JL Smith wrote:
Under 18 a parent parent or guardian must be present no way around this and I have received complaints from seniors.

Are parents present when their kids are working the midnight shift at a supermarket packing shelves?

I made a statement during a lecture the other week about something similar.

1. We have a painter and a photographer.

2. They are to produce identically framed and compositionally identical portraits of a 15 year old model nude.

3. For the purpose of the excercise the painter and photographer agreed before hand the lighting setup. 

4. A photographer can be in and out in as little 5 minutes.

5. A painter is there for hours whilst the kid is posing.

My question is thus. Why is it then that the photographer is the one who received all the controversy and the painter is imortalised?

What is more disturbing, somebody spending hours with a naked teenager or somebody spending a few minutes with one?

If we really want to start being treated as respected artists and to be taken seriously on this issue then we need to also stop the fear mongering amongst ourselves when the issue comes up.

It serves no purpose being hysterical about it. It serves no purpose saying things like "Under 18 no thanks, can't or wont take the risk" Nor does it serve a purpose by arguing Sally Man does it, as does David Hamilton and Bill Henson so if they can do it, fuck society do it anyway.

Saying "It's art" is also the most stupidest response a person can provide on the issue as well.

Even if you are accused of something, by providing well thought out and considered responses you will accomplish a lot more then being hostile towards the "Save the Children" lobby groups, politicians and religious leaders.

For example, some of the most revered paintings in the world feature nude children. The painters more often then not would have required a child to be present for hours to be able to represent them as accurately as possible. By articulating this response properly, politely and respectfully most normal religious minded people would in all likelihood respect your decision even if they disagree with it.

The result? Genuine artistic and possibly religious and political debate. This enriches our lives.

Answering to the "Save the Children" lobby is a lot more difficult. These people come from a wide variety of backgrounds. But again. Sticking your finger up at them and yelling fuck you is not the answer. That's the type of response they live for. It keeps them in the debate. It keeps them in jobs.

Be polite about it, and don't provide a inflammatory response pretty much kills the debate. If it's not an explosive debate the media are not going to keep reporting on it. Without media presence lobby groups are nothing.

Bill Henson's response to the raid and confiscation of his work is an example of this at work. It soon died down, and without the extreme media, lobby group and political pressure the prosecutors had a look and returned the works.

Politicians can simply be ignored. They will jump on any issue that "helps families and thinks of the children" because it gets them votes.

Digital Vinyl wrote:
Are parents present when their kids are working the midnight shift at a supermarket packing shelves?

I made a statement during a lecture the other week about something similar.

1. We have a painter and a photographer.

2. They are to produce identically framed and compositionally identical portraits of a 15 year old model nude.

3. For the purpose of the excercise the painter and photographer agreed before hand the lighting setup. 

4. A photographer can be in and out in as little 5 minutes.

5. A painter is there for hours whilst the kid is posing.

My question is thus. Why is it then that the photographer is the one who received all the controversy and the painter is imortalised?

What is more disturbing, somebody spending hours with a naked teenager or somebody spending a few minutes with one?

If we really want to start being treated as respected artists and to be taken seriously on this issue then we need to also stop the fear mongering amongst ourselves when the issue comes up.

It serves no purpose being hysterical about it. It serves no purpose saying things like "Under 18 no thanks, can't or wont take the risk" Nor does it serve a purpose by arguing Sally Man does it, as does David Hamilton and Bill Henson so if they can do it, fuck society do it anyway.

Saying "It's art" is also the most stupidest response a person can provide on the issue as well.

Even if you are accused of something, by providing well thought out and considered responses you will accomplish a lot more then being hostile towards the "Save the Children" lobby groups, politicians and religious leaders.

For example, some of the most revered paintings in the world feature nude children. The painters more often then not would have required a child to be present for hours to be able to represent them as accurately as possible. By articulating this response properly, politely and respectfully most normal religious minded people would in all likelihood respect your decision even if they disagree with it.

The result? Genuine artistic and possibly religious and political debate. This enriches our lives.

Answering to the "Save the Children" lobby is a lot more difficult. These people come from a wide variety of backgrounds. But again. Sticking your finger up at them and yelling fuck you is not the answer. That's the type of response they live for. It keeps them in the debate. It keeps them in jobs.

Be polite about it, and don't provide a inflammatory response pretty much kills the debate. If it's not an explosive debate the media are not going to keep reporting on it. Without media presence lobby groups are nothing.

Bill Henson's response to the raid and confiscation of his work is an example of this at work. It soon died down, and without the extreme media, lobby group and political pressure the prosecutors had a look and returned the works.

Politicians can simply be ignored. They will jump on any issue that "helps families and thinks of the children" because it gets them votes.

