Photographer
Rob Wright Photography
Posts: 265
Lawndale, California, US
It's not worth the risk to your reputation. Don't do it
Photographer
RacerXPhoto
Posts: 2521
Brooklyn, New York, US
Richard Dubois wrote:
Thank you.
I marvel at the paranoia in these threads sometimes. I've been shooting 14 - 17 year olds for years, never an issue. In fact, it never crosses anyone's mind that there would be an issue. Paranoia Mayhem fits this site as a better title name most of the time
Photographer
Keys88 Photo
Posts: 17646
New York, New York, US
Richard Dubois wrote:
Thank you.
I marvel at the paranoia in these threads sometimes. I've been shooting 14 - 17 year olds for years, never an issue. In fact, it never crosses anyone's mind that there would be an issue. RacerXPhoto wrote:
Paranoia Mayhem fits this site as a better title name most of the time I can't figure out if you two are trolling or High.
The OP didn't ask about shooting a minor. He asked about shooting a minor doing "provocative" posing (his word; not OURS!)
If you don't see how this raises a red flag (or potential red flag) and think the rest of us are being "paranoid" then you really have no clue what you're talking about.
Photographer
Charger Photography
Posts: 1731
San Antonio, Texas, US
Heather Honey wrote:
lol, prolly should check w a lawyer and def have an assistant there in case the mom is setting you up +100 Lots of models here over 18.... Why risk it... I done lots of shoots with 17 years old... in my port... but nothing stupid. 
Photographer
REVOLVER6PHOTOGRAPHY
Posts: 21
Modesto, California, US
Stephen Markman wrote:
Richard Dubois wrote:
Thank you.
I marvel at the paranoia in these threads sometimes. I've been shooting 14 - 17 year olds for years, never an issue. In fact, it never crosses anyone's mind that there would be an issue. I can't figure out if you two are trolling or High.
The OP didn't ask about shooting a minor. He asked about shooting a minor doing "provocative" posing (his word; not OURS!)
If you don't see how this raises a red flag (or potential red flag) and think the rest of us are being "paranoid" then you really have no clue what you're talking about.
Photographer
REVOLVER6PHOTOGRAPHY
Posts: 21
Modesto, California, US
Those were really the girls words,NOT MINE.I just conveyed what she said she wanted in her pics.LET'S MAKE THIS CLEAR,I WOULD NEVER AND I MEAN NEVER SHOOT A MINOR IN ANY PROVOCATIVE MANNER..I have shot only two minors in the short time I have been shooting and I just wanted to see what the law is and nothing more,So yes some of you are Paranoid and need to Mellow out a bit.My Conduct with all my client have been always Professional and they will remain that way.
Photographer
M A S T E R S
Posts: 309
Saint Augustine, Florida, US
REVOLVER6PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
Those were really the girls words,NOT MINE.I just conveyed what she said she wanted in her pics.LET'S MAKE THIS CLEAR,I WOULD NEVER AND I MEAN NEVER SHOOT A MINOR IN ANY PROVOCATIVE MANNER..I have shot only two minors in the short time I have been shooting and I just wanted to see what the law is and nothing more,So yes some of you are Paranoid and need to Mellow out a bit.My Conduct with all my client have been always Professional and they will remain that way. 
Photographer
Swank Photography
Posts: 19020
Key West, Florida, US
REVOLVER6PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
Just want to keep my client happy and stay within the Laws.Thank you for your input everyone. PLEASE ask an attorney PRIOR to doing this!
Photographer
Keys88 Photo
Posts: 17646
New York, New York, US
REVOLVER6PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
Those were really the girls words,NOT MINE.I just conveyed what she said she wanted in her pics.LET'S MAKE THIS CLEAR,I WOULD NEVER AND I MEAN NEVER SHOOT A MINOR IN ANY PROVOCATIVE MANNER..I have shot only two minors in the short time I have been shooting and I just wanted to see what the law is and nothing more,So yes some of you are Paranoid and need to Mellow out a bit.My Conduct with all my client have been always Professional and they will remain that way. I think YOU need to chill out. No one was accusing you of being a perv. No one was suggesting you were anything but professional. We were suggesting you were a bit clueless and that this is the wrong place to get a clue. And don't come back and change your story now. You said in the OP that we were talking about "provocative poses." So, don't come back a few pages later and say that you'd never shoot a minor in a provocative pose. THIS ENTIRE THREAD WAS ABOUT YOUR QUESTION CONCERNING SHOOTING A MINOR, IN LINGERIE & SWIMWEAR, IN A PROVOCATIVE POSE!
