|
Forums >
General Industry >
He's sixteen, now what do I do?
I had a photographer contact me today that wanted contact information for one of the models in my portfolio. The model and session in my portfolio involved artistic nude work. I don't consider myself a model manager and I don't try to horde models but I always ask the model if it's all right to pass along that information before I do. And before I go to the model, I usually check out the photographers work in case I'm asked my opinion. First impression; nice stuff. Then I noticed the age in the profile - he's 16. Time out! I know there's not a lot of lawyers lurking around here (thank God!) but would the model, if she consented to the session, not have a potential legal problem? Suggestions? Feb 15 06 09:01 am Link I am nowhere near being a lawyer, but I do believe that if you or the model were to have this young artist's parent(s) permission (in writing), all should be fine. Feb 15 06 09:09 am Link i shot my first nudes when i was 17...they were so bad i didnt shoot a model nude again until i felt i knew what i was doing... Feb 15 06 09:16 am Link To enter into a contract you need to be 18 years old. So your question is valid and the photographer would need to have a parent or guardian's signature to enter into a contractual agreement. However this also holds the photographerâs parents liable for any damages or copyright infringement from the shoot that may affect the model. I donât think that a 16 year old photographer would be that concerned with obtaining a models release. At 16 all I wanted to shoot was cars and chicks  Feb 15 06 09:18 am Link C R Photography wrote: You say that as if it changes somewhere down the line? Feb 15 06 09:22 am Link Fred Prose wrote:
Feb 15 06 09:27 am Link You don't say - but are you jumping to the conclusion that he wants to shoot her nude?? I'm not sure about the USA, but in most countries around the world, 16 year olds can quite legally have a sexual relationship, so why are we questioning a 16 year old photographer? If he's good enough to shoot models and you've thought ' Nice work', why not nudes? If done in a controlled environment, perhaps under the direction of a more experienced photographer in a studio, then why not?? Are we just jealous that a 16 year old has the ability, and confidence to take on thsi subject at an age we couldn't? Feb 15 06 09:28 am Link Interesting. In the UK we have a whole raft of laws preventing the explotation of minors at work. But a minor as an employer? Now there's a gap in the law, surely? Feb 15 06 09:35 am Link SimonL wrote: You are correct, that is an assumption on my part. SimonL wrote: Well, in the USA, 16 isn't OK in most (or all states). And it certainly isn't OK for me to shoot an under-18 nude. The grey line is parental consent. But I wouldn't even come close to that line. Feb 15 06 09:39 am Link Fred Prose wrote: In most states, the age on consent is 16--but even that sometimes depends on the age of one's partner. Feb 15 06 09:54 am Link There are three seperate issues at hand. The first involves taking pictures, the second involves contracts, and the third involves child endangerment. Fortunately, our first amendment rights have not been reduced to the point where it is illegal for a 16 year old to use a camera. It is even still legal for a 16 year old to take pictures of people regardless of age (of either model or photographer). The 16 year old is not old enough to enter into a legally binding two-party agreement or contract, but that doesn't stop a model over the age of 18 to sign a model release (one-party agreement) for the use of her likeness. The model is the only person (if over the age of 18) that must sign a model release. If someone is incorporating other contractual terms or agreements into a model release requiring a two-party agreement, then both parties must be of legal age to enter into a contract or agreement. But let's not forget, there are plenty of people who do photography for the sheer enjoyment of it, and they don't even want a model release. One example would be for someone who is taking pictures just to learn the craft, improve upon skills, or just to create art. It is also perfectly legal for a 16 year old to purchase goods and services, even modeling services. You don't see anyone carding minors when they are buying other goods and services like hiring a cab driver or getting a haircut. The third issue about child endangerment still applies wether or not pictures are being taken. All adults are required not to harm or exploit children per applicable federal and state laws, but as long as a model conducts her behavior towards the minor in an age-appropriate manner then everything will be just fine. Minors take pictures of adults every day, there is nothing weird about it unless the adult makes it weird. The final decision as to wether you want to pass the referral on to the model is ultimately your own personal decision, so do whatever you are comfortable with. Jim Feb 15 06 10:44 am Link Fred Prose wrote: SimonL wrote: You are correct, that is an assumption on my part. I would find it un-acceptable to shoot an Under-18 nude, especially when there are always plenty of Over-18 models that could do the job, probably a whole lot better.. Feb 15 06 10:52 am Link RED Photographic wrote: No not quite... anyone U-18 can not generally make contracts - written or oral, or sign legally binding documents like a model release or image license, in the UK and so there would HAVE to be an adult behind