|
Forums >
General Industry >
Underage models.
Chris Macan wrote: Honestly? Because no matter how much shooting I do how many girls I meet, I'm still SHY. I was at BJ's, it's a restaurant out here in CA, not sure if they are all over the country. It took me forever to work up the nerve to approach one of the hostesses and give her my card. May 22 06 03:47 pm Link DigitalCMH wrote: You need a P.A. May 22 06 04:15 pm Link I find this thread very interesting. I had the exact same thing happen to me. However, at the time the model was 15 years old. She wanted Maxim/lingerie style of shots. My first reply was "For me to do anything near that type of shoot, I'd need a written, contractual consent from your parent/guardian." Her reply had nothing to do with this statement and was just asking about possible locations/clothes to bring etc. Upon repeating the need for parent/guardian concent, she stopped replying all together. Her OMP profile is now reactivated and she's stating that she's 18 years old. The original mail was sent 2 years ago. I'm not a math expert by any means, but I could swear that 15+2 is ... *counts on fingers*... 17. Since both your and my reactions were the same, you can see I side with what you did. It scares me how many GWC's out there would do it at the drop of a hat. What kind of sticky situation could this girl fall into? There's no moral/ethical code amongst photographers, professional or amature so I guess it's up to the individuals to make the right calls and you sir did just that. And to the guy with the reply about the posted image "don't like the composition and lighting"... thanks... I spit Pepsi all over my monitor and keyboard when I read that. May 22 06 10:57 pm Link Well if you want to work with her let her know you will not shoot any tasteful nudity until she is 18. You could still shoot headshots, fashion, casual, and swimsuit with her. You can be sexy in pics with clothes on. May 22 06 11:03 pm Link Not to get off-topic, but I'm personally waiting for the government to require blues musicians submit USC 2257 documentation before playing "Good Morning Little Schoolgirl." May 22 06 11:08 pm Link I think you made exactly the right choice. Good for you. May 23 06 12:03 am Link Melvin Moten Jr wrote: Good Morning Little School Girl w/o 2257 documentation is allowed if played on a vintage strat by a player who's fingers are tobacco stained from non-filter Camels! May 23 06 12:05 am Link You made the right choice. Unless part of your gig is being a talent scout, or trying to discover the next supermodel, there is never really a good reason to shoot an underage model in "sexy" attire or adult situations. Most models that are underage have very supportive parents a/o guardians, who take an interest in what they are doing. Also, commercially, its true that many, if not the majority of models are under age, but they are booked through agencies, etc., so all the legalities are taken care of, and you and your client know what the deal is. I have never had an underage girl take me up on the same offer of letting me speak to a guardian/parent, and also accept being accompanied by a guardian/adult to the shoot. The only people who will claim I'm wrong are underage models who want sexy pictures, and GWC's who want to take them. Not worth the hassle man. Kudos to you! May 23 06 09:47 am Link Yup several experiences I came across where the under age gal was actually a man... maybe looking for stories like -shoot with X he will do a great job and doesnt care about the law- but, thats another thing! May 23 06 10:50 am Link Weird, I had a 17 yr old this past weekend tell me that she wanted to model, and wanted to do some Maxim-type stuff and would even be willing to do some nudes as long as they weren't porn. She also said that her Mom would sign any kind of release, but somehow I'd be hesitant to believe that any signature actually came from Mom. She said that her friend is a 19 yr old model, yada yada yada... I told her to feel free to call me in Nov when she's officially 18, but I'd be uncomfortable shooting Maxim/FHM pics of a 17 yr old. Maybe I'm just getting too old.... May 23 06 11:04 am Link not in the least! May 23 06 11:05 am Link You did do the right thing, I just think you should have asked mild questions about the type of modelling she is really trying to get into, and maybe schooled her a bit if you knew anything about it. Sometimes a little goes a long way. She was obviously ill-informed and so was her mother. You might think these people don't listen, but as long as you werent putting them through a guilt trip....i'm almost sure that it may stick with them for a bit (or even wake up them) unless they are really that ignorant. May 23 06 11:09 am Link Jan 09 07 02:58 pm