Artphotos by Dave Zeiss wrote:
Frequently a photographer seems fixated on weather

As an outdoor shooter, I find myself highly fixated on weather.

In seriousness, you have summed this up well.

While I don't shoot with minors, I worry about things that could happen during a typical outdoor shoot such as car break-ins or accidents, insect allergies, heat or cold exhaustion, tripping or falling, bystander encounters, etc.

I also worry about models having post-shoot second thoughts, or more likely, being "convinced" that the shoot went bad by a parent, boyfriend, etc.

(As an aside, post-shoot regrets are far worse than pre-shoot. I figure an ounce of flaking is worth a pound of post-shoot consoling, and give models plenty of opportunity to opt-out "no questions asked" in the pre-shoot communication process.)

Then I realize that life is short, that many of these things can happen outside of shooting, and that I really don't have anything anyone can take from me in my debtor-friendly state.

Of course I am careful and have learned from every mistake and mishap in the past. I can truly say I have been fortunate, given the number of models I have worked with (See my profile acknowledgments and add about 10% for non-MM models) over the past two years.

Artphotos by Dave Zeiss wrote:
yes, I know I have several typos in there. I guess that's why I'm a photographer and not a writer.

But at least you come from an optically-gifted family.

Artphotos by Dave Zeiss wrote:
yes, I know I have several typos in there. I guess that's why I'm a photographer and not a writer.

This is not a flame, but you are clearly not a lawyer as well.  None of the scenarios you have made conform to the reality of law at all.  In order for litigation to prevail, there has to be some kind of tangible harm to others.  It can be directly financial, it can also be emotional.  However the harm has to fall into one of several areas.  The most common are:

1.  Breach of contract
2.  Negligence
3.  Intentional harm

While you are correct, there could be some measurement of your conduct against the conduct of others, what you are referring to is a tort action.  When a case goes to court, there are several things that have to be proven.  The first is whether the acts complained of are actionable.  What that means is, even if the complaint is true, is there really a cause of action under the law.

Second, it has to be proved that there are real and tangible damages whose cause can be attributed to the defendant (in this case we are talking about the photographer).  As an example, in medical malpractice cases, it has to be proven that a doctor has acted unreasonably.  Take the situation where a patient is ill and there is more than one treatment possible.   If a doctor chooses one course of action, the doctor is wrong and the patient dies, the mere fact that another treatment might have saved the patient doesn't mean that there is malpractice.  The same kinds of logic would be applied to any case against a photographer. 

Third, you are going to have to prove that there is some kind of real and measurable tangible damage.  If there is no damage, generally speaking, there is no cause of action.  The purpose of litigation is to right a civil wrong and to make the party whole.

You can get sued for almost anything in this country.  We have a litigious society.  While it is one thing to get sued, it is another thing for the other party to prevail.

There is a good reason to be cautious and avoid litigation.  It is expensive and a tremendous nuisance.   In many cases, there is never a winner when you go to court since the cost and inconvenience outweigh whatever you gain.  On the other hand, people can't live their lives in a sterile bubble either.  There is no such thing as being totally protected.

Be prudent, have insurance and make reasonable decisions.  I am tired of all the fear mongering over shooting teens.

Manny Desalamanca wrote:
If it's not a for a commercial, or magazine AD, represented with an agency and a  model with releases, and Parental Supervision, and If you don't have a good insurance company and plenty of money for a legal confrontation................. I suggest stay away from minors !!!!!!!

I am curious, I have done some research on this, other than issues of images being used without a model release, can you cite a single case of a parent suing a photographer for taking pictures of their teenage son or daughter without parental consent?  When I ask that question, I ask that in the context of teen appropriate photos.  I am not referring to inappropriate adult photos.

I have never found a case where that has happened yet everyone always talks about photographers getting sued.

rp_photo wrote:
Other than being a paying client as in portraits or a specialty marketer such as clothing, why is there any pressing need to shoot with a minor with all the great 18+ models out there?

That is another question entirely.  I shoot with a minor occasionally, but typically shoot with models over eighteen.  However, I have always been easy going.  If a model under eighteen asks me to shoot teen appropriate photos for her so she has something for her book, I will normally do it.  I am not afraid of teens.  I know what is appropriate and what is not!  I think it is dangerous to walk the line close to being inappropriate.

My problem is not your point, I have a problem with hysteria.  That is what most of these threads are about.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
My problem is not your point, I have a problem with hysteria.  That is what most of these threads are about.

A lot of the hysteria has been for good reason.

Since the fabricated allegations concerning the Mc Martin preschool in the late 70's, the Sturgis case of the 90's, and beyond, child abuse and pornography have been a favored "witch hunt" topic.

At the same time, photographers have been successfully shooting minors long before and during this period.

