AMA wrote:
The AMA works in accordance with current legislation regarding the employment of persons under compulsory school age. This includes the provision of chaperones and reduced working hours

If you want to work inside the law, you need an appropriate adult.

Shooting without one is not "in accordance with current legislation" in other words illegal. I would expect that it could be a crime as well, since it could be seen that there is a "victim". It might well be the parent's responsibility but it's your reputations and your careers.

The chances of the AMA not knowing the law are zero.

Here's a link to the statement for the disbelievers.
http://www.associationofmodelagents.org … ctice.html

I hope this ends the argument and debate. Of course we could go on arguing about the law, but it's not my career aim to be a lawyer, only a respected and trusted photographer. Avoiding legislation won't help me achieve that.

It's not against the law to be in a room with a kid, but it is against the law to work with a kid, in a lone-working situation and that's why AMA uses chaperones and so should we. Legislation is there for a reason.

Green Captures wrote:
Hello everyone,

I'm new to portrait photography and I'm just starting to shoot models. I was approached by a girl who is 16 years old and according to her MM page she shoots nudes and she does lingerie and bikini shoots among everything else. Now, I have NO intentions of shooting lingerie and bikini pictures of her and especially any nude shots of her. I'm kinda worried about even doing a shoot with her because I don't want any weird stuff come up on the shoot. I'm a 23 year old guy and I feel really uncomfortable with this shoot die to her age. Any suggestions? Should I tell her to bring a chaperone or a parent? Is there Amy paperwork like a special model release for situations like this? How have y'all dealt with shoots with minors?

Do a lot of school kids ,  and most are minors.   What she claims and what you shool is two dif things.   You know that it is not legal.  so why ask,  Even the mother right along with the shoot does not make it legal..   You will need the order from a judge.   BEFORE YOU SHOOT

Katrina kroetch wrote:
Plus its totally legal to get swimsuit or lingerie shots of minors as long as they are fully clothed.

That's a very broad statement, if you're talking about under 16 year olds. Legal in certain circumstances and with the right procedures, appropriate poses, appropriate adult/s present and lots more.

You're 17, I can't see people going to jail for doing some sexy editorial fashion with you

It's amazing this thread, people's preconceptions and readyness to make it acceptable to shoot minors without proper steps.

Lance DuLac wrote:
If she is a woman, especially a pretty young woman... she should have an llama herder. Always. Without a doubt.

But the "ugly" ones don't?

Michael Fryd wrote:

Contact the Republican party.  They have a lot of experience knowing what's best for women in our society.  :-)

Or check with your local liberals. They already know what lunch is better for minors than what mom packs.  The jump is not that far.

OP, unless you are independently wealthy, the cost of an acquittal can ruin you.  Just walk away.

Rollo David Snook wrote:
ok perhaps take it from the horse's mouth then?


If you want to work inside the law, you need an appropriate adult.

Shooting without one is not "in accordance with current legislation" in other words illegal. I would expect that it could be a crime as well, since it could be seen that there is a "victim". It might well be the parent's responsibility but it's your reputations and your careers.

The chances of the AMA not knowing the law are zero.

Here's a link to the statement for the disbelievers.
http://www.associationofmodelagents.org … ctice.html

I hope this ends the argument and debate. Of course we could go on arguing about the law, but it's not my career aim to be a lawyer, only a respected and trusted photographer. Avoiding legislation won't help me achieve that.

It's not against the law to be in a room with a kid, but it is against the law to work with a kid, in a lone-working situation and that's why AMA uses chaperones and so should we. Legislation is there for a reason.

Rollo, there is no legislation where requires a chaperone when hiring a model.

If you know of any, you are always welcome to cite it.

Fashion Photographer wrote:
Rollo, there is no legislation where requires a chaperone when hiring a model.

If you know of any, you are always welcome to cite it.

You dispute the AMA? You're saying the AMA are incorrect on legislation? That's a pretty bold claim.

Perhaps you didn't check the link to the AMA site and read it yourself.

