|
Forums >
General Industry >
Shooting Models Under 18....
Hey Guys and Gals... Not sure if this should be an issue or not but I was wondering if shooting models under 18 should carry any special consideration. IE release from parents ect... I am a newer photographer and not really sure how to handle that. Dave Jan 03 09 10:51 pm Link Open up a half stop. Jan 03 09 10:52 pm Link If you are shooting models under 18, geta release signed by the parents, better safe than sorry. In CA anyone under 18 can not enter into a contract of any kind, and a release is a contract. Jan 03 09 10:56 pm Link c_d_s wrote:
Jan 03 09 11:00 pm Link Without getting into a huge discussion on model releases and the like -- which I'm not enough of an expert on to offer much decisive, what I can say is that if you're asking her to sign a model release and she's under 18, legally her signature is worthless. She can't sign a contract. If the model is under 18 I make a point of getting a parent or guardians signature on the model release, for two reasons. One, legally they're the ones who can consent to it, and two it ensures that they're aware that she's modeling and don't have any problems with it. A photographer I knew some years back wound up with some big headaches when he shot a teenager who said her parents were fine with it, but wasn't telling the truth. Not only couldn't he use the shots for anything, but it wound up hurting his reputation for a while when the parents went on the warpath. All that said, I'm sure there's plenty of others out here with more expertise in the area, and if you have any questions then probably consulting a lawyer or good photography org (ASMP comes to mind, my bg is photojournalism) wouldn't be a bad idea. Jan 03 09 11:03 pm Link Jan 03 09 11:05 pm Link I require all minors that I work with to sign the release, have a parent/ legal guardian there with them at all times and sign the release as well. And Ive done shoots with about 4 or 5 minors. All have signed the release and have had no problems.. Jan 03 09 11:06 pm Link Del Puerto Photography wrote: I'm sorry, but ... what does California have to do with the OP who is located in Canada (or are you saying "Canada" when you say CA)? Jan 03 09 11:09 pm Link Del Puerto Photography wrote: Your are both right and wrong. You are right about having a parent (or guardian) sign the release. However, a model release is not a contract. Technically, it's a unilateral agreement. Whatever it's called, it still needs to be signed by a parent, guardian, or model over 18. Jan 03 09 11:09 pm Link ei Total Productions wrote: OP is in Canada, Del Puerto is in California. Both use CA as an abbreviation. I say it's like a coin toss. 50/50 chance. Jan 04 09 12:17 am Link Dave Mydlo wrote: I just shot one of them tonight, she was 17. Jan 04 09 12:22 am Link It's not the big deal that some make of it. One difference, it's important to not only build the confidence of the model in trusting you, but you need the trust of at least one parent too. If you plan on using the pictures for anything, you better have a parent sign the model release. Let the model sign too. I've never had a problem with photographing minor aged models. Being patient and taking time without rushing them helps. Jan 04 09 01:30 am Link Andrew Thomas Designs wrote: Have fun in prison! J/K Jan 04 09 06:52 am Link My rule if your under 18 No legal guardian no shoot. A release is a must. I have the model & Parent sign as well as a witness IE MUA, Stylist and such. Jan 04 09 06:58 am Link Near as I can tell, nobody who has answered this knows what the law is in ONTARIO. That, and only that, is what matters. In the US minors can, in many states, sign releases, despite the advice given above. In some they cannot. In some states they can sign, and it be irrevocably binding under some circumstances. In many states that is not true. However, none of that makes a bit of difference to a photographer who is not in the United States. I don't know the law of Ontario as it relates to this question, so cannot give an opinion. Jan 04 09 07:41 am Link Shooting minors is no problem, you just have to lead them a little more because they can run faster. That being said, I've never had a problem but then I deal with a lot of senior gradutates. If shooting in a modeling sense, I prefer a parent on hand simply as CYA policy. Later, after a few shoots and a bond of trust has been established between all, I don't mind if she shows up alone or with a friend. I do have several varying model releases, some for adults, some generic, some for minors with the parent/guardian's line for signature as well. Other than that, besides water and fruit juices, you may want to stock up on Mountain Dew as well for their comfort. Jan 04 09 08:46 am Link Whenever I get contacted by a model under ager, I tell them that I wil not shoot them with out a parent. Sisters, brothers, boyfriends do not really count as far as I am concerned. It really protects you. Jan 04 09 08:54 am Link I have never shot minors before. Just wonder if Kmart or Wally requires the parent signature for their photoshoot?  