I believe most of the concern lies with the semi-professional glamour styles that many of us shoot, not established commercial practices like advertising and portraiture.

Trade/TFCD shooting may especially fall on the witch hunters' radar because they cannot understand why we shoot without the benefit of receiving cash. Their twisted minds come up with all kinds of sordid reasons.

SC_Michael wrote:
Good points. Also incorporate/LLC, that protects your personal assets. Check with State and local laws...

If you are doing it as a steady business ( not everyone really does, kinda once in a while thing ), then thats a good idea because LLC or limited liability company (I think I got that right) Basically keeps it where a 'victim' can sue the company and even if they win they can only go after company assets, so for example you could lose a building a company owns to pay for the damages, but you will never lose your home or car that you own personally under your name (unless theres a loophole in there somewhere like you use it for company purposes), where as if you are not incorporated, or is a sole proprietorship, they can come after your personal assets too since they are sueing directly you (where as they can't a LLC if you were acting under that capacity). 

Also other than what the IRS requires of you to remain a business year after year, I don't think it cost very much at all in most states to become incorporated or LLC.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
In many cases, there is never a winner when you go to court since the cost and inconvenience outweigh whatever you gain.

Alan, Alan, Alan - there's always a winner, usually two. They are called lawyers.

Karl Blessing wrote:
If you are doing it as a steady business ( not everyone really does, kinda once in a while thing ), then thats a good idea because LLC or limited liability company (I think I got that right) Basically keeps it where a 'victim' can sue the company and even if they win they can only go after company assets, so for example you could lose a building a company owns to pay for the damages, but you will never lose your home or car that you own personally under your name (unless theres a loophole in there somewhere like you use it for company purposes), where as if you are not incorporated, or is a sole proprietorship, they can come after your personal assets too since they are sueing directly you (where as they can't a LLC if you were acting under that capacity). 

Also other than what the IRS requires of you to remain a business year after year, I don't think it cost very much at all in most states to become incorporated or LLC.

What happens if you are a sole proprietor and you hire a model to stand next to a fountain for the shot you want, she slips and falls, and heaven forbid she breaks her neck. Who is liable? It was the photogs shoot, the photog told her to stand there, etc. Pro or novice photog, you will hear from a lawyer.


Im not trying to scare anyone, just presenting what could happen...

SC_Michael wrote:
Im not trying to scare anyone, just presenting what could happen...

Up to the court.  What if a model get hit by a lightning?  What if he choked on saliva?  What if he developed aneurysm?  What if she has a heart attack?

Who is liable?

How much more fearmongering do we need?

rp_photo wrote:
Since the fabricated allegations concerning the Mc Martin preschool in the late 70's, the Sturgis case of the 90's, and beyond, child abuse and pornography have been a favored "witch hunt" topic.

If photos are age appropriate, what is the problem?  You are talking about walking along the line, Alan is talking about be careful of the line and stay clear of the boundary.  This has to stop, the fear is completely fabricated for normal photographing human beings' practices.

I shoot agency models, and I haven't actually shot that many over 18.  What is the problem?!

lll wrote:

Up to the court.  What if a model get hit by a lightning?  What if he choked on saliva?  What if he developed aneurysm?  What if she has a heart attack?

Who is liable?

How much more fearmongering do we need?

What fearmongering? All of the above could happen. Its real life.

SC_Michael wrote:
What fearmongering? All of the above could happen. Its real life.

Yes.  Do you live this real life, or do you just sit there thinking about all the what ifs and stop doing everything?!

lll wrote:

Yes.  Do you live this real life, or do you just sit there thinking about all the what ifs and stop doing everything?!

I fly in heli's and shoot speed boats. I dont consider that sitting there.

SC_Michael wrote:
I fly in heli's and shoot speed boats. I dont consider that sitting there.

Right, then why brought up things that are just what ifs?  What's different there?  (Plus it was rhetorical, if you didn't get that). 

The only way to avoid any liability is to completely stop dealing with other human beings.  Life comes with risk, manage it, then do what you need to do.

You really can't stop a model from choking on saliva, you know?

lll wrote:

Right, then why brought up things that are just what ifs?  What's different there?  (Plus it was rhetorical, if you didn't get that). 

Because in the eyes or the court we are responsible for the people we bring to a shoot, models assistants stylists, even the "watchers" on the sidelines. I would like to think I am prepared for any and all that could happen. Are you?

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
My problem is not your point, I have a problem with hysteria.  That is what most of these threads are about.

rp_photo wrote:
Since the fabricated allegations concerning the Mc Martin preschool in the late 70's, the Sturgis case of the 90's, and beyond, child abuse and pornography have been a favored "witch hunt" topic.