If MOM is sitting there directing the shoot (which you imply she will be, to some extent) MOM can put YOUR ass in the fire. MOM is the one who said "provocative." We get it. Not your word. Not your desire. Not your intent. BUT . . . if you turn out to be the poor dumb bastard that clicked the shutter button on photos that some go-getter cop or prosecutor wants to make an example of, then MOM will have put your ass right into the lion's den.
We're not debating underage nudity. We're not debating what WE think OUR community standards are. We're suggesting that no one on this site knows what the "community standards" in your area are and none of us know how likely you are to get into trouble for taking these pics. If the mother wants them to be provocative and you take them and a cop/prosecutor feels that they are "provocative" all of our opinions don't mean shit.
And if you fully intend to ignore the good advice you receive here, why did you bother posting here in the first place?!?
Photographer
Doug Lester
Posts: 10591
Atlanta, Georgia, US
16 year old, plus Lingerie and Bikinis, plus Provocative posing." Nope, no way no how!
I'm no lawyer (thank god),but I've been a photographer for more than 50 years. With my own experience in mind, I would not want to be withing 50 miles of that photo shoot. I can guarantee your client does not have enough money to lure me into the studio during that shoot!
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4989
Wichita, Kansas, US
Maynard Southern wrote:
As long as the donkey is not erect, you'll be fine. Ever tried to talk a donkey out of an erection... good luck..
Photographer
Greg Kolack
Posts: 18392
Elmhurst, Illinois, US
Rob Wright Photography wrote:
It's not worth the risk to your reputation. Don't do it Explain please what would be the risk?
Photographer
Keys88 Photo
Posts: 17646
New York, New York, US
Greg Kolack wrote:
Explain please what would be the risk? Greg,
Read the OP. There should be ONE WORD that sticks out to you. Therein lies the risk.
Photographer
Coarse Art
Posts: 3729
Lexington, Ohio, US
Stephen Markman wrote:
I don't demand that everyone follow my logic.
(But I do sorta laugh at people that don't) Always nice to see folks reinforcing the stereotypes, thanks 
Photographer
Eecc
Posts: 202
Portland, Oregon, US
maybe nothing wrong with lingerie,bikinis but if mommy wants her to do provocative posing, then you are in big trouble even if it is fully clothed.
Cant you just google and find out what the law says?
Photographer
rey sison photography
Posts: 1805
Los Angeles, California, US
Stephen Markman wrote:
-Arrest
-Booking
-Processing
-Arraignment
-Repeated Court appearances
-Repeated press stories about your "sick perversion"
-Ultimate resolution of criminal case
-Picking up the pieces (acquittal) OR Sitting in jail (conviction)
Just to be clear - you are concerned about the above scenario and you opted to come to a photography/modeling networking site to get the information necessary to decide whether you're going to go forward with a particular course of conduct?
When my tooth hurts, I go to my dentist.
When I've got a question about my car, I go to a mechanic.
When I'm worried about whether there's any chance I'll be spending the next 5-15 years being butt-raped in prison, and branded as a sex offender, I call an attorney.
I don't demand that everyone follow my logic.
(But I do sorta laugh at people that don't) This post from Mr. Markman is the only useful and sane one in this entire thread.
It always amuses and scares me how models and photographers seem to know everything. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that most photographers and models are self-taught. I guess they assume they can self teach themselves everything else and then dispense their wisdom to anyone else who's willing to listen.
One other thing people fail to consider is how much it costs to defend oneself, guilty or not-guilty.
Photographer
Bikes and Beauties
Posts: 236
Gosford, New South Wales, Australia
S W I N S K E Y wrote:
you can shoot her nude and it could be perfectly legal....
or you can shoot her wearing a snowsuit, but in a provocative manner and be totally illegal.
intent is the key...not the level of or lack of clothing. Correct!
Photographer
fiona Quinn photographe
Posts: 287
Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Holy crap I just looked at that true teen babes website - WTF who wants to look at 14 year olds in their underwear? thats child molesters eye candy!!
Photographer
Keys88 Photo
Posts: 17646
New York, New York, US
Thinkimages wrote:
Correct! HALF-Correct.
