Eden Macieira wrote:
Some food for thoughts, even if agency signed I would still arrange to go myself with my 17 year old daughter or even older if she wants me there which I can guarantee you she would.

Do you have a 17 year old daughter or is this on behalf of all 17 year old girls?

Cherrystone wrote:

It seems you need to educate yourself on a number of topics.

I suppose, again a stupid law I'm now glad I know but really didn't need to..

Presley ONeil wrote:

Do you have a 17 year old daughter or is this on behalf of all 17 year old girls?

Trolls are special, at 82 they can get pregnant, so at 99 they can have a 17 year old daughter, and still connect.

This post is still about ambushes.

David Parsons wrote:

Not necessarily.  In some places if there are more than two years difference in age, or one is below a certain age (even if both are under 18), it is automatically statutory rape.  It doesn't get applied very often, but it's used to stack charges if there is a trial.

Sorry guys, trials, technical rape &immorality obviously wasn't what I was thinking of.

Eden Macieira wrote:
What I find strange is getting uncomfortable with it, it shouldn't really matter if you are a professional.

I don't think the OP's issue is having a parent (or parents) or even a chaperone accompanying the model at a photoshoot. I believe it's more about being ambushed and not informing him that they will be there.

Eden Macieira wrote:
Let's not go into the definition of a actually because you would be surprised what that actually means, contrary to what you think it means.

I do have daughters and I have been one myself.

Yeah, but that was 100 years ago, times have changed.

PhotographybyT wrote:
I don't think the OP's issue is have a parent (or parents) or even a chaperone accompanying the llama at a photoshoot. I believe it's more about being ambushed and not informing him that they will be there.

True, however this conversation went in 3 different directions from what OP started it as. It is a common trend here on forums. Someone already mentioned that when working with younger llamas it is a good idea and a potential preemptive strike to meet the llamas parents beforehand. If it was my daughter I probably would have called the guy weeks before the shoot was scheduled and arranged a meeting.

John Edward wrote:
Yeah, but that was 100 years ago, times have changed.

You do realize that since I am the one who knows the real definition of trolling then I am most likely spending more time around 17 year olds, right? Or is this along the lines of "if you can't prove your point correct their spelling"?

Eden Macieira wrote:
Some food for thoughts, even if agency signed I would still arrange to go myself with my 17 year old daughter or even older if she wants me there which I can guarantee you she would. I never understood why everyone was so in a hurry to make the kids grow up. I also bet that the agency signed 17 year old did not sign her own contract, the responsibility for her well being was transferred from parents to the agency.

Unless a girl is emancipated for years already, and her parents were not that good, and she dislikes them profusely and doesn't talk to them parent involvement isn't strange at all. It's safe to bet that to about the age of 20 parents would still be heavily involved in their daughter's life if the relationship is good and they are good parents.

What I find strange is getting uncomfortable with it, it shouldn't really matter if you are a professional.

If this model was a professional, she would told the OP about her parent coming days before the shoot. Communication is very important, and people hate it when changes are made without their input. The point people are missing that whenever someone bring support to prove the anyone isn't (as one sports broadcaster took heat for) a bad character, then the relationship is dead on arrival.  Also, Star's example is a different beast from the OP's. The people on that set are professionals who have been checked and verified. They came to work, not be put to work. Comparing her situation to the OP is like comparing the contestants of shows like Wipeout and Oh Sit to the participants in the Reebok Cross Fit Games because of physical activities.

Eden Macieira wrote:
Star +1 exactly, on a professional set there are many people present and agency models is not a good thing to compare these situations to. Agency photo shoots almost always have a team.

In theory, all of those people have a constructive purpose for being there and as professionals, are pretty much guaranteed not to get in the way when they aren't doing anything. The same can not be assumed about random relatives/strangers who have no useful purpose on set.

Eden Macieira wrote:

You do realize that since I am the one who knows the real definition of trolling then I am most likely spending more time around 17 year olds, right? Or is this along the lines of "if you can't prove your point correct their spelling"?

No, it's along the lines of jumping in mid thread, and ignoring what the original intent of the post was.

It's about being ambushed, kinda like what you are doing right now.

Aaliyah Love wrote:
17 or 71 years old, it's a professional shoot and EVERYONE involved is expected to act accordingly. Which includes not having llama herders show up unannounced, or follow you around staring over the photographer's shoulder all day long. She's a model being hired to do a job, and she needs to be professional about it.
Hopefully she learned her lesson here and won't make the same mistake again, or at least learn how to handle it better, or the next photographer/company might not be as easy going or forgiving, they'll just cancel the shoot (I probably would of) and she will lose out on money/reputation. Just sayin:)

Chances are this was her first shoot and I'll bet it was TF. We can harp on about how she "should" be such a professional, but the bottom line is that she's not a professional, she's a new model. She's still learning this stuff. (And so are her parents.)

