only one or two people has higher chance of altercation because of the 'unknown' status.  or for the more popularly known phrase of 'Guy with Camera'.

3. Now A situation where a 'MINOR' wants to do something 'WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT' not with a 'Large known' studio, but with a private studio should put up Huge red flags and an imidate NO.   My reasoning is as such. 

Even if the images are taken 'outside in public venue' and 'no naughty bits are showing' the minor is still lieing to the parents, and the questions on the parents mind would be, if she did these... what other shots has she done.. and than the drama starts.

I don't say this from a Legal stand point.  I say this from a Parental standpoint. 

As A Parent  I would rather have my minor come up to me and tell me they want to test the waters of whatever they want to do.  That way I can support them and whatn't. 

This isn't about whats legal, its about what is right. 

But, do you want to be the person who has to deal with the drama, it 'MAY' bring?  If you are... All the power to you. 


But first... ask yourself the question.

'If it was my 16 year old daughter who did this behind my back what would I think?'

littlegett wrote:
No, I am one of those types of People who think it is smarter to go ask A proffessional whom Knows the Letter of the Law, for the State/County/Country/Village you are in.

Now, please deal with that, not with all the other stuff you seem to want to talk about.  In the quote above you are very pleased with  yourself, so it's only fair to ask if there is any actual reason for you to be so pleased.

Have you in fact asked any lawyer at any time about this issue?

Now, answer the rest of the questions I asked.

txphotog wrote:
A question for you:

Have you ever taken a picture of a person under the age of 18, under any circumstances at all?  Did you go see your lawyer the moment the urge to do so arose?  Do you think it's practical to go see a lawyer each and ever time some new situation arises that may or may not have legal consequences?  (Hint:  there are thousands of such things.)

So tell us, how much time have you spent in a lawyer's office asking these kinds of questions?

TXPhotog wrote:
And you dodge again by completely ignoring the advice you gave (quoted by me) and the comments/questions I made with respect to it.

littlegett wrote:
No, I am one of those types of People who think it is smarter to go ask A proffessional whom Knows the Letter of the Law, for the State/County/Country/Village you are in.

Now, please deal with that, not with all the other stuff you seem to want to talk about.  In the quote above you are very pleased with  yourself, so it's only fair to ask if there is any actual reason for you to be so pleased.

Have you in fact asked any lawyer at any time about this issue?

Now, answer the rest of the questions I asked.

First of all I am uber impressed that this is still going. Second, I knew I smelled TXPhoto in the midst of a legal debate!! 

Claire Elizabeth wrote:
First of all I am uber impressed that this is still going. Second, I knew I smelled TXPhoto in the midst of a legal debate!! 

You are welcome to come sniff me at any old time you'd like, Claire.

littlegett wrote:
The absolute truth is.  For certain aspects I have consulted with a lawyer.

That didn't answer the questions.  Another dodge.  But that's what I have come to expect from you.

You give all this self-righteous advice that, for the most part, you haven't taken for yourself, draw distinctions that are much more meaningful in your mind than in those of many other people, and treat them like laws of nature.

And then call the rest of us stupid.

Remember the statement about the door above?  I'm getting pretty sympathetic with it.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

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!

I worked for Olan Mills for a while and they do not give away copyright....if that was so why did I charge many a parent $20..00 a sheet to get more photographs? the parents sign away their rights on the bill of sale.......to back this up call your local wal mart photo lab and ask them will they reproduce an olan mills photo without a copyright release from Olan Mills...the answer will be NO......As far as the laws of your community go, Call your local sheriffs office and simply ask them to explain the laws regarding photographing minors in your area.....they cannot arrest you for asking them to clarify a law........