ei Total Productions wrote:
Golly gosh, for an age appropriate shoot, I wouldn't think twice about a TF, so long as I spoke to the partens in advance and they signed the appropriate paperwork.  I am way less paranoid about minors than most of you.

There is a cavat to this thread though ... in California, you can't do a commercial shoot with a minor under 16 without a prent present.  If the model was 16 or 17, there would be absolutely no issue.  At 15, if you were booking and paying her, then you would also need a parent (and a work permit) to be legal.  at 15, if you booked her, there would be an issue.

These, however, are labor laws in California.  They don't apply to things like senior portratis where the subject is hiring you.   There are no laws preventing you from taking someone's picture, just hiring them for a commercial shoot.

I am totally unfamiliar with Georgia law so I have no idea what the labor standards are there.  Likewise, one always dances around the definition of what is commercial and not commercial.  Again those, these are labor issues, not criminal issues.

As a practical matter, I don't shoot minors without a parent in most situations, but in this case, her 21 year old sister wants to bring her.  I would probaby have no problem with a TF shoot for fun if I had spoken to the parent.

This needs to be quoted again.


Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

NNygaard Studios wrote:
Psh, I took pictures of a 17 year old, nothing risque, but her mom yelled at her for hours and was very angry.

All it takes is one pissed off Mom at the Bridge Club to make your life worthless.

MMDesign wrote:
Call the parents and ask them if they have a problem with it. If not, shoot it. If they do, then don't.

+1


My first shoot was when I was 15, but my mom was there.

Tracy Bellar wrote:
Never shoot any underage person for your personal portfolio without a parent there and signing a model release.

Why? If it's for your personal portfolio, you DON'T NEED A RELEASE no matter the age

Tracy Bellar wrote:
I had a model that lied about being 18. She wasn't. Then after the shoot she went to a lawyer and wanted all the photos and claimed she was naive and didn't know any better. She said she wanted the sole use and posession of all the photos or she would sue. She thought she had me blackmailed because she knew I couldn't use the photos since she was under age. This girl was a real nasty one at heart. hey she didn't have a heart. vicious. So I countered. Her parents can sign the model release and she would get copies and I would still use the photos or I would burn all neagatives and prints and the entire shoot would disapear. Suddenly they wanted to sign the model release.

Whatever you do don't go through that kind of trouble. I know most photographers are kind hearted and want the shoot to be benificial to everyone. Don't get conned by a liar.

(Assuming she had ID of being over 18 and even if she didn't/wasn't):
Your choices were to delete the images or tell them to go to hell. In NY, at least, I could even sell the images as art prints, sell them in a book, etc...

(and this would depend upon right to publicity/privacy which are state laws. Your state may have different ones than NY or may have none)

Cardillo Photography wrote:
I am probably going to get shot for this.....
Why not just have the younger sister pay you for the shoot....

That should make it all ok.

Amanda J  Photography wrote:
I've heard of Senior photographers taking the photos even without an adult present and only asking for a release if he was to use them in publication or on the internet.

Not sure if that's such a good idea though.

Why?  Please cite a reason...

Tracy Bellar wrote:
If you are being paid then your services are being sought out and you are selling a service. You should never use an image for self promotion without a release. If you shoot an underage model and use the photo your going to get in legal trouble. Also you don't want to shoot without parent permission and then get a bad rep by word of mouth. it could destroy a business.

PLEASE CITE HOW!!!   I have a whole album of teens, some parents where there, some not. It's not illegal nor will I get into trouble!!

Vito wrote:
Before giving myself an ulcer reading the 2nd page to the last page, there is NO law in any state in the USA that says a parent must be present to shoot a minor (this is assuming it is not in anyway adult/nude). There just isn't. Find one (and I am talking about a TFP/CD shoot where no commercial use will be made of the images).

What ethics are you talking about (from the 1st page)? How is shooting a 15 year old (legal shots) unethical as opposed to shooting an 18 year old? or a 30 year old?