Star wrote:
I always find it funny when photographers say they can't work when people are on set with them

my profile photo had about 20 onlookers

How many of them were there to make sure you weren't a weirdo?

And nice way to sneak that image into the thread.

Eden Macieira wrote:
Yes John Edward you are being ambushed by an old, senile, crazy, cat lady.

Look Lady, my cats can beat up your cats.

Paula VM wrote:
Why do people have a problem with this?

Because you should always tell someone that you're bringing other people along.

Paula VM wrote:
it can be dangerous for a girl, even an adult to show up alone with some one she doesn't know. As long as they are respectful and not intrusive I personally wouldn't care.

True, but bringing an escort isn't what this thread is about.

Star wrote:
I always find it funny when photographers say they can't work when people are on set with them

The only distinction I would make on that is that each of those you mention are all contributors to the shoot in some way. If not directly contributing, they certainly have a vested interest in the project/final product.

I think most of the photographers who dislike people on set don't necessarily have a problem with people being on the set per se, as much as they have a problem with irrelevant people...people who contribute in no way and are, in fact, there for a different agenda than producing the best images. They detract from the final product and serve no legitimate purpose.

I have no problem with clients, Art/Creative Directors, MUA/Stylists, Marketing Execs on set. But they serve a much different purpose, and create a much different atmosphere, than one jealous boyfriend (for example) staring at you with his arms crossed, judging every movement. That's just toxic.

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
Yes, and the other person you were responding to was a 16 year old from Illinois who had stated that her understanding of the law was  "two underage isnt illegal..". Since the person stating this is both under 18 and in Illinois it seemed to me to be prudent to accurately state the relevant state law rather than risk reinforcing a young persons misunderstanding.

I do understand you were giving a general overview of principles that are behind the so called "Romeo and Juliette" provisions in many state laws.

Yowza!  Too much research for me!  I do click on some folk's profiles, but often, that's just too much work.  Didn't even occur to me that underage folk were reading this, but I guess there are quite a few.

Rich Burroughs wrote:
How many times have I see threads here where people agree to things they didn't want to and then complain about it later?

If you didn't want them around you should have told them so.

I do completely agree with this!

When you both decide on the do's and don't's, then this counts for the both of you.
I think it is called "respect the others wishes".


However......in this case, you got cornered!

1 - You tried not to let it get to you, but it did! You felt uncomfortable. Also, the presence of them DID distract you. Otherwise you would have not noticed their whereabouts.

2 - If you would have decided to call it off, they would see you as the type of photographer they were afraid you might be.


Personally, I think you did the only thing you could do. Choose between the lesser evil of the 2.


At least this will not happen to you again, I think.

Eden Macieira wrote:
You do realize that since I am the one who knows the real definition of trolling then I am most likely spending more time around 17 year olds, right?

Are you getting your definition of trolling from 17-year-olds?

'cause I was trolling before they were born.

Paula VM wrote:
Why do people have a problem with this? it can be dangerous for a girl, even an adult to show up alone with some one she doesn't know.

Then my suggestion would be for this person to find another hobby.

Urban Candy wrote:
Hi guys,

I had a shoot last week with a model at a very populated area on the Gold Coast, Queensland.  It was school holidays so I drove to the location early and picked a quiet spot about 200 meters down from the busy tourist beach and decided to shoot on a sandy track leading to the beach.

The model arrived and while we were having an introductory chat in the main carpark (aproximately 100 cars parked around), I noticed two people walking towards us in their mid 40's.  They walked right up to me and said "hi, we are ...... parent's".   

I was a bit taken aback but I was polite and courteous.  They said "we are just here to make sure you are not a wierdo"..

So here we are and I am feeling really uncomfortable and I expected after a few minutes chatting that they would be ok for myself and their daughter to drive down the beach road to the location about 200 meters
from the carpark. 

They said "we will drive behind you guys and meet you there"

So we got in our cars (myself first, the model second and the parents last)..  I nearly decided to keep driving and go home at this point...

Then we all got out and walked up the track and I began to shoot with the parents watching.  After ten minutes they decided to go for a beach walk but returned about 30 minutes later and watched me shoot for another 5 minutes before leaving...

Now I understand about model security and I have never told a model that she cannot bring a 'support' person along but it would have been great if she had asked or even just told me that they were coming..

I felt very uncomfortable as I don't enjoy onlookers and I wanted to hear your thoughts?

Thanks

I just did a shoot yesterday with a 17 year old.  She is a junior in high school, but has a car and drivers license.  Since I had not met with her in person, I felt it alright to ask her to bring a mutual model "friend" of ours when she came out to my property to shoot.  But instead, she was driven out here by her parents.  I wasn't expecting it, but I went along with it just fine.  I could have said something then ...

