Forums >
General Industry >
Shooting Minor - No Implied Though! ???
Iâm thinking about shooting edgy fashion for a minor, 16 years old to be exact. These will be strictly outdoor and in public places. Do I need his legal guardian to be present? Thereâs absolutely no implied or whatsoever. My MUA/Hairstylist will be there too. Both of my MUA/Hairstylist can do both makeup and hair. Iâll definitely request the model to bring an adult friend along, but donât how possible thatâs since heâs visiting. Should I not shoot the minor altogether or am I worrying too much? Thanks. Oct 09 10 01:25 am Link Found this... https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=2617 Oct 09 10 01:30 am Link You need to have a guardian or at the very least an assistant there. Do you really want to get into a your word against their's battle? I'd recommend having their guardian there so you don't cross any lines with the photographs that the guardian/parent isn't comfortable with -- once again, avoiding issues before they happen. Oct 09 10 01:31 am Link You are worrying too much. Thousands of portrait studios including Sears, JC Penney, Walmart and nearly every other portrait studio you'll find in the yellow pages will shoot minors without even thinking about it. The likelihood that this model will rape you is probably low. The likelihood that you'll do something illegal to this model will be determined by your behavior. If you behave yourself, the likelihood that the model will run off screaming rape just so you'll dig deep into your pockets and succumb to her blackmail scheme is also very low, but if you fear that this might happen, then bring your next-door neighbor. The reason I think the blackmail scheme is a low probability is that any model smart enough to plan such a thing, would likely pick a studio with the deepest pockets, like JC Penney, Sears, Walmart, etc. This however doesn't seem to be a chronic problem for those deep pocketed targets, so it probably won't be for you. Chances are, she merely wants photos. Behave yourself and you'll be fine. You don't need and assistant and you don't need anyone else there. However, the 16 year old model cannot provide you with a valid model release due to her age. So, if these photos are being taken because she's paying you, and you have no intention of using them yourself, forget the release, you don't need one. However, if you plan to use the photos yourself, then you'll probably want to have a parent or guardian sign it. The release can be signed anytime, but to protect yourself, I'd get it signed before I release photos that the model can use. Young people aren't all that and neither is photographing them. Now, if nudity is involved, all the above still applies. There's no law in any state in the US that prevents photographers from photographing minors nude. Nudity, in itself, is not pornography. However, the inherent risk is that you and your attorney might have to try to convince some judge and/or jury that your images are "art" not "pornography". That's sometimes difficult because "pornography" has yet to be defined by the Supreme Court, so, it's a gray area, and one best left to professional photographers who just happen to also be lawyers. Oct 09 10 10:31 am Link JoeFong wrote: Generally, the only issue with shooting minors is the use of the pictures. If you plan on using them in your port, it's good to get a release signed by the parent/gaurdian. If you plan on publishing them, that would be mandatory. Oct 09 10 10:37 am Link Thanks. Oct 09 10 10:39 am Link Is it really worth it ? If it becomes he said / she said...you're screwed. I only shot one underaged girl and I had her mother within fifty feet and in plain view and we we not doing anything that anyone would call edgy. The thought that catalogs, magazines, and advertising agencies do it all the time doesn't hold up in this case. That's a pro shoot, they have a dozen people on the shoot, it's for real money and a real, probably a known client. You are one pervert photographer and an underaged girl.... and that's how the parent, clergy or newspaper will characterize you if something goes wrong. Oct 09 10 08:28 pm Link Vector One Photography wrote: And the fearmonger post of the day award goes to. Oct 09 10 08:32 pm Link Do you need a signed release? That's the only reason you need a parent there, to sign the release. Don't let the fear mongers scare you away from a good shoot. Oct 09 10 09:32 pm Link I am curious, are any of you familiar with the labor code in California as it relates to shooting a 16 year old, particularly in determining if this is a commercial or non-commercial shoot? Do