AND, her 21+ year old sister is acting as her guardian (15 year olds go to R movies with their older siblings all the time).

AND by the way, a contract signed by a 15 year old is BINDING. However, it can be rescinded by reason of their age. That's why no one signs them.

THANK YOU, Vito. Finally, the truth. Wow!

And, FWIW, these images were taken of a 15 year old without her parents present.



Not only that, but I shoot with her a lot. With and without her parents present. And, she sometimes brings friends along. The very worst thing that a parent has ever brought up about it is "How much will this cost me?" When they find out it won't cost, the only thing they say is what time they need to be home.

Of course, the area I live in is remarkably kind and respectful toward photographers. As such, I can't say others will get the same reaction. Even the police, when they see a "professional looking camera", will simply say "Have a nice day!" and drive off.

And this is her sister, 17 years old, getting her senior portrait. When her dad saw it, he loved it.

Michael DBA Expressions wrote:
If your intentions are innocent and your resulting photos squeeky clean, you should be fine,

In this day and age, photographers have to be paranoid too. Even with squeaky clean pictures a photographer could be accused of acting inappropriately towards a minor. Have the parents there and get a release signed. There are plenty of other amazing younger models who have parents who will attend shoots.

Fantasy Fotos 28 wrote:
WOW.  Out of curiosity I called my local police dept after several transfers I got a detective and asked some of these questions brought up in here.  Several of the answers shocked me. 

#1 You can take pictures of anyone at any age if they are out in public (especially the ones that can be considered "newsworthy" and counted as editorials (which means no release is required).  He said a good example of this was photos taken of children after the Hurricane in New Orleans.  He said what is considered "newsworthy" is what is debatable and has to be determined by the courts.  Falls under the Right of Publicity/Privacy Act of 1998.

#2  However, unless it is considered newsworthy then NO picture taken of any person of ANY age can be Published or Posted on the internet or in print or are distributed in any way without written consent from the subject or Legal Guardian.  He did state that unless you trespass on the subjects private property you can TAKE all the pictures you want if there is no sexual intent.  He stated that taking pictures from the street of someone in their house can be considered surveillance and opens up a whole new can of worms. 

#3  You can TAKE pictures of minors for your personal portfolio all day long IF there is no sexual content - the definition of sexual content is what shocked the hell out of me see #4 - HOWEVER you cannot publish, print or distribute anyone's pictures of any age without written consent from a LEGAL Guardian be it self or parental or court appointed.

#4 His definition of sexual content specifically where minors are concerned (I asked about a 3 yr old, 10 yr old and 16 yr old).  So long as the genital areas are not directly exposed to the camera it is not considered pornography.  I clarified this further and asked "Ok a 6 yr old is dressed in women's lingerie with heels and placed on a bed with a seductive pose, surely that's pornography"  He stated... ONLY if genitals are directly exposed to the camera.  Implied does not constitute pornography, he said it can be argued that it is art since no genitals are exposed directly to the camera.

After that I just thanked him for his time and hung up.  Seriously?  As a mother with 2 daughters that really disturbs me.

What makes you think that he is an authority on issues of civil law rather than criminal law?  What makes you think he understands all the nuances of criminal law?

Vito wrote:
Before giving myself an ulcer reading the 2nd page to the last page, there is NO law in any state in the USA that says a parent must be present to shoot a minor (this is assuming it is not in anyway adult/nude). There just isn't. Find one (and I am talking about a TFP/CD shoot where no commercial use will be made of the images).

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
THANK YOU, Vito. Finally, the truth. Wow!

If you confine yourself to non-commercial images, i agree.  I am not sure I agree that all TF shoots would be held by a court to be non-commercial.  It ias nothing to do with money changing hands, but instead, the use of the images.

There are clearly TF situations which would fall under the definion of commercial, in which case, the law, in California, for example, would require that you have a parent present for models under sixteeh.