a junior entrepreneur IN EVERY CASE. Feb 15 06 10:57 am Link Jim Goodwin wrote: Jim has made a very good point here. A release signed by a model is essentially a consent granted by one to another. It is not a contract between the parties. A model who is 18 years old could give consent to a sixteen year old to publish a photo. The age of the photographer doesn't present an issue there. Feb 15 06 11:02 am Link Alan from Aavian Prod wrote: But who has to be age appropriate - the photographer or the model? Feb 15 06 11:06 am Link I agree with others who point out that the photographer's age is irrelevant to the issue of the model release, provided it is a typical standard release. Normally, the release is ONLY signed by the model, granting permission to use his/her likeness for commercial purposes. So as long as the model is 18+, then that is a non-issue. I'm wandering into areas of the law that I am not certain about, but generally speaking, the indecency laws are set up to protect the innocent minor victim from exploitation... that victim being the model. SimonL makes a good point. In this case, the model is an adult, and therefore photos taken of her would not be indecent. I'm not sure that the fact that the photographer is a 16 year old makes any difference. The photographer is not nude, and assuming that this is an above board art shoot, the photographer is neither indecent nor exploited. Strictly speaking, I'm not sure that that would actually violate any laws. Feb 15 06 11:37 am Link Scott Aitken wrote: Strictly speaking it might if a "harm" model ["model", that is, from a legal standpoint] is applied. Does it "harm" the minor to see, or be in the presence of, someone nude even if they are not? Feb 15 06 12:04 pm Link If she is aware that he is sixteen, and he is made aware that any taking photographs of a sexual or nude nature could bring legal ramifications for both of them, then I see no problem with them shooting. Just because she shoots nude doesn't mean she can't shoot with her clothes on. I think I may know what photographer you are speaking of...he seems pretty intelligent, I am sure that he can be reasoned with. Feb 15 06 12:11 pm Link Would it really be any different if a minor were to take an art class where they studied human form? If you look at it from this perspective you would think the parents would need to assume all responsablity for the minor in this setting. Which would also allow any such young talent an adult to handle the signing of any agreements or contracts with another party. Since it would be considered "art" the issues of contributing to would not apply unless it were pushed by an extremely distorted D.A. I just thought about what I put here, and couldn't this also apply to any models wishing to have photos taken of them? But as we know anything of that nature is considered "child pornography." Feb 15 06 12:17 pm Link This issue gets posted about every 3 months on a photo board somewhere. Can a 16 year old take photos of a consenting nude 18+ model. Yes, he can. If he does, who will be in trouble if any trouble is to be had? The model. Then the debate starts over what is "art" and what is "harmfull" etc. Then you get into the fact that parents can take a kid into a movie with some minor nudity and nobody would think they should be prosecuted. It's an "urban legend" kind of question. An argument can be fashioned that there is nothing wrong with the situation. But an argument can be fashioned that could get the model into trouble. Why risk it. A 16 year old can enter a contract with an adult. The 16 year old can enforce the contract. It's the adult who may have a problem with enforceability if the kid is a minor. The "minority" issue is a sword for the minor if he trying to get out of a contract. It does nothing for the adult who is trying to breach the contract. It's designed to keep people from "overeaching" minors. It's not designed to keep smart 16 years olds from engaging in business. Mark Feb 15 06 12:32 pm Link Brian Diaz wrote: i know in ohio here that if you shoot or get shot by a minor its corrupting a minor then somehow falls under the child endangerment as well as child abuse but im no lawyer Feb 15 06 12:36 pm Link One would think it OK for a 16 yearold to take nude photographs ....(if one of his parents were present ..But it would still be considered corruption of a minor ..(hey a parent can't hire a stripper gram for a 16 year ols ....) ....so I'd wash your hands of whole deal . Feb 15 06 12:56 pm Link It is perfectly legal for an underage photographer to shoot artistic nudes. I have known a few who have done it,as well.As long as no explicit shots are done everything is fine. Feb 15 06 01:18 pm Link Glamour Boulevard wrote: Until/unless someone decides to make an issue of it. Then the MODEL in question gets into trouble. Feb 15 06 01:50 pm Link BammBizzle wrote: When you say "corruption of a minor" what you are saying is that the model might get in trouble. I think that is possible, depending on how explicit the photos are, but I am not sure the photographer would (so long as the model was over 18). Feb 15 06 02:25 pm Link We're all jumping to the conclusion that the photographer wants to shoot her nude. Just because the model has posed nude, doesn't mean that every photographer (16 or otherwise) wants to photograph her nude. It may not even have occurred to him to do that sort of work. So perhaps there is the first question to be asked of him - 'What work is he wanting to do with her?' 