The problem though with your argument is that both of these cases deal with either sexual abuse or child pornography.  I agree, they are travesties.  They both, however, have little to do with taking senior pictures or shooting totally appropriate, fully clothed photos of a teen.

Can you cite a single case of anything similar happening to a photographer shooting senior pictures or teen fashion?

Artphotos by Dave Zeiss wrote:
I guess in summary, I'm trying to say the process of risk management is a prudent behavior in today's sue-happy society.  As part of a larger business picture, one should look at all risks of financial loss objectively and make informed decisions based on one's own priorities.   That's not fear mongering, that's good business sense.

I keep coming back to the same question, who has been sued for shooting senior portraits or appropriate teen fashion?  We can have this discussion all day.

Do you know that one is more likely to die from having a coconut fall on their head than to have been killed by a shark?  There is risk in everything in life.  Until you can show me some cases of photographers being sued for shooting teen appropriate photos, you are going to have a hard time convincing me of the danger.

Artphotos by Dave Zeiss wrote:
Again, I started this thread to make the point that in looking at legal risk, one needs to look at civil law and not just criminal law in the same way that if you are camping on the beach in Australia, you should consider the risks from the coconuts as well as the risks from shark attacks.

Dave:

I understand your point, but what I am trying to get at is to ask your risk or what?  What is it you expect to be sued for?

When we get posts by guys who ask if they should shoot Suicide Girl photos or very sexy stuff, the risk clearly goes up.  When you get into nudes or sexually suggestive lingerie, you begin to push the envelope.

The OP in this case never mentioned that kind of stuff.  He just wanted to know if it was risky to take pictures of a seventeen year old without her parents present.  There was no suggestion of any of the things that raise red flags.

There is risk in everything we do.  I am sure it is far more risky to drive in a car or walk down the street than it is to take a senior portrait or teen fashion photo. 

You say there is civil risk.  Unless you are involved in risky conduct with a teen, if you are merely photographing them, what do you suggest that people should be afraid of being sued for?  There has to be a cause of action that you are concerned about.  What is that cause of action?   Do you know of any photographer that has been sued for shooting a teen in a teen appropriate manner?

Certainly if a teen fell and broke a leg you might get sued.  On the other hand, if you had a twenty year old model up a ladder and she fell off you could get sued too.

I am just trying to figure out what these civil causes of action might be, then if we knew what to be concerned about, we could conduct ourselves in a way to avoid those causes of action.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
The problem though with your argument is that both of these cases deal with either sexual abuse or child pornography.  I agree, they are travesties.  They both, however, have little to do with taking senior pictures or shooting totally appropriate, fully clothed photos of a teen.

Can you cite a single case of anything similar happening to a photographer shooting senior pictures or teen fashion?

seems like you have a lot of double posts lately!

SC_Michael wrote:
Because in the eyes or the court we are responsible for the people we bring to a shoot, models assistants stylists, even the "watchers" on the sidelines. I would like to think I am prepared for any and all that could happen. Are you?

You are so funny.  Of course I am prepared.  There is liability insurance etc.  But your fearmongering regarding people tripping on things is just outrageous.

Are you prepared for the model to be hit by lightning?  Bitten by snake?  Choked on her own saliva?  Have a heart attack?

It seems to me that you have no idea about the commercial or fashion modeling world, where most of the models actually are under 18.  There hasn't been a problem for a long long time for people taking non-pornographic images of minors.  If there are, please cite your reference for our considerations.

SC_Michael wrote:
What happens if you are a sole proprietor and you hire a model to stand next to a fountain for the shot you want, she slips and falls, and heaven forbid she breaks her neck. Who is liable? It was the photogs shoot, the photog told her to stand there, etc. Pro or novice photog, you will hear from a lawyer.


Im not trying to scare anyone, just presenting what could happen...

That's why I have models sign a release including a release of liability prior to the start of the shoot.

lll wrote:
You are so funny.  Of course I am prepared.  There is liability insurance etc.  But your fearmongering regarding people tripping on things is just outrageous.

Are you prepared for the model to be hit by lightning?  Bitten by snake?  Choked on her own saliva?  Have a heart attack?

It seems to me that you have no idea about the commercial or fashion modeling world, where most of the models actually are under 18.  There hasn't been a problem for a long long time for people taking non-pornographic images of minors.  If there are, please cite your reference for our considerations.

Well this is a forum about legal issues correct?

Fearmongering? How is pointing out a potential problem to an up and coming shooter(s) "fearmongering''? I dont give a damn about the fashion world, I shoot boats. I have a profile here to recruit models to be in catalogs and ads. Plus I never brought up the people taking non-pornographic images of minors issue. And yes I am insured and covered.

Think what you will, I wont be back to the forums.