Randy B wrote:
If you are a model under 18, do you need to have a parent/chaperone with you?  Or is this decided by the photographer?
Cause I'd rather not have a parent with me if I ever start getting into the business more.

It depends on where you are, whether you are doing prints or video/film and whether you are getting paid.  Many photographers will be unwilling to work with a minor without having a parent present.  They do that for their own protection.

However, the law is on a state by state basis.  As an example, in California, if you are under 18 and are doing video or film, a set teacher certified by the state is required.  When you are 16 or over, the set teacher has less authority, but still is required.  Also, if you are over 16, while the set teacher is required, you don't have to have a parent present.

On the other hand, if you are doing print in California, if it is for commercial purposes, you are required to have a parent present and must be within eyeshot at all times.  That means the parent must be in the same room and able to see you.

However, if it is not a commercial shoot, the law in California does not require a parent present.

Laws vary from state to state and I won't purport to know what the law is in Illinois.  As an example, Florida changed its laws about eight years ago.  Prior to that, you only had to have parental consent to model nude if you were under sixteen.  They changed it when they discovered that they had a lot of sixteen year old nude dancers in clubs and for some reason, people found it to be offensive.

I hope that helps.

Alan

Fyre1704 wrote:
Well... Others that I've talked with require me to have a parent there. Few require me to have a chaperone that is at least 18

That's my policy.

Fyre1704 wrote:
Well, there are a lot of photographers who don't shoot with me just because I'm a minor. Others that I've talked with require me to have a parent there. Few require me to have a chaperone that is at least 18 and a couple don't care if I bring anyone with me.

My policy is parent, or 18+ chaperone. Non-parent chaperone is ideally female if the model is female. I don't have an assistant, so I want an escort there.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
On the other hand, if you are doing print in California, if it is for commercial purposes, you are required to have a parent present and must be within eyeshot at all times.  That means the parent must be in the same room and able to see you.

Alan, I believe an authorized guardian, such as an agent, is acceptable replacement for a parent.

area291 wrote:
Alan, I believe an authorized guardian, such as an agent, is acceptable replacement for a parent.

Actually, California law is just the opposite.  If you read it, with respect to print, it states explicitly that an agent or other individual is NOT acceptable.

The issue is the protection of the child's rights.  The theory is that if the child is being exploited in the production, the agent is the worst person to be protecting the child.  It is written broadly so it must be a parent or legal guardian.

Interestingly, the law with respect to film/video was also tightened a few years ago.  Prior to that, an emancipated child did not require a set teacher and in no circumstances was a parent required.  That has been changed.  A set teach is now always required and in some circumstances, an emancipated minor must still have a parent on the set, even though he/she is emancipated.

Bear in mind though that the issue of having a parent for print is only mandatory when we are talking about a paid, commercial shoot.  If you are doing a TFP, if you are shooting portraits, if you are working on a portfolio an appointed friend or agent is more than adequate since legally, no parent is required at all.  It is good, however, to have someone else present if you are shooting a minor since it is for your protection.

As I have said though, this is the law in California.  It is different in other parts of the country.

Fyre1704 wrote:
Well, there are a lot of photographers who don't shoot with me just because I'm a minor. Others that I've talked with require me to have a parent there. Few require me to have a chaperone that is at least 18 and a couple don't care if I bring anyone with me.

I have absolutely no problems working with minors.  I am a director and I will say it is a total nusance having a studio teacher, but it is the law in California and I comply.  I have produced as a union signatory and they will often have a representative on set as well.

But with respect to print, teens are fine.  Indeed, in New York, they are equally as common as models over 18.  If you were in California, I would shoot with you in a second.

My only rules with teens are that they must have parental consent and that the projects be teen appropriate.  Sometimes, in New York that is hard to figure out what it means.  In California though, it is pretty clear.  I do comply with all statutes and always have parents present when it is required.

So if anyone tells you they don't want to shoot you, tell them I think you are a beautiful young woman and it is their loss!

Alan

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Actually, California law is just the opposite.  If you read it, with respect to print, it states explicitly that an agent or other individual is NOT acceptable.

According to California child labor law ([LC 1308.5(a)(6)) it said nothing to the effect of agents, but did point out a parent OR guardian is acceptable.

area291 wrote:
According to California child labor law ([LC 1308.5(a)(6)) it said nothing to the effect of agents, but did point out a parent OR guardian is acceptable.

I understand where you are coming from. You have it exactly right.  It requires a parent or legal guardian.