I really don't understand what you are trying to say.

ei Total Productions wrote:
I really don't understand what you are trying to say.  The OP is asking about shooting a minor in general.  What does shooting a nude 15 year old have to do with this?

Besides all that, you are ginving a serious reply to a thread that was a joke.

It's one of the annoyances of mine. Whether the OP was meant as a joke or not is kinda mute. It is a serious issue within photography.

But don't mind me. My football club closed on Tuesday so my city is left without a club in the national competition and I've been depressed/irritated for a few days.

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?

I had a 15 Year old come to me the other day for a pregnancy shoot.   She tried being all sweet and stuff with me but I flat out told her that one of her parents would have to sign the model release and bikini top stays on.     She was fine with that and tried talk me down to $50 for the shoot.   I flat out told her no.   Explained politely to her how much my sessions cost normally and why and she said she would see if her parents would help her pay for it.         

Your situation is similar where I would get the parent to sign the contract and release.  Legally a minor cannot enter into a contract.   If you don't usually require a contract for a small photo session, I would do it anyway.  This way you have it on file that the parents agreed to it and they won't be able to say you did it without their permission.    And yes, tell them the parent who signs the forms has to be there during the shoot for "Legal" reasons.       

The minor won't have a clue and the parent should be okay with this.

Michael See Photography wrote:

I had a 15 Year old come to me the other day for a pregnancy shoot.   She tried being all sweet and stuff with me but I flat out told her that one of her parents would have to sign the model release and bikini top stays on.     She was fine with that and tried talk me down to $50 for the shoot.   I flat out told her no.   Explained politely to her how much my sessions cost normally and why and she said she would see if her parents would help her pay for it.         

Your situation is similar where I would get the parent to sign the contract and release.  Legally a minor cannot enter into a contract.   If you don't usually require a contract for a small photo session, I would do it anyway.  This way you have it on file that the parents agreed to it and they won't be able to say you did it without their permission.    And yes, tell them the parent who signs the forms has to be there during the shoot for "Legal" reasons.       

The minor won't have a clue and the parent should be okay with this.

I don't dispute your choices and concerns at all, but something is a little off kilter when we have a pregnant 15 year old (I could just stop there) and you need to worry about what people will think about you taking pictures of her breasts for her private viewing.  (Guessing the images are for her, since you're talking about your rates.)

rmsoansphotography wrote:
If you are going to shoot minors that are under 18 let alone under 15, you are risking a whole lot of trouble in the future. Its also risking your future career even if you don't do photography as a profession. It will be like dodging a bullet. I would instantaneously report any profile of minor models with nudes in them and avoid unnecessary contact with them, as talking nude shoot can be deemed inappropriate. Just flatly refused. You're the photographer, it should be you in control not the model

1. If they are under 15, they shouldn't be on this site at all.

2.  Pretty sure that discussing a non sexual nude shoot with a model who happens to be under 18 isn't illegal.

Sinopa_Rin wrote:
So glad I'm 18 on Monday.

And for your birthday present from MM... you can watch those offers for nude shoots come flooding in!

*makes note in calendar*




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Art of the nude wrote:

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

It means as long as their private parts ie nipples and vagina are covered since those are what makes things usually considered nudes.

Michael See Photography wrote:

Green Captures wrote:
Hello everyone,

Your situation is similar where I would get the parent to sign the contract and release.  Legally a minor cannot enter into a contract.   If you don't usually require a contract for a small photo session, I would do it anyway.  This way you have it on file that the parents agreed to it and they won't be able to say you did it without their permission.    And yes, tell them the parent who signs the forms has to be there during the shoot for "Legal" reasons.       

The minor won't have a clue and the parent should be okay with this.

That's disgusting. Minors aren't stupid. If someone told me that I'd be disgusted. Just because your 16 or 17 that doesn't make you unintelligent. If you're the kind of person who would lie to someone about the law and discriminate against them and refuse to do a shoot with them because they can't bring a parent then that's ridiculous. You have to think of the exceptions. Not everybody has the same situation and not all parents can come to shoots. That doesn't mean they don't approve of them, that simply means they are busy or absent or ill or possibly just don't care. That's a really bad attitude to have.

Also if you were to lie to them about the law that means you are morally and elgally in the wrong.

B R U N E S C I wrote:

And for your birthday present from MM... you can watch those offers for nude shoots come flooding in!

*makes note in calendar*




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Lol

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

Katrina kroetch wrote:
It means as long as their private parts ie nipples and vagina are covered since those are what makes things usually considered nudes.

So, this is "fully clothed" since the nipples and vagina don't show?
Personally, while I don't think it would be illegal, I don't consider it fully clothed, and I wouldn't shoot it with someone under 18, except possibly if commissioned by an agency for an actual client.