'It is fitting that there should be a solemn pause, before we Rush to Judgement' Feb 16 06 06:10 am Link I stopped REading all the Trash in this thread so, If someone got it all correct, Please forgive me. First, there is no law anywhere about shooting a person in the nude, minor or not, being illegal, whether the photographer is a minor or not. Again, ANYONE can photograph ANYONE, in any state of undress, regardless of age, PROVIDED THAT, The images are nudes, and are not pornographic. Pronography only requires both the shooter and the Photographer to be above 18. NOW, having said that, There are states where it is illegal for a person of Majority to get undressed in front of a person of minority. However, there are usually waivers and exceptions for artistic purposes. That is the only law you need to check on as far as the nudity goes. As far as model release / contract etc... However said a 16 year old can not enter a legally binding contract, does not understand contract law. First, just so we are clear, This is a Work Contract and a Model Release. A minor can enter into a work contract as early as age 14, depending on the state and the laws there. HOWEVER, to bypass that and apply it to all 50 states, A minor simply needs to be the Authorized Signer of a Corporation, and that resolves all issues. Say what? A corporation is a legal entity. There is no legal limit to the age of an authorized signer, and with very few exceptions, no limit at all. They can be martians that are 2 years old and as long they are listed as authorized signers by the Corporation, they can enter a legally binding contract. Also, Emancipated Youths, and Youth Business Owners can also enter into legally binding contracts, provided that the YBO has approval for the business by an adult and authorization from the courts (which is usually a minor technicality in those jurisdictions that allow it. I entered into my first contract at age 14, without parental consent. Now, As for the original question, you should pass along his information to the model. You should treat him like a photographer, regardless of his age, and judge him only on his work. My 2.5 Cents worth It appears that Dick Cheney was foiled in his attempt to erase the last mistake of Bush Senior. Not only did he shoot his friend while hunting, He was targetting the wrong Quayle....... Feb 16 06 06:33 am Link Ty Simone wrote: 1) Amen.. Feb 16 06 08:20 am Link Fred Prose wrote: SimonL wrote: Well, in the USA, 16 isn't OK in most (or all states). And it certainly isn't OK for me to shoot an under-18 nude. The grey line is parental consent. But I wouldn't even come close to that line. BammBizzle wrote: DeBoer Photography wrote: No wonder why so many people get the wrong idea about the morality views of those who live here in the US...it's amazing how many of our citizens don't even know what they're talking about... Gunfitr wrote: For two reasons Mark... Feb 16 06 08:26 am Link If someone has said this already, I apologize. In some states it is illegal for an adult to expose thier nude body in the sight of a child. I think it's called "exposing yourself to a minor". I'd tell the model to ask about that before the shoot to be sure she didn't get into trouble. Feb 16 06 08:30 am Link Djinn Photographic wrote: Someone quote one of these laws...because I've yet to hear of one nor can I find example of one on the internet. Feb 16 06 08:33 am Link JJ...being a jailhouse lawyer will not help...ignorance is not bliss when it comes to the law. Feb 16 06 08:46 am Link James Jackson wrote: I havn't found any laws on it, but I'm looking. I only brought it up in case the model would like to look into it, just to be sure. No need to be rude. BCG wrote: My point exactly. Feb 16 06 08:48 am Link BCG wrote: Exactly my point...and unless you've suddenly gotten "ESQ." after your name my assertion holds the same: Quote the law that you're assuming everyone would be breaking or shove it because you are ignorant of it. Feb 16 06 08:51 am Link Djinn Photographic wrote: Please...don't assume me rude just because I don't agree with you...when I'm being rude to you I assure you that it wouldn't be mistaken for something this pleasant. Feb 16 06 08:53 am Link James Jackson wrote: as a graduate of the Harvard Scool of law, i would advise that you stay away from dispensing ANY legal advice until you are licensed to do so. Feb 16 06 08:55 am Link James Jackson wrote: You folks need to seriously find out what you're talking about sometimes. If you didn't intend to be rude, then I apologize. Although, how you are phrasing things, it is difficult to see them as anything else. Feb 16 06 08:57 am Link James Jackson wrote: you just snitch to the mods...you let them do your work for you. Feb 16 06 08:57 am Link Djinn Photographic wrote: You folks need to seriously find out what you're talking about sometimes. If you didn't intend to be rude, then I apologize. Although, how you are phrasing things, it is difficult to see them as anything else. Yes...I apologize. I've been told that many times throughout my life...I just try to state things mater of fact-ly, but they seem to come out with a personal perspective skew to those I'm talking to. I apologize if I offended...I didn't mean to. That specific quote was meant as an overall more general assessment of Americans talking politics...not just you in specific. Feb 16 06 09:08 am Link BCG wrote: Is this like that time you were the ruler of a small country...or like that time you photographed Bill Clinton...or... Feb 16 06 09:09 am Link |