2020 Photography wrote:
There are three photographers in my area who shoot regularly with underage girls under very sketchy circumstances and two of them approached me and asked if I wanted to join them.  After I got a look at the way they did things I said no thanks and got the heck away from them as fast as I could but sadly that wasn't the end of it.  One of the photographers got himself butt hurt over my refusal to work with him and risk my name and reputation and he has started a smear campaign but I will have the last laugh.  Most of the people who used to hang out with him are recognizing for who he is and have dropped him and I have contacted the police who have talked with him so by being a dick this guy has hosed himself royally.

Bottom line is I tend to avoid working with under age llamas because there are way to many things that can go wrong.

Agreed.....not enough tea in China, for me to get involved with shooting an under aged female. Not in this day and age....

Erin Holmes wrote:
I have shot and continue to shoot underage models. However I realize being female makes this much less risky, I still require parental consent and in 99% of cases their presence is required at the shoot.

I've shot underage girls for seven years and I'm a guy. Never had a problem. I meet with the parents or talk to them over the phone before ever shooting with the girl, any emails with the girl are CC:'d to the parents (I prefer going strictly through the parents), and a parent is always present at the shoot. The shoots are always age-appropriate.

Well, I came close to having a problem once. One 15yo girl requested a shoot, but it turned out when I was emailing her mom for details it turned out to be the girl. And when I called her mom to speak person-to-person, she had her older sister pretend to be their mom. I slammed the brakes on that pronto and I kept a record of every communication. It never came back to burn me.

I got into scarier situations (and more frequently) when I was shooting girls high school soccer, mostly when girls emulated Brandi Chastain by ripping off their jerseys at the end of a game. I got real good at whipping the camera away.

Bilsen Galleries wrote:

Or check with your local liberals. They already know what lunch is better for minors than what mom packs.  The jump is not that far.

OP, unless you are independently wealthy, the cost of an acquittal can ruin you.  Just walk away.

I stand corrected.

Regulating school lunches is clearly far more intrusive than regulating who you can marry, or what a woman does with her reproductive system.

Rollo David Snook wrote:

You dispute the AMA? You're saying the AMA are incorrect on legislation? That's a pretty bold claim.

Perhaps you didn't check the link to the AMA site and read it yourself.

Rollo, I'm not going to argue with you about this - I've told you what the legal position in England and Wales is.

Bilsen Galleries wrote:
Or check with your local liberals. They already know what lunch is better for minors than what mom packs.  The jump is not that far.

OP, unless you are independently wealthy, the cost of an acquittal can ruin you.  Just walk away.

Michael Fryd wrote:
I stand corrected.

Regulating school lunches is clearly far more intrusive than regulating who you can marry, or what a woman does with her reproductive system.

I could respond, but this is Soapbox stuff, and I make a point of avoiding that.

Fashion Photographer wrote:
Rollo, I'm not going to argue with you about this - I've told you what the legal position in England and Wales is.

I don't wish to argue either.

Yes, you've "told" me.

I've shown you. There's a big difference.

You've posted a 1978 law. I posted a 2003 law. You've SAID it's fine. I've displayed the official code of practice of the AMA in the UK, which clearly states that working in accordance with the CURRENT legislation involves the provision of chaperones.
It's a standard practice. No-one should be encouraging or arguing otherwise.

I'm dumbfounded that someone with the username "Fashion Photographer" wants to argue against the AMA take on the law. Surely it would be common sense for you and good for the industry's reputation if you were to abide by AMA code of practice, even IF there is a miniscule chance that every decent agent in the UK is wrong and you are right.

Rollo David Snook wrote:

I don't wish to argue either.

Yes, you've "told" me.

I've shown you. There's a big difference.

You've posted a 1978 law. I posted a 2003 law. You've SAID it's fine. I've displayed the official code of practice of the AMA in the UK, which clearly states that working in accordance with the CURRENT legislation involves the provision of chaperones.
It's a standard practice. No-one should be encouraging or arguing otherwise.

I'm dumbfounded that someone with the username "Fashion Photographer" wants to argue against the AMA take on the law. Surely it would be common sense for you and good for the industry's reputation if you were to abide by AMA code of practice, even IF there is a miniscule chance that every decent agent in the UK is wrong and you are right.

My apologies, I didn't notice that you posted any law at all. Would you be so kind as to post the relevant 2003 law again? I, of course, am entirely open to being proven wrong. But I would prefer to see legislation, rather than an offhand comment by the AMA.