Bernie Browder  wrote:
I am curious.  Lets say the OP shoots with the 21 year old and also shoots the 15 year old.  Considering this is a purely innocent shoot, fully clothed nothing at ALL suggestive.  What  could some of the repercussions be if parental consent is not given?

In this scenario, I think it totally depends on how the photos are used by the photographer.

ei Total Productions wrote:

Vito wrote:
Before giving myself an ulcer reading the 2nd page to the last page, there is NO law in any state in the USA that says a parent must be present to shoot a minor (this is assuming it is not in anyway adult/nude). There just isn't. Find one (and I am talking about a TFP/CD shoot where no commercial use will be made of the images).

If you confine yourself to non-commercial images, i agree.  I am not sure I agree that all TF shoots would be held by a court to be non-commercial.  It ias nothing to do with money changing hands, but instead, the use of the images.

There are clearly TF situations which would fall under the definion of commercial, in which case, the law, in California, for example, would require that you have a parent present for models under sixteeh.

Exactly. But the act of taking the photographs is perfectly fine. It's what you do with them afterward that could possibly land you in trouble. From the sounds of the OP, this isn't going to be a planned commercial shoot. It seems more like simply a test shoot.

That is, of course, assuming the photographs are age appropriate.

David Gaze wrote:

In this scenario, I think it totally depends on how the photos are used by the photographer.

I agree. In most of my cases, I haven't used the photos of the minors myself but allowed the "models" to use them as they want. It was more practice for me than anything else.

David Gaze wrote:

In this scenario, I think it totally depends on how the photos are used by the photographer.

Thought so because I have shot in this same situation although the youngest was 16 and mountains didn't crumble and oceans didn't boil over. LOL  I guess finding out what the OP is doing with the photos first would help.   Rather than putting the fear of god into them for shooting someone under 18.

Rebel Photo wrote:

Robert Lynch wrote:
Of course they can.  What they can't do is sign a release for commercial usage.  Those are two completely different things.  Arranging for a TF* shoot for personal use is not a problem.

they can say "OK"...but it's not legal consent. Only a Parent or Guardian can provide that (such as the sister in this case).


Juveniles have no ability to contract/conduct business in their name. (A TF Shoot is a manner of doing business)

Homes movies and Uncle Bob's photos are completely different than one acting as a business (professional Photographer) with intent to publish.

What?  If a minor can not conduct business in their own name, how do they by a piece of clothing, or buy gas for their car, or pay for a ticket to the movies, or order a burger at the greasy fast food place.  Aren't those conducting business.

So let's get this straight, you're scared to shoot a person, who in the eyes of the LAW, is an ADULT and can sign a contract because, and this seems to be implied, she lives at home? This is paranoia to a new level.  And you do realize that in many cases, companies that do senior shoots, the parents aren't there.. They don't seem to be too worried.. I shoot little league. Half the time there is no parent there. According to some in this thread, I'm asking for trouble.. Been doing it for over 20 years and NEVER had an issue.

Well first lets clarify the situation.  Having the parent there (in my statement) is also to imply that they have signed a release or authorization that you have permission to shoot their child.  If you shoot seniors over 18 that walk in without parents permission well hopefully you have some sorta clause in writing in case you come across a very dominant parent that tries to sue you for dolling up his kid without permission....that's your risk.  Even though she or he may be legal you really think someone with money wouldn't drag you butt to court for a good fight?   Now if I asked my friend if I could shoot his daughter and he signed a waiver and she was on board but he couldn't be thee for the shoot I dont disagree with that either...Im not paranoid...I just dont think its worth the sell.  Id rather work with someone who is def into it for their reasons too not just mine.
That being said I still wouldn't be alone with an 18 year old in either situation even if they had consent because there is no third party or witness to anything that could be mis interpreted or hell just made up by a wacky kid trying to get attention or money....why leave anything to chance?  With everyone lawsuit happy these days even if your right in all matters legal, in a high school community would you really want news spread about foul play from your studio among hundreds of mothers?  Such talk I believe could kill a business if not end it.  20 years?  I guess your at the right place and working in a very trusting area.  Around here (NY/NJ)no one would take that chance...I def wouldn't.

