Reed Photographic wrote:
If there's "nothing inappropriate" then I fail to see your concern.  Just have the model's parent or guardian on-site and you will be fine.

Right answer. Next, please.

Mike McMillan wrote:
Probably been asked a million times ,so heres 1 million and 1.

I was approached by a model , female 17 to shoot her. nothing in appropriate. Headshots , portraits. What the right thing to do here or the legal thing. I'm in Canada.

What can they be photographed wearing and when does it just become plain wrong?

Any experience with this or how it should be handled or just stay away?

Thanks

What she’s asking is not illicit, just have her bring a parent/guardian who’ll sign the release and be at the shoot.

Mike McMillan wrote:
Probably been asked a million times

Yep... a search or even browsing for a few pages would make that painfully obvious. And the best part is, the question by the op involved is usually no more unique than the last.

I guess the best thing to do is erase the "OMG 17 year old, I'm going to jail..." thought from your brain and shoot them like any other model. (just keep in mind til he or she is 18, only their parents can actually enter into a legally binding contract such as a release).

Chris Macan wrote:
Why the constant "release release release" refrain.

If she is hiring the photographer to shoot pictures of her
he will not be selling the images.....
So a model release is not needed or even appropriate.

This is wrong, even though a customer is hiring you, having a standard release is good business practice.

BTW, high school seniors book and pay us all the time and their parents must sign the release even if it's just the yearbook picture. Same thing with corporate and business head shots. If your in business as a photographer you need to obtain (to a minimum) a general release.

Marc Benjamin wrote:

This is wrong, even though a customer is hiring you, having a standard release is good business practice.

BTW, high school seniors book and pay us all the time and their parents must sign the release even if it's just the yearbook picture. Same thing with corporate and business head shots. If your in business as a photographer you need to obtain (to a minimum) a general release.

Why on earth would I sign a model release for a photographer I am hiring to take images of me or for me? In fact for certain commercial work I might make him/her sign a non disclosure contract.

I might sign a business contract stating the scope of work to be done, the time frame in which it is due and and agreement of cost...... But there is no way I would ever release my image for the photographers use or sale....
Which is what a model release does....  and that is all it does.

So if that is how your business works...... it seems unlikely that I will ever hire you.

Marc Benjamin wrote:

This is wrong, even though a customer is hiring you, having a standard release is good business practice.

Only if you wish to use them.  If you have no need/desire to use them, then you don't need a release.

AlysiaPaige wrote:
Have model AND parents sign a release. Then they can't touch you
I would know, I'm 17

Isn't a 17 yr old (in the USA) unable to enter into a contract? Just wondering if even getting the minor's signature is needed or useful?

Chris Macan wrote:
Why on earth would I sign a model release for a photographer I am hiring to take images of me or for me? In fact for certain commercial work I might make him/her sign a non disclosure contract.

I might sign a business contract stating the scope of work to be done, the time frame in which it is due and and agreement of cost...... But there is no way I would ever release my image for the photographers use or sale....
Which is what a model release does....  and that is all it does.

So if that is how your business works...... it seems unlikely that I will ever hire you.

Well... quite simple... it's not about you.

I think its better to mention the caveat of having a release than not at all, because we don't know if the OP might decide later down the road that he wants to put something up on istock and stuff like that. So mentioning it now helps keep that in mind in case that issue comes up later down the road. And not everyone realizes that a minor cannot enter into a legally binding contract (so not just releases...), so its a good thing to know from a practical business standpoint.

So from there the OP can pretty much be like "well... I'm not going to be doing this, so I won't need it, but good to know."

Elliot wrote:

Isn't a 17 yr old (in the USA) unable to enter into a contract? Just wondering if even getting the minor's signature is needed or useful?

Needed, no. Useful, yes. It gives the model a sense of responsibility for whats going on and makes them feel more involved. When dealing with people (especially teenagers) even token gestures that make them feel connected to and responsible for whats going on can improve results.

Tim Hammond wrote:
Senior portrait shooters from all over North America are locked up in a special maximum security prison specially designed for people who pointed their cameras at 17 year olds.

I thought their eyes exploded the moment the shutter clicked, thus no reason for a prison?

Elliot wrote:

Isn't a 17 yr old (in the USA) unable to enter into a contract? Just wondering if even getting the minor's signature is needed or useful?

I've always had to sign, I don't know if it is needed though.

Tim Hammond wrote:
Senior portrait shooters from all over North America are locked up in a special maximum security prison specially designed for people who pointed their cameras at 17 year olds.

Actually, the fact that they're taking pictures of 17 year olds is fine. What's getting them thrown in jail is the fact that the pictures are so lousy.

Madcrow Photographics wrote:

Needed, no. Useful, yes. It gives the model a sense of responsibility for whats going on and makes them feel more involved. When dealing with people (especially teenagers) even token gestures that make them feel connected to and responsible for whats going on can improve results.

Exactly. I am 17, and both myself and my mother sign all contracts/releases.

Madcrow Photographics wrote:
I don't know about Canada, but here in the US, shooting a emancipated minor (a,k,a, 99.9% of 17 year olds) without a parent or guardian around, even in public, is a HUGE no no...