any of you know the age at which a parent is or is not required in California for a commercial shoot? Giving advice is a good thing if you actually have the expertise to give it. This is a legal question. There are a lot of issues to be considered. Anecdotal responses are good, but it doesn't really answer the OP's question if you don't know the specific statutes that apply and associated caselaw. Oct 09 10 10:07 pm Link .... Really?.... I just have two say two words: Senior Portraits! Thanks, and Good Night. Oct 09 10 10:10 pm Link Wysiwyg Photography wrote: Good words, but totally irrelevant in California. It is an entirely different thing for a student to come in and purchase photos from you, i.e. senior portrats, and another to book a model for a shoot. There is little distinction in California law if the shoot is paid or TF, since images are consideration. The governing code is the Labor Code, which has absolutely nothing to do with senior portraits. Oct 09 10 10:14 pm Link It's a good idea, because it will help protect you from tons of drama if your definition of "edgy fashion" runs "over the edge" for the model's parents. Oct 09 10 10:37 pm Link ei Total Productions wrote: Excellent reply. Oct 09 10 10:40 pm Link ei Total Productions wrote: Would it be considered labor if she came to you to do shots for her portfolio ? (just like in the case of Glamourshots) ei Total Productions wrote: Is the point whether he approached her or vise-versa ? Oct 09 10 10:43 pm Link It's a TF and non-commercial shoot. Port uses only! I sure don't want the headache. I will ask for a guardian; otherwise, no shoot then. Oct 10 10 02:05 am Link ALWAYS get parental consent when photographing an u-18 person. If the llama is an orphan, then get a legal guardian or older friend or sibling to sign. Oct 10 10 02:27 am Link If your MUA is a woman you are pretty much in the clear. So you are shooting a practice senior portrait just like a million other senior portraits. Oct 10 10 03:30 am Link I work with a lot of minors as all are in my port , I always INSIST they have there mother present. If you wish to use the photos for any thing you will need that model release signed and this must be done by a parent or the like . Even if it is just port building I would get a model release as even promoting your self is commercial . I dont no the law in your part of the world but here it is perfectly legal to shoot minors for commercial purposes with parental consent provided that there are NO nudes or implied nude or any thing that depicts sexual act , gosh I have seen 16 year old runway models walking down in there underwear . Provided you keep the sexual implications and nudity out of it there is no reason not to shoot with minors . As with any thread of this nature you really should get REAL legal advice relevant to the laws of your area . Oct 10 10 04:01 am Link ei Total Productions wrote: Paul Brecht wrote: ei Total Productions wrote: Paul Brecht wrote: I am trying very hard not to give anything that looks like legal advice or is a conclusion of law. That is for attorneys to do, but I will give you a little bit of guidance since eerybody is off track and not looking at the right thing. Oct 10 10 08:42 pm Link JoeFong wrote: I don't really see a problem then, especially if you're going straight to their parents first for permission. One of my parents always comes along to sign a release form and just hangs out on the sidelines or in the car and that's that. No big deal. Oct 10 10 09:18 pm Link JoeFong wrote: FYI, in many cases, merely shooting a model for a portfolio becomes commercial, wehter it is TF or not. It is irrelevant if you are making any money. It is interesting, and I don't agree necessarily with the definition, but the theory is that the purpose of shooting for portfolio is that, eventually, you will want to make some money from your work, and hence the shoot is for advertising. Oct 10 10 09:48 pm Link Very informative! Thanks everyone. Oct 11 10 01:17 am Link Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote: plus ONE. Oct 11 10 10:37 pm Link If you want a model release, mom, dad or a legal guardian better be the one to sign it. I won't shoot a minor without one of the three being present for the actual shoot. They are not my kids and I don't want their parents not to know what is going on, if I am the one shooting. In short, once they are 18 or older, I don't allow escorts, but if they are under 18, I insist that they do. Oct 12 10 03:57 am Link Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote: Do you have the sort of insurance and access to large law firms with multiple lawyers at your