Jan 04 09 09:07 am Link I've shot with two minors, parent present for shoot, parent signed release, and no problems. Covering your backside seven ways to Sunday is always a good defense. Jan 04 09 09:11 am Link why is this that everything thinks a release is this magical document that will take care of any potential future issues that could spur from a shoot...  Jan 04 09 09:19 am Link Andrew Thomas Designs wrote: If I'm reading above right, what's being stressed is only shooting a minor with parents present and them signing the release along with said minor. Jan 04 09 09:30 am Link Andrew Thomas Designs wrote: Because it is still better than you said, he said in front of the Judge. The true fact is if someone files a lawsuit, even you win the case, you loose. Jan 04 09 09:32 am Link Andrew Thomas Designs wrote: Andrew, are you using the magic dust with them? If you dont they are useless. With the magic dust, the contract makes you immune to any issues at all. Jan 04 09 09:32 am Link A "release", at least in my opinion is more relavant to the purpose of the shoot itself. Its not a "release from harm" document. Its a "grant you x, x, x" document. If someone hires me to do a portrait of their kid, I dont have them sign a "release", unless I think I might want to use the image(s) for advertising etc later. Jan 04 09 09:34 am Link CGI Images wrote: Is that the same dust that changes the name on any document to "release"? Jan 04 09 09:36 am Link Andrew Thomas Designs wrote: YES! Jan 04 09 09:37 am Link CGI Images wrote: I think a good contract (even in Canada) would be the best way to prevent problems and issues. This way everything is laid out before the shoot, everyone knows what to expect, and it's all cut and dry. Jan 04 09 09:39 am Link Do the shoot. Keep your weener in your pants, and you'll do just fine. Jan 04 09 09:39 am Link With the "low ligigation threshhold" anybody can get sued for anything. In Ohio all it takes is the thought something went wrong and $20 to file the papers. And, let's not forget the number of lawyers who are more than eager to work with the injured party on contingency(33.33%). Hate to sound crass, but that is how it often happens. Jan 04 09 09:40 am Link Greg Coleman wrote: Later I found out her dad is a cop... Jan 04 09 09:46 am Link Andrew Thomas Designs wrote: All kidding aside, if I was a photographer that shot/is shooting a minor, Jan 04 09 09:49 am Link Janice Marie Foote wrote: Why? Jan 04 09 09:52 am Link Andrew Thomas Designs wrote: Exactly, ANYONE at anytime in any situation can cause trouble. I've always been and advocate of easy, simply CYA when its warranted. What I'm not an advocate for is extreme over reaction, which is often the case anytime someone mentions "minor" and "photography" in the same sentence. JDF Photography wrote: True as well, but I think a little perspective needs to be interjected here. We can all cite, and think of situations where the 1 in a 1,000,000 happened. False accusations, evidence being planted, crazed GWC stalker, whatever. BUT I think its important to keep in mind these things are the 1 in a 1,000,000 situations and that for every "this happened to me, be warned" horror story, there were probably 999,999 other shoots that went off friendly and flawlessly. Jan 04 09 09:52 am Link CGI Images wrote: I honestly don't think that it happens all that much or if at all, since lets just look at what would happen if something like that did happen. Jan 04 09 09:55 am Link I got an email recently via my website from a 17 year old who wanted to do a shoot. I replied that I needed her parent/guardian to sign a release and to do so in front of me, and that a parent/guardian had to be present for the shoot. Never heard from her again. Jan 04 09 09:56 am Link too much headache if they're under age Jan 04 09 10:00 am Link shooter 88 wrote: So what's your opinion about senior pictures? Jan 04 09 10:00 am Link My own personal consideration regarding shooting models under 18: Due to the nature of my work, I don't. This is not my business. I do this for personal enjoyment and I like helping people TFP. It's so much easier to work with mature, consenting adults who should be more responsible for their actions, both legally and in the eyes of too many busybodies around us who would like to interfere if they could. Making women beautiful, attractive, seductive, mysterious, etc., under the age of 18 is not worth the risk and time waste of dealing with the issues involved. Not for me. Jan 04 09 10:01 am Link shooter 88 wrote: Andrew Thomas Designs wrote: No comparison, they're shot openly at a school with a line of people behind them! Jan 04 09 10:04 am Link Jan 04 09 10:04 am Link |