Al Salerno Photography wrote:

Well first lets clarify the situation.  Having the parent there (in my statement) is also to imply that they have signed a release or authorization that you have permission to shoot their child.  If you shoot seniors over 18 that walk in without parents permission well hopefully you have some sorta clause in writing in case you come across a very dominant parent that tries to sue you for dolling up his kid without permission....that's your risk.  Even though she or he may be legal you really think someone with money wouldn't drag you butt to court for a good fight?   Now if I asked my friend if I could shoot his daughter and he signed a waiver and she was on board but he couldn't be thee for the shoot I dont disagree with that either...Im not paranoid...I just dont think its worth the sell.  Id rather work with someone who is def into it for their reasons too not just mine.
That being said I still wouldn't be alone with an 18 year old in either situation even if they had consent because there is no third party or witness to anything that could be mis interpreted or hell just made up by a wacky kid trying to get attention or money....why leave anything to chance?  With everyone lawsuit happy these days even if your right in all matters legal, in a high school community would you really want news spread about foul play from your studio among hundreds of mothers?  Such talk I believe could kill a business if not end it.  20 years?  I guess your at the right place and working in a very trusting area.  Around here (NY/NJ)no one would take that chance...I def wouldn't.

Why do people want to believe that you need a release in order to take a photograph of someone?

Greg Cobb Photography wrote:
There's so much misinformation in here it isn't funny.

I started out reading this thread and laughing. Then I started crying.

Brian Baybo wrote:

Anal? How do you figure? Most states do not allow photography of minors without the parents or legal guardian present, TF or commercial. Check your local laws before you cry "anal". "Professional" comes to mind.

Yes, checking and pro does come to mind. Cite me these laws from "most states."

I'll check back in the morning, you're gonna need a little time with this one.
Umm, we are talking US states, right? Not states of Libya or something??

Vito wrote:
So, her top and bottom is covered (by lingerie/undies), the photos aren't sexual, the model is 17. What lawsuit do you see? What law (criminal or civil) has been broken?

It's quite possible to have an illegal image of a 17 year old where no nipples or genitals show.

Tracy Bellar wrote:
I had a model that lied about being 18. She wasn't. Then after the shoot she went to a lawyer and wanted all the photos and claimed she was naive and didn't know any better. She said she wanted the sole use and posession of all the photos or she would sue. She thought she had me blackmailed because she knew I couldn't use the photos since she was under age. This girl was a real nasty one at heart. hey she didn't have a heart. vicious. So I countered. Her parents can sign the model release and she would get copies and I would still use the photos or I would burn all neagatives and prints and the entire shoot would disapear. Suddenly they wanted to sign the model release.

Whatever you do don't go through that kind of trouble. I know most photographers are kind hearted and want the shoot to be benificial to everyone. Don't get conned by a liar.

Or, you could get ID at the beginning of the shoot.  Seems much simpler.

David Gaze wrote:
I wouldn't shoot my neighbor's 15 yr old without the parents there.  Permission or not.  No adult, no shoot...  Period.


No way.

+1

Potential upside = you get some nice shots.
Potntial downside = you spend 5 years in a cell with Ben Dover in federal pen.

You've made harder choices than that - even though the downside is very very remote it's also very big.

Keith aka Wolfie wrote:

Why?  Please cite a reason...

I've never thought it was a terrible idea, but I think its better to be safe than sorry in case you get a wacko.

Brian Baybo wrote:

Anal? How do you figure? Most states do not allow photography of minors without the parents or legal guardian present, TF or commercial. Check your local laws before you cry "anal". "Professional" comes to mind.

Maybe you could quote those laws, or provide a link, Mr. Professional?