However, what you are looking at is the statute itself.  here are two other components you need to look at.  The first is the legislative history (which is not on most public sites).  With every statute, there is a history of amendments and there are also published documents regarding the discussion held by the legislature when passing a statute.  There was quite a bit of discussion about the language of the law and stopping the practice of having the agent act as the guardain.

Second you have to look into the cases and decisions of the labor department.  They also have regulations they have implemented, particularly for modeling agencies that cover some of this too.  You will find that they have spoken out specifically that the law was intended to to preclude appointed guardians.  They have been particularly harsh about agents acting as guardians. 

So actually, you are correct, in that I misspoke a bit by saying it was covered in the statute itself.  It is the language and the history of the amendments as well. 

Thanks for pointing it out.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Thanks for pointing it out.

The only reason I knew about this was a client shoot a few years ago and the discrepency issues prior to the shoot.  I didn't do the hiring for the models, but there was a tussle between the creative teams on this very issue that almost put the whole campaign on the back burner and wasted a lot of time on the set (and not worth the $$).  It was a catalogue shoot using a number of teens and some were being accompanied by older brothers/sisters/grandparents and even Moms of those taking on the dual role of oversite to model friends on the same assignment.

Personally, and luckily since then, I've been able to avoid the issue altogether...I decline shooting those under 18.  For the above reason it wasn't worth the hassle, and for personal projects it becomes a matter of; why?

area291 wrote:
The only reason I knew about this was a client shoot a few years ago and the discrepency issues prior to the shoot.

I have seen corporate clients get all hung up about this, which is the right thing to do.  They want to follow the law.

I haven't seen many people get nailed on the statute as long as there are no problems or complaints.  This is particularly true if the parent sent the surrogate.  The movie industry tends to be a little wild and free.

Where you do sometimes get into a problem is if the labor department comes out to do a set inspection and then finds the discrepancy.  It is rare, but I have seen it happen on films.  Particularly with producers that have had a problem in the past.  Also, the do respond to complaints or injuries.

That having been said, if you don't shoot minors then you won't have the problems.

On the other hand, I did a packaging job not long ago for NKOK toys.  They needed a 13 year old.  Trust me, she had her father and a work permit as well.

Good shooting and thanks for the comment.

But

Roethke wrote:
If I recall correctly, you aren't supposed to even be on this website if you aren't an adult, which I believe is why you can't put your correct age on your profile.

Are you fibbing about your age?

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Actually, California law is just the opposite.  If you read it, with respect to print, it states explicitly that an agent or other individual is NOT acceptable.

The issue is the protection of the child's rights.  The theory is that if the child is being exploited in the production, the agent is the worst person to be protecting the child.  It is written broadly so it must be a parent or legal guardian.
Interestingly, the law with respect to film/video was also tightened a few years ago.  Prior to that, an emancipated child did not require a set teacher and in no circumstances was a parent required.  That has been changed.  A set teach is now always required and in some circumstances, an emancipated minor must still have a parent on the set, even though he/she is emancipated.

Bear in mind though that the issue of having a parent for print is only mandatory when we are talking about a paid, commercial shoot.  If you are doing a TFP, if you are shooting portraits, if you are working on a portfolio an appointed friend or agent is more than adequate since legally, no parent is required at all.  It is good, however, to have someone else present if you are shooting a minor since it is for your protection.

As I have said though, this is the law in California.  It is different in other parts of the country.

This brings up a question I have asked before but never gotten a straight answer to but have actually been judged for because they assume I have alterior motives for asking.But since I see you and at least one other in this thread seem to be just the ones to ask and I can get an actual answer.

Does an emancipated minor have the same legal powers and modeling catagory choices as a model who is 18 ? Can he/she be the  sole signature on the release form other than the photographers just as if she were 18?

Randy B wrote:
If you are a model under 18, do you need to have a parent/chaperone with you?  Or is this decided by the photographer?

this is decided by law!!! You better make dam sure, that you have guradian or parential consent. if you don't you might spend a long time behind bars.

new laws require the photographer to keep "evidence" of the fact that the model is above 18 if there is ANY look of sexual images.

have fun

Mary wrote:
on a real modeling job in the state of California a parent or gaurdian must be on the set if you are under 18.

I like how you say "A real modeling job."  Come on Mary, cut them a little slack.  Nowhere in the statutes in California are the words "Real Modeling Job" inclulded.  The language is "commercial."