You're kidding right? lol

Mike McMillan wrote:
Probably been asked a million times ,so heres 1 million and 1.

I was approached by a model , female 17 to shoot her. nothing in appropriate. Headshots , portraits. What the right thing to do here or the legal thing. I'm in Canada.

What can they be photographed wearing and when does it just become plain wrong?

Any experience with this or how it should be handled or just stay away?

Thanks

Personally,

I would wait until she is 18 and a legal adult (at least that is the age in the States) before shooting with her.

Side note:  I realize many models begin their careers at an early age, however; I would like to see this site be for people over the age of 18 ONLY.  I feel that way for the simple reason that there is a lot of nudity on ModelMayhem.  Nothing against nudity and nothing against underage girls - but, come on, we all know the two don't mix!

Kenzphotos wrote:
Side note:  I realize many models begin their careers at an early age, however; I would like to see this site be for people over the age of 18 ONLY.  I feel that way for the simple reason that there is a lot of nudity on ModelMayhem.  Nothing against nudity and nothing against underage girls - but, come on, we all know the two don't mix!

Maybe that's why underage nudity isn't allowed on here? (at least as far as I know)

Madcrow Photographics wrote:
I don't know about Canada, but here in the US, shooting a emancipated minor (a,k,a, 99.9% of 17 year olds) without a parent or guardian around, even in public, is a HUGE no no...

Whaaaat?? You've got to be kidding.

David Scott wrote:

You're kidding right? lol

Beat me too it,

I see these threads and it seems the OP's question is already well covered and obvious.  Then I see humanity and stupidity rearing its head and I just cant refrain...

Mike McMillan wrote:
Probably been asked a million times ,so heres 1 million and 1.

I was approached by a model , female 17 to shoot her. nothing in appropriate. Headshots , portraits. What the right thing to do here or the legal thing. I'm in Canada.

What can they be photographed wearing and when does it just become plain wrong?

Any experience with this or how it should be handled or just stay away?

Thanks

I've heard of a photographer who met a 17 yr old at a public place, where she later accused him of inappropriate touching. (Assault 2nd Degree and  sexual assault 4th degree) she accused him b/c he told her she wouldn't be used for an assignment. He was fined $3000. spent 60 days in the county and all she had was her word against his? Watch out.... never meet a minor without a parent present.

Kenzphotos wrote:
Personally,

I would wait until she is 18 and a legal adult (at least that is the age in the States) before shooting with her.

1.  Why?  What is he doing that requires that the model be a legal adult?

2.  Are you aware that in some states in the US and in some provinces in Canada, the age when someone becomes a legal adult is higher than 18?

Kenzphotos wrote:
Personally,

I would wait until she is 18 and a legal adult (at least that is the age in the States) before shooting with her.

Side note:  I realize many models begin their careers at an early age, however; I would like to see this site be for people over the age of 18 ONLY.  I feel that way for the simple reason that there is a lot of nudity on ModelMayhem.  Nothing against nudity and nothing against underage girls - but, come on, we all know the two don't mix!

Send me all of your senior portrait business then please, there's decent money to be made in that market.

And really "underage and nudity dont mix", I'm sure you mean "innaproprate" underage nudity correct?

SOS_photography wrote:
I've heard of a photographer who met a 17 yr old at a public place, where she later accused him of inappropriate touching. (Assault 2nd Degree and  sexual assault 4th degree) she accused him b/c he told her she wouldn't be used for an assignment. He was fined $3000. spent 60 days in the county and all she had was her word against his? Watch out.... never meet a minor without a parent present.

1.  "I've heard of" sounds pretty authoritative to me.

2.  Is there any reason to believe the outcome would be legally different if the person were 18?

David Scott wrote:

You're kidding right? lol

For situations such as the OP is describing, I'm not kidding at all. As a lone hobbyist, working one on one without a crew, you'd have to be a fool to NOT want the extra level of protection from having a parent or gaurdian around. It's one thing to shoot a minor without a parent around in the context of a large scale commercial shoot with a MUA, a stylist, a hair person and a couple of assistants around. THAT happens all the time. The "rules" for a lone hobbyist (or any other lone shooter) are quite different from the rules for a major production.

Lake Morton Studio wrote:
There's somewhat of a bottom line here that's more important than the question of what's inappropriate (note that the original questioner misspelled it) and that it is simply against the law to shoot them naked. As much as we might like to at times, wait until the next birthday.

Oh for God's sake.

The photographer is not doing anything remotely like shooting the model naked.  And even if he were, it is NOT TRUE that it's illegal.  Once again somebody makes up a law and acts as though it were real.

TXPhotog wrote:

1.  "I've heard of" sounds pretty authoritative to me.

2.  Is there any reason to believe the outcome would be legally different if the person were 18?

2nd this motion, also what prevents a 20yr old, a 30yr old or a 50yr old from the same crap.  CYA and being alone with a female is a different discussion, I dont feel age is relevant really.  From a business sense perspective I wouldnt shoot alone with a 24yr old at 2am that I didnt know really well.