john knight wrote:
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........

What makes you think the sheriff knows?  He isn't a lawyer.

gavin oneill wrote:
r u people SERIOUSLY tellling me that you can go to jail in the USA for taking portfolio pictures of a 16 yr old person?????

The primary person telling us that is our Basement Buddy, who claims it is "fact" in Oregon and other states.  However, when asked to produce the law, in Oregon or any other state, he has fallen strangely silent.

You see, that's the way these things typically go on a forum.  Someone makes a wild claim, is asked to substantiate it, they get huffy and aggressive in defense of their claim, and then just fade away.  Whether or not they actually ever look for evidence to support their claim, they never admit that they don't have it, can't find it, and it doesn't exist.

So the next things that happen are:

1.  They make the claim again in another thread, or on another forum, when all the fuss has died down about their first false claim, and

2.  Someone else of a mind to believe them makes the claim again, reinforcing the Urban Legend.

3.  People get concerned about a "legal issue" that doesn't exist, and modify their behavior to avoid this "legal" problem.  And so, as a practical matter, the paranoids win.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

What makes you think the sheriff knows?  He isn't a lawyer.

Lets see, mainly becuase it is His/Her duty to enforce laws that are on the books....do you really think that police officers dont know the laws of your community? WOW, I am not trying to insult anyone but that was a dumb statement, be real.

gavin oneill wrote:
r u people SERIOUSLY tellling me that you can go to jail in the USA for taking portfolio pictures of a 16 yr old person?????

Have you not noticed how sue happy todays world is? Lawyers are laughing at us as their pockets are getting filled with cold hard cash, because just about anyone can be sued for anything.

On the other hand, when it comes to underage kid, especially when you're in a profession such as photography (what is the first thing random media brainwashed citizens will picture in their mind when you tell them "photographer+underage kid") you better make sure you have yourself covered just in case. Becasue you are a photographer and because there is an underage kid involved you will have all public, media and law enforcement against you should something go wrong. And some of things that could go wrong include but are not limited to:

- parents get upset and will make it a big deal after they have found out that this was done behind their back

- that 16 yo will have a change of heart and will come up with lies for various reasons (16 yo is already smart enough to know she could blackmail you to drain you off your money) which will put you through a lot of crap regardless of who is wrong or right

- maybe that 16 yo kid is an FBI set up with well tailored phrases to catch you saying something that could signify you are a pedofile. They play this entrapment game on the internet, so why wouldn't they attach a little microphone on her blause and tell her a few things they would like her to say when she meets with you

It's a sue happy age, my friend, it really is.

gavin oneill wrote:
r u people SERIOUSLY tellling me that you can go to jail in the USA for taking portfolio pictures of a 16 yr old person?????

In the US, you can go to prison for saying hi to a 16 year old.  And you'd be lucky to even get to prison.  Usually they announce your name and address on the news and soon an angry mob shows up on your doorstep with torches and garden tools and beat you into a steaming pile of gelatinous goop.

In fact, they'll probably be coming after me tonight just for talking about saying hi to a 16 year old.  Hell, it was only a few years ago that a woman could have been married and divorced twice, have four kids, and be living in her own trailer by the time she was 16.  Them were the days...

yes, you are right, and i appreciate your feedback.....i forgot about the very same system i was referring to as being over letigous and 'sue-happy' also (and i guess obviously) breeds people who not only wait for things to happen, they construct them in order to make it look like it has happened, so they can sue.

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 llama 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.

Agree and know exactly were your coming from and its perfectly legal

to take and print the images, web site and commercial usage and sexual content can be a problem.

john knight wrote:
Lets see, mainly becuase it is His/Her duty to enforce laws that are on the books....do you really think that police officers dont know the laws of your community? WOW, I am not trying to insult anyone but that was a dumb statement, be real.

Police officers get an overview of laws NOT a thorough education on them.
Honestly, most cops don’t have a good knowledge of the law outside of criminal law.

So, asking a police officer is as effective as doing an internet search, if not less so.

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?

You're about to buy a ticket to jail.