Just kidding, you and I are on the exact same wavelength.  A lot of photographers debate these things on the forums, but the fact is, if a commercial client comes into rent my studio and shoot a minor or I am asked to do the same, there is always a parent present, there is no discussion.  It isn't even me.  No advertising agency, production company or major company would dance around with the rules.

However, you hit the nail on the head.  Most of what takes place in these forums are not commercial assignments.  So these guys are speaking from that perspective.

You are right in your comments though.  That is what happens in the real world, particularly in Calfornia.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
This brings up a question I have asked before but never gotten a straight answer to but have actually been judged for because they assume I have alterior motives for asking.But since I see you and at least one other in this thread seem to be just the ones to ask and I can get an actual answer.

Does an emancipated minor have the same legal powers and modeling catagory choices as a model who is 18 ? Can he/she be the  sole signature on the release form other than the photographers just as if she were 18?

I am not a lawyer and I have said this before, when you have a legal question, ask a lawyer, not a photographer.  What I have been writing thusfar has been from the standpoint of a photographer and not a lawyer.

That having been said and with all the disclaimers I can muster, I will give you my experience and understanding of the matter.

An emancipated minor has the legal capacity to execute a release on her own behalf.  Being emancipated means that she can enter into a contract.

Beyond that, In California she is still regarded as a minor in most other ways.  Particularly, she has no more freedom to do nudity and is still subject to the same supervision as any other minor.

In the past, minors became emancipated in California to avoid the need to have a parent present.  As I understand it, the law was amended a few years ago to eliminate that privilege of emancipation.

I frame all of this in the context of California since both you and I are from the same state.  In other states, the rules regarding minors, particularly in terms of requiring a parent to be present, may be different.

I hope that helps.

Randy B wrote:
On the other hand, if you are doing print in California, if it is for commercial purposes, you are required to have a parent present and must be within eyeshot at all times.  That means the parent must be in the same room and able to see you.

Is that your interpetation, that the parent must be in the same room. I interpet that as possibly the parent can be in another room looking thru glass, a one way mirror or possibly a video monitor (as long as it's always on the child).

Vito wrote:
Is that your interpetation, that the parent must be in the same room. I interpet that as possibly the parent can be in another room looking thru glass, a one way mirror or possibly a video monitor (as long as it's always on the child).

That might be a reasonable interpretation if you have a studio with a window from the waiting room or a two way mirror.  You are probably correct so long as the parent is able to see his chiild and reasonably know what is happening.

Randy B wrote:
What if, let's say, someone was 17 and lived on there own.  Like they don't talk to their parents anymore and like live in their own apartment and have there own job and stuff would you still need a guardian?

Unless they're legally emancipated

Randy B wrote:
What if, let's say, someone was 17 and lived on there own.  Like they don't talk to their parents anymore and like live in their own apartment and have there own job and stuff would you still need a guardian?

I thought you were 16. So what's going on?

Many states have eliminated emancipation (including Pennsylvania). If you're 17, you need to have a working permit in order to work. In order to get a working permit, you must bring a parent to the location (school I believe) to obtain a permit. If you're under 18 and goes to see a physicia, you are required to have a parent or guardian.

Therefore, I can make a conjecture that the answer is yes. Do yourself a favor and buy yourself either a Crimes Code or some kind of law book.

MHana wrote:
Maybe it is different now for I took a few years off from testing the young ones.   But many times under 18 models from agencies walked into the places alone where the shoots were going on.   

Maybe not correct but this was not a one time occurance.   It was a rare occasion when a model would have someone with her.

in NY I am not sure what the rules are but in California they have to have a parent with them.  Testing isn't treated like a paid job....the rules are different when you are testing because money isn't trading hands. I however wouldnt risk (as a photogrpaher) having a minor in my studio without a parent or gaurdian present...thats dangerous ground.

Someone asked about a minor that lives on their own.  Unless they have court emancipation papers with them they have to be with a parent or gaurdian.

Queen Adreena wrote:
Personally, I think it's stupid to do a shoot without a guardian/someone else present.

I haven't had any real problems so far... but there's always that bad seed that slips through. And when/if that happens.. you'll regret being alone.

It's never a good idea. During the summer, there were two cases of models who were murdered by their photographers and one had the help of the stylist. But it's also hard to get someone to come with you at times. My mother lets me model but doesn't want to come to shoots with me (and I don't want her there) so the only one I have left is my boyfriend (who doesn't want to be there either) and many photographers are against the bring along a boyfriend thing.