Christopher Ambler wrote:
Waivers aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

If someone comes in to my studio to ask for a jump start, they're covered under blanket liability - but if a model brings an escort and s/he stays beyond the casual entry, that creates a very different liability profile.

Paying them does not create an employee/contractor relationship and would be seen by an insurance company as an attempt to create coverage where none was paid-for.

Even a trade shoot, as I said, is compensation for bona fide purposes (modeling). Having the escort sign a release and contract for a trade shoot would, again, be seen as a way to get around the insurance unless it were, indeed, an actual shoot. Clearly, it would not be.

So again, these are all great suggestions as to how to "get around" the liability situation, but that's all they are. I've even had this discussion with my insurance agent who came up with even more ways to get around it, all of which we agreed would be great, in theory, until I had an actual claim, at which point the claim would be denied, at best, and I'd be found to be acting in a fraudulent manner, at worst.

I don't like the at best, much less the at worst.

But that's me. I'm funny that way.

Why don't you just continue to not allow them??? You obviously can't find any reason to allow them, nor do you want to, so why all the questions???

Christopher Ambler wrote:

Jordan May wrote:
Prepare a contract that clearly states you are not responsible for the safety of the models provided escort. Have both the model and escort sign it. Problem solved.

Problem not solved. Such a contract is meaningless, as one cannot waive such rights. Please consult your attorney if you do not agree.


If $40 a month isn't so much, please send the check. Otherwise, your point is moot.

As for trade, that's still payment, just in-kind as opposed to cash. It's still a contracted business arrangement. Not even close to hiring the escort for $1.

And let's be clear - that's not $450 total. That's $450 on top of what I already pay for business liability, theft and E&O insurance. Since I'm not a retail business, I don't have to insure myself against the general public coming in. My insurance covers me in my course of business. Since I don't have an open storefront to the general public, that's an option. A $450 option.

But again, since you're so cavalier with my money, please send me the $450 for this year's premium and I'll gladly shut up.

I'm not the one who said it was "not a lot" YOU said that in your previous reply to my post.

I'm confused.  What the heck is the purpose of this thread?  Do you want to allow escorts or not?

If you don't want escorts, say "No escorts allowed"  If you do want escorts, pony up the money and stop shooting people down.  Easy.

Olaf S wrote:
I'm confused.  What the heck is the purpose of this thread?  Do you want to allow escorts or not?

If you don't want escorts, say "No escorts allowed"  If you do want escorts, pony up the money and stop shooting people down.  Easy.

Let's assume that I have no problems with escorts. Let's assume that they don't bother me at all.

But let's also assume that it's going to cost me an extra $450 a year to have insurance coverage for them.

Should I pay this $450? Can I charge the escorts or models their share? I'm all for a model feeling comfortable, but should I be forced to pay for that? I'm happy to offer models free shoots in trade - but now, if I allow escorts, perhaps I can't, since those escorts are going to cost me money.

It's not about whether I allow escorts or not. It's about the fact that allowing them is going to cost me roughly $450 a year.

Fair?

UIPHOTOS wrote:
Chris, it is obvious they dont get it.. it seems that most on here dont have insurance for themselves let alone for anything else.. So they cant understand having something to lose or being sued.. Hence the responses..

I am not spending an extra dime so some fear monger can sit in front of my camera.. like you said, it makes the choices easy..

This has to do with insurance, right?  That means anyone who comes into his studio that is not being paid.  So I suppose he pays the MUA and any assistant he has working for him.

A "fear monger" is someone who promotes fear, right?  Well I'm not afraid to go without insurance.  I have little or nothing to lose from anyone, so I'm not likely to get dragged into civil court. People who have something to lose need insurance.  People who own houses, property, etc.  But I soon hope to be back on my feet financially and able to buy insurance. It is due to health problems that a lack of health insurance put me in the place I'm in. So insurance is good for those who can afford it.

Why all the beating around the bush?  I've provided a top 10 list of things for models and photographers to consider about escorts.  It's not a cut and dry topic, it is subjective meaning subject to opinion. No right or wrong. However if this is about escorts, then just say you don't allow escorts.  It's that simple!

Christopher Ambler wrote:
Let's assume that I have no problems with escorts. Let's assume that they don't bother me at all.