Myself - I NEVER - not even when their parents - especially mothers ask me to shoot their daughters for some reason - ever, shoot underage girls.

All you need is for them to get pissed at you, make a statement that you touched them inappropriately and your reputation, business and life is down the tube - and off you go to jail.

I had countless underage girls approach me for nude shoots and my answer is always: "come back when you're eighteen" - and they usually do - and if I do shoot them, I am "safe" - as safe as you can be with a young girl..=*^)

Don't do it!

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.

So here's a surprise:  no answer from Basement Studios, who claimed it was "a fact" that there was such a law, but has never produced it.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
What makes you think the sheriff knows?  He isn't a lawyer.

john knight wrote:
Lets see, mainly becuase it is His/Her duty to enforce laws that are on the books....do you really think that police officers dont know the laws of your community? WOW, I am not trying to insult anyone but that was a dumb statement, be real.

Actually, it isn't dumb at all.  Police make mistakes about the law all the time.  They fail to enforce laws they are unfamiliar with and they misinterpret laws as well.

Yuriy wrote:
Police officers get an overview of laws NOT a thorough education on them.
Honestly, most cops don’t have a good knowledge of the law outside of criminal law.

So, asking a police officer is as effective as doing an internet search, if not less so.

Yurly had the right answer.

If something is black and white, such as robbery, they are fine.  But the papers are repleat, for example, with them going after people for child pornography, only to find out that nothing was illegal.

A few months ago, a man was arrested because police saw him taking pictures of a crowd.  The police thought the pictures were illicit and arrested him for taking lewd photos.  A few days later, the District Attorney issued a public apology.  When they viewed the images on the camera, they were artistic, they were cute but they were not lewd.

If you want to know about the laws in your community, ask your lawyer or ask the District Attorney.  Police officers are not attorneys.   They do not have that training.  They are trained to protect the public and to testify in court.  That is why we have prosectors.  Police can't charge you with a crime.

They investigate and refer it to a prosecutor who decides if the evidence exists to charge.  Even when a police officer witnesses a crime, they can only arrest you on suspicion.

So it was a very intelligent question I asked you.   Ask the DA or your lawyer.  The police, while familiar with many laws are not attorneys.

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?

As far as I know, it's illegal to shoot minors without parental consent in most states. It is certainly illegal and not binding to enter a contract with a minor in ALL states and you should have ALL your models sign an agreement

Avicdar wrote:
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...

Lets be realistic here.  Our involvement in this business has put us in these protective/defensive modes regarding photographing anyone.  Release forms are designed to make clear issues of copyright and image use, terms of same, etc. 

If the images of the underage person are not nudes, construed as explicit or obscene, and are taken without a release form, then you are perfectly within your rights to shoot away.  Anyone that suggests otherwise isn't being entirely precise about why a release form needs to be signed by a guardian.

Release forms signed by guardians are in place simply because a minor is not legally allowed to contract under their own name until the age of 18.  If no contract is needed (the images won't be used commercially and the photographer does not care if the model uses the images for whatever she wants) then there is no problem with shooting without one.

If a contract IS needed, it must be signed by a guardian.

Its NOT illegal to take a photograph of a minor.

Yup, sounds about right 

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 COMPLETELY AGREE!! Go for it man, just dont have her sign a release. As long as you aren't selling the photos or displaying them on your website, go right ahead. Nothing wrong with that man, seriously.

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.

RUN AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

00siris wrote:
As far as I know, it's illegal to shoot minors without parental consent in most states. It is certainly illegal and not binding to enter a contract with a minor in ALL states and you should have ALL your models sign an agreement

There is no point in responding to this.  The subject has been beaten to death.

Belladonna wrote:
I may be hassled a lot for saying this, but girls are sketchy.  While in many situations not pertaining to modeling and photography I would say that the parents do not need to know, however, PHOTOGRAPHIC proof of any event, regardless of context, could be used against you. Even if she makes no intention of getting you into deep waters about it, her parents may.  Even in mainstream teen magazine and commercial work a parent's presence is required at the time of submission...I highly reccommend telling her "No, Thank you."  I had to wait until I was 18 to do any modeling and for that reason I made better decisions on my choices for modeling. I would suggest you do not photograph her and request she contact you again in two years.  She may be great infront of the camera, but seriously, you and your business come before others.

