|
Forums >
General Industry >
Photographing minors without a consent release
I've been doing photography for a little over 15 years, shooting professionally for the last 8. I've always required a release to be signed and in those years have photographed a few minors with the parental consent portion of the release signed by the parent/guardian. My question here is... A 16 year old girl has approached me about doing some images for her. She really has a great look and in my opinion she may be able to do something in the modeling industry. The issue is this, she doesn't want her parents to know about this, yet. She wants to see what kinds of looks she can get and if it's worth her time to pursue this before she expresses an interest to her parents. What are the implications of photographing a minor without parental consent? If the images are not to be used for any commercial gain, does a release need to be signed by the parent/guardian. The example of this situation I keep bringing to mind is this... If I were a 19 year old college art student taking pictures for my class and photographed a minor, would a release need be signed. As I remember from my college days, I photographed a lot of under aged people (male and female) and never had a release signed. What are your opinions on this situation? Apr 19 06 11:25 am Link Don't do it. Just don't even think about it. You could spend the rest of your life wondering if the next knock on the door might be the police... Apr 19 06 11:28 am Link scott slusher wrote: It's not the same. This could turn against you. There most likely is a reason behind her not wanting her parents involved (though she says it's only for now). Imagine her parents find out about it by some other means and accuse you of hitting on their underage daughter while using your photography background as a lure. I don't know man, I might be completely wrong, but I see a big red flag rising up like hell. I would step away in an instant: Apr 19 06 11:31 am Link There's nothing wrong with shooting people who are underage. You obviously won't be shooting her nude. You just wouldn't be able to use the images. I would most certainly have a stylist and probably at least one other person on set at the time though. Apr 19 06 11:34 am Link talk to the folks..... get that paper signed first! the jail's always need a new photographer! (mug shots)!  Apr 19 06 11:42 am Link There is one word that comes to mind here: STUPID. Is it worth going to jail over? Her parents might react in a very strong negative way and you would be screwed. Apr 19 06 11:47 am Link Um, folks.... Its not against the law to photograph someone who is under 18. If that were so, then you'd all be breaking the law every time you took a picture at a kids birthday party, etc... Lets be realistic here. Our involvement in this business has put us in these protective/defensive modes regarding photographing anyone. Release forms are designed to make clear issues of copyright and image use, terms of same, etc. If the images of the underage person are not nudes, construed as explicit or obscene, and are taken without a release form, then you are perfectly within your rights to shoot away. Anyone that suggests otherwise isn't being entirely precise about why a release form needs to be signed by a guardian. Release forms signed by guardians are in place simply because a minor is not legally allowed to contract under their own name until the age of 18. If no contract is needed (the images won't be used commercially and the photographer does not care if the model uses the images for whatever she wants) then there is no problem with shooting without one. If a contract IS needed, it must be signed by a guardian. Its NOT illegal to take a photograph of a minor. Apr 19 06 11:50 am Link scott slusher wrote: Not trying to be rude here or anything, but, if you do this shoot without the parent's knowledge, you are a fool. Why would you even consider risking your business and your reputation??? Anyone shoots my 16 year old daughter without my consent WILL have hell to pay, no two ways about it. Absolutely, positively DO NOT put yourself in that situation, unless of course you could care less about the 8 years you have spent being a pro. The fact that you are even asking means you are at least considering it. There isn't a better liar on Earth than a 16 year old girl (not accusing her of lying, the whole thing from her side may be on the up and up) I'm just saying, why risk it. On the flip side, let's assume for a moment that she is straight with you, she just wants to get some different looks before showing her mom and dad. She gets the prints and gives them to mom and dad to see and they freak, trust parents of teenage daughter freak for some MINOR things, much less photos, then what? How will you handle it? Even though the photos are innocent, non-nude, nothing sexy just good photos, do you really want to deal with screaming parents, aggravation, etc....just doesn't seem worth your 8 years as a pro. Apr 19 06 11:51 am Link I guess nobody here runs a portrait studio or does senior pictures. I don't believe there is a law in any state that requires parental consent to shoot a minor in street clothes. Obviously it is nice if they participate and you certainly want to have a third person, like a make-up artist with you. But if what you are doing is lifestyle, portraits or fashion, I don't see the issue. Remember that if the model signs a release, she can revoke it since she is under age so I wouldn't count on using the images. But my gosh, a sixteen year old can walk into Glamour Shots at the mall and have a sexy picture taken without her parents present. All this talk about going to jail, for what? Use good judgement as to what you shoot and don't worry about it. You should be a big boy and know what NOT to do with a minor. EDIT: The comment above about dealing with an angry parent. That is a different issue and could be real. Getting yelled at is different than going to jail. I just don't see the paranoia