But let's also assume that it's going to cost me an extra $450 a year to have insurance coverage for them.

Should I pay this $450? Can I charge the escorts or models their share? I'm all for a model feeling comfortable, but should I be forced to pay for that? I'm happy to offer models free shoots in trade - but now, if I allow escorts, perhaps I can't, since those escorts are going to cost me money.

It's not about whether I allow escorts or not. It's about the fact that allowing them is going to cost me roughly $450 a year.

Fair?

Geez Chris!  If you have a problem with paying it, then simply don't allow escorts!  End of story.

Why do you want help allowing escorts?  Are you saying that you want models to pay you more?

Patrick Walberg wrote:
This has to do with insurance, right?  That means anyone who comes into his studio that is not being paid.  So I suppose he pays the MUA and any assistant he has working for him.

Geez Chris!  If you have a problem with paying it, then simply don't allow escorts!  End of story.

Why do you want help allowing escorts?  Are you saying that you want models to pay you more?

yes, the makeup artist and assistants are always compensated by me.

Of course I'd like models to pay me more. I'd also like the government to tax me less, but I'm not expecting either to happen :-)

I've been asked many times why I don't allow escorts. This is a major reason. This is, indeed, the major reason. But since I seem to get a lot of flak from the "you must allow escorts or you're a hideous foul creature" crowd, I'm giving them a chance to help me solve this problem.

Because surely they won't say that I must put myself at risk or pay an extra $450 a year simply to accede to their demand that I allow escorts.

Vera van Munster wrote:
Anyone that steps onto your property could get hurt.I dont see how you paying them means they couldnt sue you still.I dont even see how that's at all logical.Say a Model breaks her ankle while posing.She got hurt at your business, so she could still TRY and sue you couldnt she? Not saying it would hold up, but still.

I believe you're missing the point, likely because I wasn't clear.

Anyone that steps on to my property can get hurt and sue. But if I'm paying them or otherwise in a business relationship, my insurance will cover me in such a situation.

If, on the other hand, that person is not involved with my business, I'm not covered. That's a risk I'm not prepared to take.

So I don't allow anyone in the studio who would not fall under my coverage. Models, artists, assistants, contractors, employees... all covered. Escorts, friends, and other people not associated with the shoot are not covered.

When we have a gallery show, I purchase a banquet license (that lets us serve wine) as well as a one-night umbrella coverage. That's a cost I assume to have the gallery show.

Should I also cover that cost for escorts? Is that fair?

DMP Studios wrote:
have a waiver document drawn up similiar to what you sign when your covering motorsport or dangerous activities ,once a signature is on it your liability ends.

Sadly, this is not true at all. Please consult an attorney and ask about liability waivers and negligence. Anyone can sue, for any reason, and without insurance coverage, I would have to defend such a suit out of my own pocket.

Christopher Ambler wrote:

yes, the makeup artist and assistants are always compensated by me.

Of course I'd like models to pay me more. I'd also like the government to tax me less, but I'm not expecting either to happen :-)

I've been asked many times why I don't allow escorts. This is a major reason. This is, indeed, the major reason. But since I seem to get a lot of flak from the "you must allow escorts or you're a hideous foul creature" crowd, I'm giving them a chance to help me solve this problem.

Because surely they won't say that I must put myself at risk or pay an extra $450 a year simply to accede to their demand that I allow escorts.

I'm with you on all that!  I wish I made more money and paid less taxes too!  It would eliminate some problems if I made more money and could pay the models more too.  And if models are paying me, it's always nice to get a little more, eh!

With the cost of insurance and doing business in general, you have a valid reason for your not allowing escorts.  It is also your choice, and you don't need to say more than "No, I don't allow escorts due to expenses of insurance.  If you want to have someone drive you and wait outside, that is fine!" 

I find it pitiful that people here would push their agenda by making statements about either side on this issue that is nothing more than being pushy.  Any model who would say that you must be a creep because you don't allow escorts is being presumptuous and disrespectful.  The same goes for any photographer who claims that models should never have an escort.  Both sides talk about fear mongering, yet they are doing the same thing towards each other. 

So anyone with such a strong personal bias on either side should take a step back from the computer and consider that maybe not everyone thinks like you do?  All people! Let's show respect towards those whose opinions differs from our own.  Thank you!