ei Total Productions wrote:

jfscott103 wrote:
Contrary to the beliefs of many on here who "think" there must be some type of law against it, there is no law in any state in the US that prevents you, or any photographer from photographing anyone under 18. Sears, JC Penney, and most photographers with brick and mortar studios that specialize in high school senior portraits do this as a matter of routine. Furthermore, nothing prevents you from having such a shoot without parental involvement. Additionally, I know of no law that would prohibit the shoot from involving tasteful, artistic nudity. (Note: In other threads I've challenged others to link to a law that would prohibit underage nude photo sessions and nobody has yet come up with one).

Edward, you are absolutely correct.   I often hear that there is no law prohibiting artistic / tasteful nudity with a minor, but Arizona is the exception.  They appear to prohibit it for almost any kind of nudity from the front if it for commercial purposes.  To my knowledge, the statute has yet to be tested in the courts.   I am not completely comfortable that it comports to the first amendment, but that is just my opinion.  You never know what our current SCOTUS would do.

But, by golly gosh, don't people here know how to behave with a minor?  I am certainly not going to ask them to shoot nude.   I am more than happy to work with under aged models.  They make great subjects. As long as your shoot is appropriate for their age, and you have the parent available to sign the release (if one is needed) then I don't understand the problem.  California even has some child labor laws dealing with the entertainment industry.  Even they are easy to comply with.

I'm sure many other states have laws concerning photographing under legal age, I would say no matter what is it worth it legally to battle in the courts $$$$ layer fees ?, again I know the OP didn't state nudity of a minor, but also there are laws photographing minors without parental consent, even school pics usually have parent(s) sign a slip ?

PDF IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
I'm sure many other states have laws concerning photographing under legal age, I would say no matter what is it worth it legally to battle in the courts $$$$ layer fees ?, again I know the OP didn't state nudity of a minor, but also there are laws photographing minors without parental consent, even school pics usually have parent(s) sign a slip ?

Can you show me such a law?

Vector One Photography wrote:
It varies from state to state so you'll have to check the laws in the state you are doing the shoot in.  Remember unless they have been emancipated by the court they can not sign a valid release. I'd stay away from anything that anyone can call sexually suggestive.  And just for fun I'd have a witness with me, be it an assistant, relative, or police officer to insure the little darling can't make up stories that will come back to haunt you... or you may be meeting a police officer and not in a good way.

Just an aside ... I read this a lot.  Are you aware that there was a court decision in your home state, Florida, that said, essentially, that in some situations, a parent cannot sign a consent (release) on behalf of the minor.  It is the minor alone who must sign, not the parent.

I will let you do the research.   I am also not saying that is or is not the law.  I am saying that one appellate court saw it that way and the decision was published.

I always worry about generalizations.

Image K wrote:

Read some of the threads that Kevin linked above.

Many of them explain why many photographers do not like to shoot minors.

I actually have read lots of them and while I totally understand them alot of times I also know so so many amazing models who are under 18 and the photographers they work with find fewer problems with them than over 18 models.  Im not sure in some of the cases I have read what can exactly be blamed on the young model when clearly at times the photo was out of line.

Lil Miss Jade wrote:
I also should add I think there is a totaly difference in my opinion in whether it is shooting nudes of a minor or just shooting the model in fashion.  Nude for me is a total different story and I would think would have way different laws or guidelines.

Actually, when it comes to the law, nude isn't the issue.  "Sexual" is. 

Since you're not 18, it would normally be awkward to illustrate, but I have just the image.  This is a nude, and while the model was (barely) 18, in 49 states this would be totally legal to shoot with a 16 year old:



Meanwhile, there are plenty of "sexually oriented" clothed images which could cause the photographer MAJOR problems.

Art of the nude wrote:

Actually, when it comes to the law, nude isn't the issue.  "Sexual" is. 

Since you're not 18, it would normally be awkward to illustrate, but I have just the image.  This is a nude, and while the model was (barely) 18, in 49 states this would be totally legal to shoot with a 16 year old:



Meanwhile, there are plenty of "sexually oriented" clothed images which could cause the photographer MAJOR problems.

I totally do agree with you this image isnt exploiting her in a bad way however, I have been so lucky to sign with some amazing...very well paying may I add clothing, swimwear, and acc. companies and the first sign of any type of implied in my port releases for from my contract.  Also I was able to go to a one on meeting at Ford Models Atlanta division.  Although I am still to short to work the area I am suited for I have been given a Spring 2012 call back and was told the same by their rep.

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:

I've photographed literally thousands of kids under 10. In almost all instances, they were accompanied by an adult. I've photographed 5,000+ 17 year olds, usually without parents being present, and of those 5000+ shoots, I maybe got twenty model releases signed.  Never had a problem.

Contrary to the beliefs of many on here who "think" there must be some type of law against it, there is no law in any state in the US that prevents you, or any photographer from photographing anyone under 18. Sears, JC Penney, and most photographers with brick and mortar studios that specialize in high school senior portraits do this as a matter of routine. Furthermore, nothing prevents you from having such a shoot without parental involvement. Additionally, I know of no law that would prohibit the shoot from involving tasteful, artistic nudity. (Note: In other threads I've challenged others to link to a law that would prohibit underage nude photo sessions and nobody has yet come up with one).

If you want to work with such models without charging a fee...go ahead. If you'd like to charge a fee...do so. However, before you think you can do whatever you like without a problem....there are a few things to remember or be concerned about:

1. If you intend to publicly display such images, sell such images, etc., you need a model release...in order for that to be legal, it needs to be signed by the parent or legal guardian.