by everyone about getting arrested. Apr 19 06 11:52 am Link Avicdar wrote: Nobody said it was illegal to shoot underage kids. All we're saying is it'd be unwise to do so behind her parents back and we're asking why would one want to risk it since there's so much you could put yourself through by doing it is all. Apr 19 06 11:56 am Link MarkMarek wrote: Other replies have implied illegality by suggesting the police might come calling, or going to jail. It was those replies specifically that I was referring to. So, yes, it was implied to be illegal by some. Apr 19 06 11:59 am Link Ok...everyone who's freaking out on you about this is WAY overreacting. Model releases are about copyrights...when a model signs a release it gives you the right to publish the pictures and use them for commercial reasons. When a model doesn't sign a release, all that means is you don't have that right. If you're just looking to help the girl get started and don't plan to use the photos then there would be absolutely nothing wrong with not getting a release. Sure, her parents may be pissed, but there is nothing illegal about snapping a photo of someone. If you photograph a wedding does the flowergirl need to sign a release for you to snap a shot of her walking down the aisle? Of course not. The only way you'd be in trouble is if you publish the photos, or if you shoot anything that could be considered pornographic. Otherwise you are in absolutely no danger of legal reprocussions. Apr 19 06 11:59 am Link Alan from Aavian Prod wrote: Actually there are some states where it is illegal to photograph anyone under the age of 18 without consent, period, has nothing to do with a release, just to photograph a minor period requires parental permission in some states. In today's society it's not worth it. Remember, you can sue anyone for anything and it only costs $16.00 for someone to file the lawsuit (at least here that's all it costs), the defense is up to you. My point is, it doesn't matter whether it is legal/illegal why risk ANY type of hassle no matter how small or how large over something as stupid as a teenage girl who won't ask her parents for permission to model, it's just plain dumb. Apr 19 06 12:05 pm Link What is the upside for you in shooting her? Why does she not want her parents to know? Will they go ape shee-it if they find out? Apr 19 06 12:06 pm Link I would say that if you felt totally comfortable you wouldn't have had to ask if it was ok. Clearly you don't feel 100% behind this idea so you shouldn't do it. I'm not saying you will go to jail but this could go in too many ugly directions. People have enough problems with models who are of age! Apr 19 06 12:08 pm Link Is a release always necessary when photographing a minor? No. Is it illegal to photograph minors in an "age appropriate" manner? Of course not. But, when dealing with a minor, it should be your rule NEVER to work with one without checking with his/her parents FIRST. No exceptions. Let's say you do hold this "secret shoot" and dear 'ol mom and dad find out about it. Okay, the 16 year old realizes she's in trouble, so the lies start flying. What started out as an innocent shoot turns into you defending yourself against god knows what kind of accusations. Apr 19 06 12:11 pm Link with today standards and how people react to anything dealing with kids and photos. it is in the best interest to talk to the child folk's. and let them know that your daughter contacted you about photographing her. and you might want to take some collects of photos that you have did in the past of kids with you to show the folks your works.. simple it is being smart to ask them and not ending up paying for it later. the internet and all the kiddy porn going around has marked photographers a bad name. i just got threw working with a group of people who investigate kiddy stuff on the net. and they are determined to catch perv's. they travel city by city. and pose as kids on the net. trying to stop kiddy perv's. do us all a favor talk to her folks. Q Apr 19 06 12:11 pm Link BasementStudios wrote: Where? Can you show any law which cites this information? quaker wrote: Sorry, I gotta disagree on that as well. If the kid is simply looking for someone to take photos of her (age appropriate, legal, non-explicit... etc) and requested that nobody knows about it... providing that nothing illegal or immoral is going on... I feel that it may be inappropriate to contact the parents. Apr 19 06 12:14 pm Link Usually when teenagers don't want their parents to know something it's for a good reason. It makes you look more professional to ask them if it's ok first. Otherwise you come out looking like a pervert regardless of what actually happened. Apr 19 06 12:16 pm Link Avicdar wrote: First reading over the previous threads, no one has actually said that it's illegal to shoot a minor. The point is why bother with the possible aggravation, not worth it. Apr 19 06 12:17 pm Link SayCheeZ! wrote: Oregon for one, my brother just went through the whole thing and it cost him a bundle in lawyer fees, court costs, etc. He shot senior style photos of a 16 year old as a surprise for the girls parents. They knew the law, he didn't, he got sued for shooting her without their consent. Any others I'll have to do a search for. Apr 19 06 12:20 pm Link BasementStudios wrote: Read posts #1, 4, and 5...cops...jail...jail...no one said it right out, but 3 people implied he could go to jail for it. Apr 19 06 12:22 pm Link http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ph … ing+minors search google for the answer contact a local lawyer Apr 19 06 12:25 pm Link BasementStudios wrote: BasementStudios wrote: Could you please make sense of those two statements and the claim about Oregon law? Apr 19 06 12:27 pm Link Is a release always necessary when photographing a minor? No. Is it illegal to photograph minors in an "age appropriate" manner? Of course not. But, when dealing with a minor, it should be your rule NEVER to work with one without checking with his/her