"Intent" is not the key. PERCEPTION is the key.
You can intend a photo of a 16 year old in a bikini to be totally harmless and non-sexual, but if she happens to spread her legs a bit too wide or lick her lips or put a hand in the waistband of her bikini, . . . NOW, it becomes a question of what "THEY" think. "THEY" are not in your studio. "THEY" don't know (or care) what your intentions were. "THEY" can cause you far more trouble than the shoot is worth.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
David Gaze wrote:
Brooke Shields Why does everyone always say "Brooke Shields," when, in fact, the law was changed and made stricter because of Brooke Shields?
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45198
San Juan Bautista, California, US
fiona Quinn photographe wrote:
Holy crap I just looked at that true teen babes website - WTF who wants to look at 14 year olds in their underwear? thats child molesters eye candy!! Jimmy Stephens (the owner/photographer of TrueTeenBabes) is someone I have spoken with on the phone and exchanged numerous emails in the past. I wouldn't call him a friend, but an acquaintance. I have done a great deal of research on the model paysite industry as I was working on writing a book and/or going into creating websites myself. Jimmy has gone through the ringer of the court systems and was "acquitted!" Like it or not, his website is legal.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
fiona Quinn photographe wrote:
Holy crap I just looked at that true teen babes website - WTF who wants to look at 14 year olds in their underwear? thats child molesters eye candy!! Patrick Walberg wrote:
Jimmy Stephens (the owner/photographer of TrueTeenBabes) is someone I have spoken with on the phone and exchanged numerous emails in the past. I wouldn't call him a friend, but an acquaintance. I have done a great deal of research on the model paysite industry as I was working on writing a book and/or going into creating websites myself. Jimmy has gone through the ringer of the court systems and was "acquitted!" Like it or not, his website is legal. Although, when you say "legal," I agree, he was acquitted in Colorado. Florida, which is where his second studio is, recently amended their law, specifically to address him. To my knowledge, nothing has come of it and he hasn't had a problem, on the other hand, that doesn't mean that he won't.
What is clear though is that he is dancing right on the line of what is and is not legal. There is no guarantee that another jury in Colorado, Florida or elsewhere will reach the same conclusion. It isn't precedent as an appellate court ruling is.
Do I think that Colorado will ever go after him again? Probably not! I don't see them putting up the resources after they lost the first time.
That having been said, political climates change. It is entirely possible that a new DA after another election could decide take issue with some new images and try it again. Double jeopardy only protects him from that which was in place then, not that which is in place now. While it is unlikely that they would ever pursue it again, being found "not guilty" doesn't mean you are innocent, nor does it mean that the site is legal. It only means that the DA didn't prove his case beyone a reasonable doubt.
Photographer
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 13322
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
To answer the OP's question, there is no law in any state in the US that would prevent you from doing what you indicated in the OP. In fact, although your did not specifically include nor exclude nudity, there also is no law in any US state that would prevent you from shooting this model nude, if you wanted to. There also are no Federal laws against what you intend to do.
I know that some people who read the above might call "bullsh*t", OK, then show me the law. You won't find any.
You don't need a model release unless you plan to publicly use the images yourself, for some reason. If you do need a model release, it needs to be signed by the parent, and it needs to be a good, valid release (read: unilateral agreement, not bi-lateral contract).
You don't need her mother there. While some may think it's a good idea, I'd ask "why?" Some would argue that having the mother there somehow protects you from some frivolous accusation. Yeah, maybe...maybe not. If frivolous accusations concern you, having the mother there to collaborate her daughter's story, (making it a 2 against one frivolous story), might also be a concern. So, if frivolous accusations concern you, have a female assistant there to collaborate your story...or better yet, just forget the shoot.
Remember that frivolous accusations could be levied against almost every portrait studio that does high-school senior portraits...it's really not very common (unless you live in a big, fancy house and drive a Mercedes).
Good luck....it's not all bad. Grab the money and shoot what mamma wants.
Photographer
Greg Kolack
Posts: 18392
Elmhurst, Illinois, US
Greg Kolack wrote:
Explain please what would be the risk? Stephen Markman wrote:
Greg,
Read the OP. There should be ONE WORD that sticks out to you. Therein lies the risk. I understand - the word is provocative.
But I see that more as a possible harm to him legally, and not his reputation.
I doubt most people would even know if anything legal came about.
|