Link Christopher Hartman wrote: This is not sexually bothersome. However, it isn't sexy either. The model wanted sexy. Jan 09 07 03:11 pm Link Escorts, Underage models, GWC's, pay vs. tfp... It's amazing anybody performs any shoots. I will spray my Starbucks all over my desk if I can go one day without these topics being the forum frontrunners. You didn't feel comfortable working with her. Great. Another photographer feels comfortable shooting a minor in swimwear. Wonderful. I don't think turning it down makes one less of a GWC just as I don't think agreeing to the shoot would define a photographer as one. Jan 09 07 03:16 pm Link Carmilla wrote: good answer,(above) but i would not do ANY type pics if the girl is under 18. mom MUST be with her till she is 18 and then I've shot some that had just turned 18 and wished i hadn't. some, are just not mature enough yet. Jan 09 07 03:17 pm Link Odin's Eye wrote: I'm more than a little confused how this relates to a legitimate photographer's decision to shoot swimear for an underage model? Wait. I get it. Porn bad right? Ok. Jan 09 07 03:22 pm Link some nuts peoples.... heres a pic of a just turned 15yo katarina..6 foot tall..been in vogue, teen vogue, seventeen and national dillards ads..i have been shooting her since she was 13... age doesnt matter..but intentions do....my intention of this image was to show a beautiful young woman on the beach at sunset...   Jan 09 07 04:19 pm Link Odin's Eye wrote: This article and the post above me are very valid in pointing out it is all about INTENTION. A naked girl on stool doing nothing with a blank stare is no big deal, but a picture of a CLOTHED girl with her legs spread and a sexual look on her face is another deal altogether. Jan 09 07 05:04 pm Link semi-pointless to talk about it, no perv is going to defend his position, everyone else is in favor of not hurting kids, by definition anyone who posts is also well intended.. has nothing to do with guts, has to do more with respect for other people's feelings.. personaly i dont like being around kids all that much, i just feel more comfortible around old gezers like myself what i worry about is a backlash against the 'implied teen trade' that restricts freedom of speech... in that sense pervs could hurt even more people than they already do.. Jan 09 07 06:43 pm Link Doug Swinskey wrote: Go DOUG ! Jan 09 07 06:47 pm Link ward wrote: the point of all these discussions isn't so much that there are double standerds, it's that there are pervs who exploit kids Jan 09 07 06:51 pm Link Has anybody noticed that this thread is quite old, and that the model in question turned 18 several months ago? Jan 09 07 07:31 pm Link TXPhotog wrote: i noticed the thread was old, the part where she turn 18 a few mos ago is ironic, just goes to show.. patience is it's own reward Jan 09 07 08:05 pm Link well I'm 17 my parents are supportive and accompany me to the shoots i don't understand why she didn't do the same in your case Jan 09 07 10:29 pm Link BCI Photo wrote: http://www.russianbare.com/en/details/5 … mping.html Jan 10 07 09:21 am Link Miguel Angel Paredes wrote: It sounds like this individual is not a model, and you caught her in a lie. Jan 10 07 09:55 am Link odd that site is in operation, and the guys who run the offshore gambling sites are so "wanted" here in the u.s. ... do you think if the government was loosing tax revenue on kiddy porn, (or if they found a way to profit from it) do you think then their attitude about such things would change? besides in the naturalists site i saw nothing "sexy", i suspect they are taking advantage of the Jock Sturges decisions and presidents. either way the discussion at hand is a minor soliciting work with the promise of a willingness to shoot illegal images, a model who has already been caught in a lie. who once again "promises" unrestricted cooperation from her mother. personally i don't bother with anyone who cannot sign the legal documents i need to use the work in a manner that makes it "profitable" enough to invest my time in the first place. if it was the mother contacting me for work, that might be different. on mothers, unless i am wrong Roman PolaÅski had the mothers consent to "photograph" the child which caused him to flee the u.s. (a mother who encouraged her daughter to cooperate with him in "every way") ... one wonders whether he would have had to flee at all had he been able to cast that girl in a film, in a timely manner. one only needs to look at the sordid history of "elite model management" to understand my point. no way do you engage in commerce with a minor under such circumstances. unless you have lots of money and are willing to flee from the u.s. and your primary market. t Ty Simone wrote: Jan 10 07 10:03 am Link |