parents FIRST. No exceptions. Let's say you do hold this "secret shoot" and dear 'ol mom and dad find out about it. Okay, the 16 year old realizes she's in trouble, so the lies start flying. What started out as an innocent shoot turns into you defending yourself against god knows what kind of accusations. I totally agree William. NOW THEN, If you absolutely think you must go ahead and shoot her you damned well ought to make sure it is outside location with at least, at least, one adult with you at all times and shoot editorial, etc..... absolutely nothing sexy, no short skirts, no tight blouse or sweater, you got the drill. Maybe at a park, etc. Don't be surprised if she does not want to conform to all those restrictions.. And, by the way, how do you copy somebody's remarks and paste it into your response??? Apr 19 06 12:27 pm Link here comes the legal jargon...... Apr 19 06 12:28 pm Link This is my Opinion Plan and simple.... ----- If Under 18, a Parent or Gaurdian 'WILL' be at the shoot, or the shoot doesn't happen. end of story end of discussion for me. -------------- There is not a single minor I would take the chance with 'possible' repercussions. It isn't worth it 'just to see'. Either the person is 'serious' about doing it or 'isn't serious' There is no... Well Im just gonna check it out to see how the water is... NO that does work. Over Reacting???? No, Not at all. No one here is. some people may not be using common sense.. but whats new? DO NOT under any situation photograph a minor without 'parental consent' Even candid pushes this boundry... so if in doubt when shooting candid.. leave it out. Apr 19 06 12:28 pm Link Kaitlin Lara wrote: Having the police show up to question as the post implies does not translate to illegal so scratch that one, excuse me I missed one thread where someone siad jail.......guess I'll burst into flames now for being wrong on one count...OMG....geez, point is, it's not a matter of legality, it's a matter of stupidity risking the hassle with the parents. Apr 19 06 12:28 pm Link Hey Scott I'm sure you could make her look good but it is dangerous with out the parents knowing and being there . I turned down one who is 14 going on 24 last week because some local photographer shot her looking like she is 24 . With her moms consent ! I don't want any part of the potential trouble . When it goes bad you will be the focus of the investigation. Apr 19 06 12:30 pm Link TXPhotog wrote: BasementStudios wrote: Could you please make sense of those two statements and the claim about Oregon law? Gee why don't you go back through on your own and read the order the posts ALL of the posts were made, then maybe you can figure it out on your, it's not that difficult to understand. Apr 19 06 12:33 pm Link it might be best to speak with the parents first. Secondary, get at least an aunt or big sister involved... Shoot in a public place as not to imply secrecy. Keep a trustworthy (Woman) assistant with you during all transactions. Meet ONLY in public. Ask her if she is a police officer... (wink). Check yourself, if you have been engaging in online pornography with minors...wink wink... Or have some of their pics on your computer... Actually, I am not joking...  Be safe and live free... Leave the girl to her parents... Maybe they already know (winky)...  Apr 19 06 12:35 pm Link google search and fount this! http://touchngo.com/ap/html/ap-1958.htm With regard to this first purpose identifying the people whose consent is required the victims age determines the defendants legal duty. A defendant will be obliged to seek the consent of different people, depending on whether the victim is older than 16, or is between the ages of 13 and 16, or is younger than 13. Thus, for example, if the person being photographed is younger than 13, the statute declares that it is unnecessary for the defendant to obtain that childs consent, but the defendant must obtain the consent of the childs parent or guardian. But what if the defendant, acting under the reasonable but mistaken belief that the child is younger than 13, obtains the permission of the childs parent or guardian but neglects to obtain the permission of the child? The statute declares that, for children between the ages of 13 and 16, the defendant must obtain the childs permission as well as the permission of the childs parent or guardian. Seemingly, the defendant might face conviction for a felony because of the defendants failure to obtain the childs permission, even though the defendant reasonably believed that only the parent or guardians permission was needed. Apr 19 06 12:35 pm Link BasementStudios wrote: In fact I did exactly that before I made the post. First you posted claiming that in some states it was illegal to photograph minors. Then you posted claiming nobody had said that it was illegal to photograph minors. Then you posted claiming that in Oregon (and other states) it is illegal to photograph minors. Apr 19 06 12:37 pm Link BasementStudios wrote: This isn't a flame but can anyone site a single statute from any U.S. state that makes it illegal to simply take a photo of a minor without parental consent? Apr 19 06 12:38 pm Link Kaitlin Lara wrote: No, they aren't, but I don't suppose this is a good time to get into that again. Apr 19 06 12:39 pm Link lol. it is easy to take anyone photos. but a rule of thumb always ask the folk's. better safe that sorry. Apr 19 06 12:41 pm Link TXPhotog wrote: No FIRST I responded to a post that people were saying it was illegal, I responded that no one had said AT THAT point that it was illegal. Apr 19 06 12:41 pm Link A very dangerous practice... Be careful. Apr 19 06 12:42 pm Link BasementStudios wrote: Why are you contradicting yourself. Didn't you said it was ilegal in oregon. Apr 19 06 12:43 pm Link BasementStudios wrote: Once again, what specifically is the law in Oregon that makes it illegal to take pictures of minors without their consent? You claim it as "a fact" but provide no evidence for that claimed fact. Apr 19 06 12:43 pm Link |