Katrina kroetch wrote:
Nudes or minor porn is pretty much illegal so don't do it. I wouldn't do it and I wouldn't even consider doing it if I was a few months older simply because that makes me uncomfortable. However I see nothing wrong with lingerie and I have done a few lingerie and swimsuit shoots before and they've been a bit sexual sometimes but nothing too crazy and nothing illegal and I wouldn't do them with photographers that felt uncomfortable with that. 

People have this opinion that even if its not illegal its still bad to shoot minors in any sexual position or light at all. Even if they very fully clothed, just because the idea of sexuality and minors is frowned upon and considered morally wrong and that's a warped, religious concept that has no place in our modern day society.

Bottom line; if it's nude then don't do it. If it's uncomfortable for you  then don't do it BUT don't completely dismiss people for lingerie or swimsuit because they are underage. That's discriminating. Plus its totally legal to get swimsuit or lingerie shots of minors as long as they are fully clothed.

Also forcing a minor to bring a parent or gaurdian with them can backfire sometimes. I've never brought my mom to a shoot in my life, yet she signs all my model releases and that's simply because she has OCD and doesn't like to leave our house. So keep things like that in mind too. I'd hate to have to miss out on a shoot personally because of who my mother is and her mental illness. I always bring my friend Carrie who is 19 and that works well and helps me feel safer and more comfortable at shoots. Escorts are important for any model.

You are wrong in many parts of your statements.

Yes.. porn is always illegal with someone under the age of 18.
No... Nudes is NOT illegal to shoot under the age of 18.. There are a lot of examples of people's work that contain models that are nude and the model ws under 18...

If the model is under 18, As far as "sexual images" go.. those would be illegal no matter if the model is nude or clothed. (That's not an opinion, it's a fact). Also, I have found lingerie shots to be a lot more sexually arousing in nature then any nude shot I have taken... I find it silly (and there is nothing wrong with it, but) that there are models that want to pose as slutty as possible, but would shutter at the thought of even thinking about posing nude (eg. If I'm not naked, then It's OK to pose in sexual arousing ways)

As for Escorts... the more amateur the model, the more they feel the need to have an escort.. the more professional the model, the less an escort is required. (most photographers prefer a parent or guardian at the shoot if the model is under 18).

Sita Mae wrote:
If she's on MM, she's 16, and her page says she does nudes, please share that information with the moderators.

http://www.ripoffreport.com

Yes... because 16yo nipples are pure concentrated evil.

Digital Vinyl wrote:
CALL THE COPS UNDERAGE MODEL POSES NUDE!

http://www.fashionising.com/forums/t--Z … 084-1.html

Please don't look if you're from America

Done...

They seemed to have laughed at me.. and I don't know why...
The model totally seems to be exploited and must be doing this under duress!

Digital Vinyl wrote:
http://www.fashionising.com/forums/t--Z … 084-1.html

What a beautifully done editorial. Lovely!

Digital Vinyl wrote:
CALL THE COPS UNDERAGE MODEL POSES NUDE!

http://www.fashionising.com/forums/t--Z … 084-1.html

Please don't look if you're from America

Haha, those images aren't illegal to view in the U.S.  They probably wouldn't be illegal to shoot in any state, except perhaps Arizona.   It would probably be imprudent to do, in most situations, because you open yourself up to scrutiny.

On the other hand, I would be more concerned about shooting them in the UK.   Their new "indecent" standard is more to me.

ei Total Productions wrote:
Haha, those images aren't illegal to view in the U.S.  They probably wouldn't be illegal to shoot in any state, except perhaps Arizona.   It would probably be imprudent to do, in most situations, because you open yourself up to scrutiny.

On the other hand, I would be more concerned about shooting them in the UK.   Their new "indecent" standard is more to me.

It's supposed to be scary. We don't want people straying close to the line.

bencook2 wrote:

Yes... because 16yo nipples are pure concentrated evil.

God's best work.
Satan's best tool.

Orca Bay Images wrote:

I've shot underage girls for seven years and I'm a guy. Never had a problem. I meet with the parents or talk to them over the phone before ever shooting with the girl, any emails with the girl are CC:'d to the parents (I prefer going strictly through the parents), and a parent is always present at the shoot. The shoots are always age-appropriate.