First I introduced myself to her parents, and then we went right into shooting pictures.  We got some great pictures and I was not effected by the parents being there at all.  They did ask if I would mind them being there or if I wanted them to leave and come back.  They did not seem clingy at all.

The difference between what happened with you and with my situation is that the girls parents did not say anything stupid, or threatening to me like what your models parents did.  Honestly, I don't know how I would take being talked to that way ... I would probably say something like; "Well if that is how you feel, I'm not feeling comfortable with this situation either because you don't trust me.  Let's just not shoot then.  Thanks for coming out, and have a nice day!" 

I am sure that if the young lady has any backbone at all, she must be embarrassed at what her parents said to you.  At 17, she is still young, and perhaps under the financial control of her parents.  She must be bummed about her lack of freedom?   However .. again, she is still young!  Some of us may have been out of the house and on our own at 17, but I think most are not.  I wasn't living on my own until I was 20.  Give her time!

GCobb Photography wrote:
Then my suggestion would be for this person to find another hobby.

Maybe the photographer should! He was not being impeded in anyway and it was not a paid professional shoot? Or was it???? Were there other professionals there like an MUA, Stylist or Hair??? It's one thing to have some obnoxious jerk show up and be an ass but quite another just to have someone escort a young girl to a shoot to make sure everything is A-OK. Maybe as a man you don't understand but if it were your daughter I bet you would think differently.

Star wrote:
I always find it funny when photographers say they can't work when people are on set with them

my profile photo had about 20 onlookers

STAR, I LOVE THAT YOU MENTION THIS! 

I love an audience when shooting!  It fires me up more, AND helps me to focus more on my subject.  However I am used to shooting rock concerts where I'm sharing elbow room with a dozen other press photographers, and several thousand people there for the show on stage.   I have been in many public situations where I've been "watched" by others ... including an event that my long time photography teacher was at.   He proudly told me that he was glad that at least one of his students was working as a photographer.  Weddings are always challenging!  I've had the mother of the bride nearly glued to my side telling me she was going to kill me if I "missed that shot!" It didn't help that she was a relative ... as in a sister in law.   But I put up with it all with a smile because I'm doing what I love ... and it shows!

HOWEVER!  I have had models that were not as comfortable with on lookers.  I highly respect there feelings and will empty the room for them as so we can shoot one on one.  Not every photographer OR model is comfortable with on lookers.  I do respect that!

SPV Photo wrote:

Paula VM wrote:
Why do people have a problem with this?

Because you should always tell someone that you're bringing other people along.


True, but bringing an escort isn't what this thread is about.

Then, what is it about? She is young only 17, right? I mean it didn't seem to me that the parents were mean or rude so what is the problem really?

Paula VM wrote:

Then, what is it about? She is young only 17, right? I mean it didn't seem to me that the parents were mean or rude so what is the problem really?

I certainly agree with you that she being only 17 is "young!"   I shoot with minors fairly often.  I do like to know ahead of time if a model is wanting to bring a guest.  As I mentioned what happened with me yesterday, I don't have a problem with a 17 year old having her parents there. 

However the OP mentioned he felt uncomfortable with whatever was said ... I made the assumption that it was "stupid" or whatever, but I could be very wrong!  You and I were NOT there, nor did we hear the conversation.  I'm a really outgoing guy who loves talking with people.  I'm also a decent listener, although I can always use improvement in that area.  So if someone were to say something I felt "uncomfortable" about, I would deal with it right then and there instead of posting about it on the forums. 

In my opinion, from what the op said, the girl did nothing wrong.  He could have expressed himself a little better perhaps?

Paula VM wrote:

Maybe the photographer should! He was not being impeded in anyway and it was not a paid professional shoot? Or was it???? Were there other professionals there like an MUA, Stylist or Hair??? It's one thing to have some obnoxious jerk show up and be an ass but quite another just to have someone escort a young girl to a shoot to make sure everything is A-OK. Maybe as a man you don't understand but if it were your daughter I bet you would think differently.

The OP wasn't about whether or not someone should accompany the model - it was about being ambushed. I doubt it would've been an issue if any 17 year old model brought this up to any photographer during the planning stages of a shoot.

Paula VM wrote:
Why do people have a problem with this? it can be dangerous for a girl, even an adult to show up alone with some one she doesn't know. As long as they are respectful and not intrusive I personally wouldn't care.

Do women and/or girls ever go shopping alone?  Isn't a grocery store ... or really a store of any kind .. usually occupied by people she doesn't know?  Why is it more dangerous meeting a photographer they've talked to than it is anyone else that they haven't talked to before?

  I understand the danger, but get this:  I meet 99% of the models I shoot with on busy streets or public parks where we are rarely alone and there are random police patrols.  No one knows who will be where at any given time so it seems like if someone were planning something sinister, they'd have to plan it for somewhere else.  Why does she still need an llama herder?