I hope my opinion helps a little.

Wow - and to think that all those models such as Gemma Ward (started when she was 16), Kate Moss (topless shots at age 16), Gerren Taylor (U.S. model who started when she was AGE TWELVE) have been so victimized by being photographed while not yet 18 years of age!

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

00siris wrote:

As far as I know, it's illegal to shoot minors without parental consent in most states. It is certainly illegal and not binding to enter a contract with a minor in ALL states and you should have ALL your models sign an agreement

If you'd have bothered to read this thread, you'd see that there is NO LAW forbidding the photographing of minors in ANY STATE. "As far as you know" in this case = nothing. What research have you done on this? Please link to it. A few posters here said the same thing, but when asked for confirmation, they shriveled up and disappeared.

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 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.

First off, shooting a minor w/o the parents consent is something you do at your own risks.

That being said...

If you still insist on shooting w/ her, it might be a wise idea to sit down w/ the girl & explain the risks you'd be taking on (shooting w/o the parents knowledge). Even invite them (the parents) for a sitdown of what you plan to do, maybe even to the shoot itself. So many people have crazy notions as what goes on in an actual shoot that have little basis in reality.

MutilatedNecro wrote:
It all depends on what kinds of things you are shooting and in what state. Here in Texas, the legal consenting age is 17. This only applies of there is absolutely no nudity, tasteful or otherwise.

Once again, please provide a citation to a specific law in Texas that supports this claim.  I do not believe it is true.

Darren Green wrote:
I agree with those that says it's unwise, and personally would apologize politley and walk away from it.

However ther is no law in ANY us state preventing you from shooting a minor (as long as no nudity is involved)

The only reason you would need a release in any case is so you may use the images for commercial gain (advertising and the likes)  for editorial work you dont even need a signed consent under US law (but most publishers perfer to have it just to be safe).

Your worst case sceneraio is the parents see the pics and Pa turns us with a shot gun. 

Or even worse they complain to the authorities, an investigation is started and all your files and computers are siezed whilst they search them to see if there is anything illegal and untoward in your files.  (this one happend to a friend of mine) He was without his equipment for over 3 months.

Always errr on the side of caution and walk away when unsure.

Anyone remember what happened to Jock Sturges?

If you do - you still advocate shooting a minor?

OK, he was shooting nudes - but - all that's needed - as I mentioned earlier - is that this minor gets pissed at you for ANY reason and start telling her parents - anyone - that you touched her inappropriately - and you're toast!



Let what happened to him be a HUGE warning...

Farenell Photography wrote:

First off, shooting a minor w/o the parents consent is something you do at your own risks.

That being said...

If you still insist on shooting w/ her, it might be a wise idea to sit down w/ the girl & explain the risks you'd be taking on (shooting w/o the parents knowledge). Even invite them (the parents) for a sitdown of what you plan to do, maybe even to the shoot itself. So many people have crazy notions as what goes on in an actual shoot that have little basis in reality.

Several years ago I had a young girl - 16 - contact  me, wanting to be my assistant. I answered, told her to have her parents contact me. They did. We met, had dinner. All four of us. They told me they loved my work - as did the girl, she showed me her work - good - and told me they would sign any kind of paper that my lawyer wanted them to sign in order to protect me. Said both they and the girl would be totally happy and comfortable with me photographing her nude...

I liked the girl, she seemed to have her stuff together - but - in the end I declined, explained why and they were sorry but said they understood.

If this had been in Europe....

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?

Well we've heard from all the arm-chair lawyers and know-it-alls.  Law or no laws, the thing that you have to keep in mind is that, if you take this kid's pic without parental consent, you stand a good chance of having her dad whoop the living shit out of you...and you know what?  You'd deserve it.