beck and call, that Sears, Walmart, etc. have? Do you have in-house attorneys? Oct 12 10 04:04 am Link I never shoot with minors unless it's part of a group/family picture--period. Now, I'm no longer a fulltime photographer. So I'm not taking business like...shooting graduation pictures, baby pictures, youth sports team pictures and especially teen modeling portfolios. But in my situation, it's just not worth the potential hassle. There are too many stereotypes out there about "adult photographer (click, click, say no more!) exploiting naive teen" so that any potential complaint (even if it doesn't involve anything sexual) can be very messy. I know that it some cases a photographer will rationalize it as: this model is nearly 18, we have a good relationship, parents are on board, I want to shoot her when she starts out so she'll stay with me. All good arguments except....the issue to me isn't shooting ONE teenager younger than 18, it's because you shot one getting the rep as a photographer who shoots models who are minors. Which by itself isn't a bad rep, it just means it's potential baggage if anything gets nasty, even if it doesn't involve your minor shoot. Unless you've got a compelling reason as a business to shoot not just one minor but to make it a business line, I'd steer away. Oct 12 10 04:16 am Link JoeFong wrote: I'm very comfortable shooting model at group events, but would hesitate to do so one-on-one. Oct 12 10 04:23 am Link You definitely need a minor release signed by a guardian and another adult, preferably female there. With that you're fine. Oct 12 10 05:02 am Link parent yes / but how do you tell if a guardian really is the guardian? i'm insisting on id from parents - & it has to match the kids birth certif. .... Oct 12 10 02:00 pm Link MerrillMedia wrote: If you read Alan's posts above, you'll note that just by the nature of these shots puts you in a different (legal) field than those others... Oct 12 10 02:17 pm Link Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote: MerrillMedia wrote: No. But I'm not afraid of kids either. I'm also fairly certain that photographing minors isn't a problem for the many, many studios that do it, who also don't have a large legal budget. Oct 13 10 07:48 pm Link JoeFong wrote: I shoot fashion weekly with 14 - 17 year olds, and very rarely does a parent or guardian accompany the model. Since there is no legal document to be signed, you don't need a parent either, unless you're worried about what others in this thread seem to be worried about, which is a great deal apparently. Oct 13 10 07:52 pm Link Richard Dubois wrote: Laws are different in Canada Oct 13 10 07:59 pm Link Paul Brecht wrote: Is it illegal elsewhere in the US to photograph a minor without an adult present? That is the impression this thread is giving me. Oct 13 10 08:00 pm Link JoeFong wrote: If the llama is a MINOR then you need to have a parent signature on the llama release and I think you also need a parent or guardian present as well (I've always requested at least one parent to be present during the shoots). Oct 13 10 08:00 pm Link Swank Photography wrote: The Parent or Guardian present is a VERY STRONG suggestion.. not needed legally.. but if I was inclined to do a shoot like this (Which I wouldn't, but) If I was, I would have a parent there. Oct 13 10 08:41 pm Link Vector One Photography wrote: Ummm, except that if you actually read OP's post it's not an underage girl that OP wants to shoot, it's an underage guy. I know it doesn't make a figs difference in the eyes of the law but I bet it makes a massive difference to people's perceptions of whether OP should go ahead with the shoot or not. Oct 13 10 09:04 pm Link Don't do it without a parent there. It is not worth the hassle of being sued, being put on a megans list, etc. I will never photograph a minor without their parent there. Oct 13 10 09:06 pm Link "Edgy" is such an overused cliche word in photographic niche markets. It can mean a lot of thing to a lot of people. Basically, who bloody cares what you do and what the age of your model is. If you are professional, you have crossed you tees and dotted your iis, got everything signed, sighted, photographed and processed your age card etc and have explained EXACTLY what you wish to photograph in detail then age becomes pretty irrelevant. As for the person that said "Seniors Photography", I actually thought of old people that I have photographed over the age of 60. Hey, they need photos too guys. No one asks for them to bring an escort or complain that grandma is getting her saggies out for the grandchildren to see in an artistic way. Oct 13 10 11:49 pm Link |