  Isn't or can't it be equally dangerous for a photographer meeting someone he doesn't know?  What if she carries a gun or a knife and steals all of their stuff?  Should photographers always bring llama herders, too?

  The truth is, at least for me, that a person can bring whoever they want, whenever they want as long as we're not shooting in my home studio (not yet set up).  If they don't trust me, they should find a photographer they do trust.  If they just don't want to come alone or they're going somewhere when the shoot is over, tell me who you're bringing to my house and we'll usually be okay.  If it's in public somewhere, bring whoever you like but if they disrupt things, it's over.

Lovely Day Media wrote:

Do women and/or girls ever go shopping alone?  Isn't a grocery store ... or really a store of any kind .. usually occupied by people she doesn't know?  Why is it more dangerous meeting a photographer they've talked to than it is anyone else that they haven't talked to before?

  I understand the danger, but get this:  I meet 99% of the models I shoot with on busy streets or public parks where we are rarely alone and there are random police patrols.  No one knows who will be where at any given time so it seems like if someone were planning something sinister, they'd have to plan it for somewhere else.  Why does she still need an escort?

  Isn't or can't it be equally dangerous for a photographer meeting someone he doesn't know?  What if she carries a gun or a knife and steals all of their stuff?  Should photographers always bring escorts, too?

  The truth is, at least for me, that a person can bring whoever they want, whenever they want as long as we're not shooting in my home studio (not yet set up).  If they don't trust me, they should find a photographer they do trust.  If they just don't want to come alone or they're going somewhere when the shoot is over, tell me who you're bringing to my house and we'll usually be okay.  If it's in public somewhere, bring whoever you like but if they disrupt things, it's over.

My point is...

1. It doesn't seem that the parents  were really "disruptive" in any way.
2. She was only 17
3. If you as a photographer feels like danger may lurk by all means have someone with you,  an assistant perhaps???
4. He doesn't like people watching him shoot? Well with more experience maybe he won't mind.
5. On a set people are always around, it is something that photographers as well as models need to get use to!

Paula VM wrote:
My point is...

1. It doesn't seem that the parents  were really "disruptive" in any way.
2. She was only 17
3. If you as a photographer feels like danger may lurk by all means have someone with you,  an assistant perhaps???
4. He doesn't like people watching him shoot? Well with more experience maybe he won't mind.
5. On a set people are always around, it is something that photographers as well as models need to get use to!

My point is ....

  If she's 17 and legally able to sign her own contracts alone, she doesn't need her parents permission.  If she brings them, that's fine.  If she brings her entire family and her family's SO's, that's not fine. 

  With me as a photographer, if I feel danger is lurking, I'm hitting the road.  I'm not trying to get myself and/or an an assistant hurt or killed just to get a picture of some model who might turn out to be a highly photoshopped skank.

  Danger is everywhere ... not just with photographers.  If she's afraid to do her job, she needs to find another job.

True Colours Photograph wrote:
If it happened to me we would have be taking an early mark.  I have a strict "no boyfriends, SO's, parents rule."  A female chaperone is OK provided it is pre-arranged.

As for the model's age, I have had several conversations with Queensland police officers regarding the legality of shooting with young models.  Their responses varied a little, and as best I can sort it there is no clear answer.  The situation is confusing to say the least. 

It seems that a girl can legally work as a stripper at 17, but can't be on premises licensed to sell alcohol, neither as a worker nor a customer, until the age of 18.  Can legally have sex at 16, but can't marry without parental consent until 18.  Can legally leave home and set up house with a boyfriend at 14 with the support of the Department of Families, Housing, and Community Services.  The parents have no say in the matter, but the couple can't legally have sex until she is 16, he 17.  She can legally work as a nude artists'/photographers' model from any age, but needs parental consent up to the age of 17.  Context and content considerations apply.

She can join the Defence Forces at 16, but can't vote until 18.  Over-riding the lot is that she can't sign a legally binding contract until she is 18.

My take on it is that if she can work as a stripper at 17, she can shoot with me.

Damn.  Assuming you've got all the facts straight, that's a serious bunch of nonsense when all the factors are combined together, and the photography aspects are no where near the biggest issues.

Lovely Day Media wrote:

My point is ....

  If she's 17 and legally able to sign her own contracts alone, she doesn't need her parents permission.  If she brings them, that's fine.  If she brings her entire family and her family's SO's, that's not fine. 

  With me as a photographer, if I feel danger is lurking, I'm hitting the road.  I'm not trying to get myself and/or an an assistant hurt or killed just to get a picture of some model who might turn out to be a highly photoshopped skank.

  Danger is everywhere ... not just with photographers.  If she's afraid to do her job, she needs to find another job.

Wow, Whatever!  "highly photoshopped skank"   I'm done with this ridiculous conversation.