2. With regard to nudity, personally, I don't feel nudity equals pornography. Pornography involving a minor is illegal in most, if not all, states, and there are also Federal pornography laws. If you do nudes of an underage model, with or without parental/guardian permission, you are walking a fine line, legally. Defending yourself against pornography allegations, is very expensive and problematic. So, unless you have deep pockets and a really good attorney in the family, my advice is to avoid anything involving nudity or pornography, because someone will always find a way to connect nude art to pornography and will consider even the finest art to be pornographic if nudity is involved. In an nutshell....it's probably just not worth the gamble/risk....but it's not illegal...technically....unless a court considers it to be pornographic....thus...the "fine legal line".

3. If you don't intend to publish or display the images publicly, you don't need a model release or any sort of parental involvement to take someone's photo, regardless of their age.

I hope that helps.

You were doing good until #3.  Without highjacking the thread - check your local laws first.  In some states, personal use (i.e. advertising, even in your port) is considered a commercial use and a release is required - don't go by what's said on the internet, because legal for this poster may not be legal for you - and with minors especially!

And to add, anybody who does nudes with a model under 18 is really insane.  All you need is one DA looking to make a name for themselves and your life will become a living nightmare for a long, long time - even if you are found to have committed no crime.

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
Additionally, I know of no law that would prohibit the shoot from involving tasteful, artistic nudity. (Note: In other threads I've challenged others to link to a law that would prohibit underage nude photo sessions and nobody has yet come up with one).

Then I will give you one:  http://law.onecle.com/arizona/criminal- … -3552.html

I felt much the same as you until Arizona passed this law.  It appears to prohibit any image of a minor, if used for commercial purposes and exposes even a breast.  It doesn't speak to non-commercial images.

In Missouri, it appears to be legal to photograph a minor who is topless, but any exposure of the genitals seems to be illegal, even if artistic.

So some of this clearly goes to the definition of "tasteful, artistic nudity."  Are you referring to an implied shot?  A shot of the bare butt from behind?  Depending on the state, based on the amount of exposure, clearly the term "tasteful, artistic nudity" has no correlation to the law.  What is, or is not permitted will vary by state, and as the laws are tested, by court decisions.

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
I've photographed literally thousands of kids under 10. In almost all instances, they were accompanied by an adult. I've photographed 5,000+ 17 year olds, usually without parents being present, and of those 5000+ shoots, I maybe got twenty model releases signed.  Never had a problem.

Contrary to the beliefs of many on here who "think" there must be some type of law against it, there is no law in any state in the US that prevents you, or any photographer from photographing anyone under 18. Sears, JC Penney, and most photographers with brick and mortar studios that specialize in high school senior portraits do this as a matter of routine. Furthermore, nothing prevents you from having such a shoot without parental involvement. Additionally, I know of no law that would prohibit the shoot from involving tasteful, artistic nudity. (Note: In other threads I've challenged others to link to a law that would prohibit underage nude photo sessions and nobody has yet come up with one).

If you want to work with such models without charging a fee...go ahead. If you'd like to charge a fee...do so. However, before you think you can do whatever you like without a problem....there are a few things to remember or be concerned about:

1. If you intend to publicly display such images, sell such images, etc., you need a model release...in order for that to be legal, it needs to be signed by the parent or legal guardian.

2. With regard to nudity, personally, I don't feel nudity equals pornography. Pornography involving a minor is illegal in most, if not all, states, and there are also Federal pornography laws. If you do nudes of an underage model, with or without parental/guardian permission, you are walking a fine line, legally. Defending yourself against pornography allegations, is very expensive and problematic. So, unless you have deep pockets and a really good attorney in the family, my advice is to avoid anything involving nudity or pornography, because someone will always find a way to connect nude art to pornography and will consider even the finest art to be pornographic if nudity is involved. In an nutshell....it's probably just not worth the gamble/risk....but it's not illegal...technically....unless a court considers it to be pornographic....thus...the "fine legal line".

3. If you don't intend to publish or display the images publicly, you don't need a model release or any sort of parental involvement to take someone's photo, regardless of their age.

I hope that helps.

J Burton Artistry wrote:
You were doing good until #3.  Without highjacking the thread - check your local laws first.  In some states, personal use (i.e. advertising, even in your port) is considered a commercial use and a release is required - don't go by what's said on the internet, because legal for this poster may not be legal for you - and with minors especially!

And to add, anybody who does nudes with a model under 18 is really insane.  All you need is one DA looking to make a name for themselves and your life will become a living nightmare for a long, long time - even if you are found to have committed no crime.

I think you are over-reading number three.  Mike's exact words were:  "If you don't intend to publish or display the images publicly."   I think Mike is referring to doing things like taking senior portraits.  He is taking the photos and then intends to make no display of the images except to the client.  Mike is absolutely correct, there is no need for a release.

If Mike were to put the images into his printed portfolio and then put it in a desk in his studio, that would be a form of public display.  Some states would requre a release for that, others would not.  I don't think that is what Mike is suggesting that is what he wants to do.  I think his point is that if you merely take the images and deliver them to the client, you don't need a release.

PDF IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:

I'm sure many other states have laws concerning photographing under legal age, I would say no matter what is it worth it legally to battle in the courts $$$$ layer fees ?, again I know the OP didn't state nudity of a minor, but also there are laws photographing minors without parental consent, even school pics usually have parent(s) sign a slip ?

The only slip parents signed for me was their autograph on a check.

PDF IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
I'm sure many other states have laws concerning photographing under legal age, I would say no matter what is it worth it legally to battle in the courts $$$$ layer fees ?, again I know the OP didn't state nudity of a minor, but also there are laws photographing minors without parental consent, even school pics usually have parent(s) sign a slip ?

Cherrystone wrote:
The only slip parents signed for me was their autograph on a check.

And that is an important slip!