Well, I came close to having a problem once. One 15yo girl requested a shoot, but it turned out when I was emailing her mom for details it turned out to be the girl. And when I called her mom to speak person-to-person, she had her older sister pretend to be their mom. I slammed the brakes on that pronto and I kept a record of every communication. It never came back to burn me.

I got into scarier situations (and more frequently) when I was shooting girls high school soccer, mostly when girls emulated Brandi Chastain by ripping off their jerseys at the end of a game. I got real good at whipping the camera away.

I'm sure there are plenty of males who shoot underage females that have had no problems from parents or otherwise, but I think a lot of parents might feel more comfortable with a female photographer. Not saying it's right or valid but that is how it is.

Erin Holmes wrote:
I'm sure there are plenty of males who shoot underage females that have had no problems from parents or otherwise, but I think a lot of parents might feel more comfortable with a female photographer. Not saying it's right or valid but that is how it is.

Oh, I totally agree with you, Erin. I've felt the death-stare of plenty of parents who didn't blink twice when a female photographer was ten feet away, getting crotch-shots of the high-kicking cheerleaders.

I was posting mainly to counter some of the photographers who seem to think that photographing a 16yo girl under any circumstances is some sort of deadly Rubicon.

Katrina kroetch wrote:
Plus its totally legal to get swimsuit or lingerie shots of minors as long as they are fully clothed.

What does it even mean to get a "lingerie shot of minors as long as they are fully clothed."??????

Rollo David Snook wrote:
Lol no-one has said that, but it's not working with adults either, that's all you have to remember.

There's a lot that can be learned from agents, teachers, youth workers, you can become very skilled at working with children, but at the end of the day in most genre for adult audiences, there's little place for kids.

What do people make of this...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic … areer.html

These images have been described as "fashion", "glamour" and also "sexualised". She is 10 years old... It's very easy for photographers to look at this and disapprove. But what if she was 15 and a half and looked like a young woman. Is that ok? Does it make it any better? They are still a kid... some people seem to be lost on that fact.

Some people may feel they are inappropriate, but they are certainly not illegal.

Rollo David Snook wrote:
Lol no-one has said that, but it's not working with adults either, that's all you have to remember.

There's a lot that can be learned from agents, teachers, youth workers, you can become very skilled at working with children, but at the end of the day in most genre for adult audiences, there's little place for kids.

What do people make of this...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic … areer.html

These images have been described as "fashion", "glamour" and also "sexualised". She is 10 years old... It's very easy for photographers to look at this and disapprove. But what if she was 15 and a half and looked like a young woman. Is that ok? Does it make it any better? They are still a kid... some people seem to be lost on that fact.

I have no clue how people find those photos inappropriate. Do you know how many people have photo of their daughters playing dress up? I think my mom has a few photos of me like that when I was young.

I remember when that story came out in Paris Vogue, I thought it was lovely but for some reason people made such a big deal about it. Everyone is different I guess but at the end of the day if the child's parent is okay with it then everyone else should be okay with it and move on.

Erin Holmes wrote:

I'm sure there are plenty of males who shoot underage females that have had no problems from parents or otherwise, but I think a lot of parents might feel more comfortable with a female photographer. Not saying it's right or valid but that is how it is.

I totally agree with you. When I was in Paris France I was a nanny to two lovely kids. A 5 year old boy and a 3 year old girl. Whenever it was a nice day out I'd take my camera to work and take them out to the park for most of the day and I'd take pictures of them. Other kids parents would come to me and ask for me to take photos of their kids around the park as well and would give me their email to send them photos. They never asked to look at the photos I was shooting of the kids I was babysitting they trusted me I am assuming mostly because I was a women.

People are silly.

Katrina kroetch wrote:
Plus its totally legal to get swimsuit or lingerie shots of minors as long as they are fully clothed.

Art of the nude wrote:
What does it even mean to get a "lingerie shot of minors as long as they are fully clothed."??????

You just have to wrap the kid up in so much lingerie that you can't see anything but the kid's head.

Michael Fryd wrote:

I stand corrected.

Regulating school lunches is clearly far more intrusive than regulating who you can marry, or what a woman does with her reproductive system.

Actually, it's ALL rips from the same cloth.  Why assume I agree with your examples either.  For the record, I oppose all such govt. intrusion.