Full Sun Photography wrote:
I insist a Parent or Legal Guardian is present , but I had a Parent request lingerie shots be taken of their Daughter for her portfolio...I quickly said no...Did I do the right thing...???..I normally don't do anything like that with a model under 18...

Its perfectly legal to shoot, but may not be worth the hassel.

Frog516 wrote:

Its perfectly legal to shoot, but may not be worth the hassel.

Thanks..

Becky Yuen wrote:
WhAT! that is odd? Does the daughter want to have a shoot in lingerie? I am 20 and  I don't even feel comfortable wearing lingerie for a shoot!

I shoot lots of lingerie...I just don't do it with minors...with me ya got to be at least 18...

Wicked_Images wrote:
Always go with your natural instinct.  Personally I would not shoot a minor in lingerie because of the legal ramifications if the parent decides to state that you did these photos while they weren't present

Parental consent does not shield either you or the parent from claims of taking inappropriate images.

Late  1600's: Witches

Early 1950's: Communists

2000's: Child pornography

Couture Imagery wrote:
MMers are a paranoid bunch, there is nothing remotely illegal in this situation unless the images were to be used in an inappropriate manner.

Frog516 wrote:
Its perfectly legal to shoot, but may not be worth the hassel.

The truth is that, in most situations, shooting lingerie is not illegal.  If you start getting sexual with the images, particularly open leg or the model touching herself suggestively, you might run afoul of the definition of "lacivious display of the genitals."

The bottom line is that many here are overly paranoid when it comes to teens, but the easiest way to deal with it is the safe way.  If you simply avoid doing anything iwth a teen that could remotely be misconstrued, then there will never be an issue.

bang bang photo wrote:
I would shoot a minor in lingerie in a heartbeat if it was for a legitimate mainstream manufacturer or retailer of lingerie who markets to the teen market -- Hanes, for example.

I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole if it the work was personally for the underage model's own gratification. Not that it is necessarily illegal, but it skates close to the edge, and who needs trouble?

That is a good summary

bang bang photo wrote:
I would shoot a minor in lingerie in a heartbeat if it was for a legitimate mainstream manufacturer or retailer of lingerie who markets to the teen market -- Hanes, for example.

I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole if it the work was personally for the underage model's own gratification. Not that it is necessarily illegal, but it skates close to the edge, and who needs trouble?

Paul

It's all about the risk-to-reward ratio, which is favorible in the first case (Risk = unpaid time and effort, reward = Good compensation and/or recognition), and bad for the second (Risk = false charges of pornography or pedpphilia, reward = A few mostly-unusable portfolio images).

RTW Photography wrote:
It's already been covered pretty well, but it really comes down to this: how sexual are the images?  Don't make 'em porny, and you're fine.

One reasonable photographer's art might be an uptight soccer mom's porny.

rp_photo wrote:

It's all about the risk-to-reward ratio, which is favorible in the first case (Risk = unpaid time and effort, reward = Good compensation and/or recognition), and bad for the second (Risk = false charges of pornography or pedpphilia, reward = A few mostly-unusable portfolio images).

Take a look at the JC Penny's, Sears, etc., ads in the Sunday paper. There are a ton of underage models in under garments (maybe it's his use of the word lingerie that makes it sound bad). These jobs come through the manufacturer for the most part, but there is a large market for it for both the photographers and models.

MMDesign wrote:

Take a look at the JC Penny's, Sears, etc., ads in the Sunday paper. There are a ton of underage models in under garments (maybe it's his use of the word lingerie that makes it sound bad). These jobs come through the manufacturer for the most part, but there is a large market for it for both the photographers and models.

That's right - Shooting for clients is the key phrase here.  If the next 15 year old supermodel gets signed by one of the big agencies, she will be doing lingerie or even nudes within weeks of signing....

BUT! And it is a very big but...no aspiring young, underage model needs shots like that to get signed with an agency.  There is no legitimate business need for a 15 yr old to need lingerie shots for a personal portfolio if she is not already with an agency.  If the parent wants lingerie shots, they are either misinformed of what an aspiring model needs, or their motives may be other than what you want to get involved with.  Whether or not the shots are legal is moot.  Intended use is where you might have to defend yourself.

MMDesign wrote:

Take a look at the JC Penny's, Sears, etc., ads in the Sunday paper. There are a ton of underage models in under garments (maybe it's his use of the word lingerie that makes it sound bad). These jobs come through the manufacturer for the most part, but there is a large market for it for both the photographers and models.

Something like that would be an example of the first case.

Underage modeling is a lot like fireworks, in that it is usually safe and legitimate in the hands of pros, but questionable from a legal and safety standpoint when done by amateurs.

scott slusher wrote:

JAY carreon wrote:
It depends on whether they are Union or non-Union.  If they are Union, then they can afford to bring their own damned digging implements.  Oh, wait - you're talking about MINORS . . .

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

That's good..I love that...I don't do anything with someone under 18 unless it's age appropriate..

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

Couture Imagery wrote:
MMers are a paranoid bunch, there is nothing remotely illegal in this situation unless the images were to be used in an inappropriate manner.

Frog516 wrote:
Its perfectly legal to shoot, but may not be worth the hassel.

The truth is that, in most situations, shooting lingerie is not illegal.  If you start getting sexual with the images, particularly open leg or the model touching herself suggestively, you might run afoul of the definition of "lacivious display of the genitals."

The bottom line is that many here are overly paranoid when it comes to teens, but the easiest way to deal with it is the safe way.  If you simply avoid doing anything iwth a teen that could remotely be misconstrued, then there will never be an issue.


That is a good summary

Alan is correct here.  I do it, and will do it again.  Just gotta do it the right way.  Like anything else.

Jay Farrell wrote:
I definitely think you did the right thing.....I would have handled it the same way you did. It would be perfectly legal, but you could still suffer your reputation if the wrong people saw it, and it wouldn't help her either. All in all it wouldn't have been worth the potential can of worms that could have opened. Bring your lingerie when you turn 18 and leave Mom at home......bring a friend instead.

Thanks Jay....BTW...he and I know each other...You're a Great Friend....