Pat Yuen wrote:
In the U.S., all legitimate photographers will require the parents/guardians to sign a release.

Not necessarily. There is at least one photographer here on MM who is well liked and does great work who has shot with a 17 year old model I know who asks me for advice here and there. Her mom won`t sign model releases. He shot her without a release or any parent present.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

Not necessarily. There is at least one photographer here on MM who is well liked and does great work who has shot with a 17 year old model I know who asks me for advice here and there. Her mom won`t sign model releases. He shot her without a release or any parent present.

Here we go again! 


I do it all the time.  The 'fear' is ridiculous.  I sometimes get a release signed, some I don't. The girl in your port looks pretty young.  Wal-Mart uses teen girls in their sale flyers.  Damn, how do school yearbooks get made???  I see no "releases" signed at Olan Mills.

Darkangel6875 wrote:
I think using uderage is wrong anyways. I think there should be an age limit unless parents are there and a released is sign. As for teenagers being in advertizing there is a release signed.

I been through many states and have read laws on minors poses for photographers. So if you like taking photos of minors be aware there can be some trouble.

There have been countless threads on this, even with me explaining my run-in with the authorities on it and what I was told by them.  There is NOTHING illegal in shooting under 18.  PORNOGRAPHY is what is illegal under 18.  I had detectives go through images I had shot with a girl, 17, in lingerie.  They brought my camera back, told me there was NOTHING illegal in any image I shot.  They were NOT pornographic.  THAT is the key.  If something is illegal, a model release does not magically make it legal.  Let's stop spreading needless fear!

Bryanna Nicole wrote:
I happen to be a mom of one of the younger members of MM - lets face it, the majority of top models are just starting out at the age of 13-17..  so why on earth would you keep your distance from them and not shoot them? Maybe I just don't understand yet.. I haven't been in this long enough to I guess..

I think what it all boils down to is this.. responsiblity -

I for one sign a release and get a copy of that release everytime my daughter is photographed. (save twice - and gentlemen, you know who you are ;o)

If the photographer refuses.. simple, they don't shoot her - it should be the same for a photographer - if I refuse - they don't shoot her - why would someone refuse to sign a release? Unless they are keeping a door open for something in the future.. I mean - if I refuse to sign a release, the shoot goes on anyway.. and I see my kids shots posted on the net.. without a release, that photog is in a heap of trouble if I want to be nasty.

I ask for a release, for the protection of all parties concerned, whether its tfcd for promotional use or not..  - and just an FYI - any legal document ( a simple release included ) is null and void if signed by anyone under 18. I took the time to speak to my lawyer about a few things before we started this endeavor. He suggested dual signatures at all times, Bryanna reading and understanding what she is signing, and me signing that we both understand the terms and never leaving without a copy of what we are signing. He also suggested writing up our own release, and keeping it on hand, just in case a photographer doesn't have one.

However - being in the information technology field, I know damned well if a photog sold a picture of my kid in China, chances would be slim I would ever find out. That.. is the unfortunate part of the internet.

There is a simple solution to your "soccer mom" dilemma..  cash or prepay paypal ;o)

And those yearbook photos?  In the state of New Jersey, we as parents sign a "blanket release" at the beginning of the year to cover any images taken of the kids for anything pertaining to the school. In fact, last year I was the chair of the graduation committe.. wanted to take a few candids of the kids for the graduation dance..  they shot me down cold, told me the releases they had didn't cover anything taken on school grounds by someone not hired or employed by the school system and the images had to be used in the school - not at the banquet hall we were having the function at.

You'd be surprised how much is done illegally, simply because of our ignorance to what we should actually be doing.

Tracy

Thank You!  Great post.  BTW, the model in my avatar is 17 and is setting up her own profile here as well. 

Doug Jantz wrote:

There have been countless threads on this, even with me explaining my run-in with the authorities on it and what I was told by them.  There is NOTHING illegal in shooting under 18.  PORNOGRAPHY is what is illegal under 18.  I had detectives go through images I had shot with a girl, 17, in lingerie.  They brought my camera back, told me there was NOTHING illegal in any image I shot.  They were NOT pornographic.  THAT is the key.  If something is illegal, a model release does not magically make it legal.  Let's stop spreading needless fear!

that was your experience , they easily could have arrested and tried you anyway.  it just depends on the d.a. that looks at your pics.   again whats the damn point there are a ton of 18yo girls out there.   sounds like a millionaire shoplifting , just getting your kicks.

darkfotoart wrote:

that was your experience , they easily could have arrested and tried you anyway.  it just depends on the d.a. that looks at your pics.   again whats the damn point there are a ton of 18yo girls out there.   sounds like a millionaire shoplifting , just getting your kicks.

Shows what you know.  I was ASKED to shoot, so I do.  Both by their mothers. Be careful assigning motives to someone you don't know.  I happen to have a very good reputation. 

Always saying "what if" doesn't prove anything.  Some on here always say that, then when one present an ACTUAL case of something happening, that is dismissed, too.  The LAW does not forbid shooting under 18.  In fact, the fear of it makes no sense whatsoever.  How do you think all the 16-17 year old models are on this very site???  You think MM may get shut down??  OMG!!!!!

Doug Jantz wrote:

Shows what you know.  I was ASKED to shoot, so I do.  Both by their mothers. Be careful assigning motives to someone you don't know.  I happen to have a very good reputation. 

Always saying "what if" doesn't prove anything.  Some on here always say that, then when one present an ACTUAL case of something happening, that is dismissed, too.  The LAW does not forbid shooting under 18.  In fact, the fear of it makes no sense whatsoever.  How do you think all the 16-17 year old models are on this very site???  You think MM may get shut down??  OMG!!!!!

you are talking to the king of underage models my friend.   im not wreckless about it.   i mostly shoot girls 4-10 years old a little over 1100  different models 10 or younger so far.  i use them for fitting concepts  , like tea parties with spodes tower china.    pictures of a cute 4yo with vintage barbies  do well.    if im taking underwear pics its sexy shots then i need a 18yo becouse your selling sexy pics.  my point is theres no reason for sexy 17 year olds in their panties.    a 18 year old playing with a barbie would just look silly.

darkfotoart wrote:
i can see minors for advertising , but really to me a 11-17 yo has no real value.    a 4-10 year old has a whole different market as a model than an adult.   but a borderline girl is just a risk for no good reason.   and if you use a 16-17yo without permission in some areas you can get 90 days for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. ( true in mich.  happened to a friend )

darkfotoart wrote:
you are talking to the king of underage models my friend.   im not wreckless about it.   i mostly shoot girls 4-10 years old a little over 1100  different models 10 or younger so far.  i use them for fitting concepts  , like tea parties with spodes tower china.    pictures of a cute 4yo with vintage barbies  do well.    if im taking underwear pics its sexy shots then i need a 18yo becouse your selling sexy pics.  my point is theres no reason for sexy 17 year olds in their panties.    a 18 year old playing with a barbie would just look silly.

But reading your first post - It totally didn't read that way for me. (and probably the rest of the people on this thread)

UnoMundo Photography wrote:
eff em..  Soccer Moms checks bounce like soccer balls.

That where 80% of my bounced checks came from. Moms with teenage divas.

how do you recoup the money after they wrote you a rubber check?

TXPhotog wrote:
Doug, you can't win this conversation.  It's been had over and over and over again, and no matter how many times it is discussed, it still goes the same way.  Somebody claims that shooting minors is illegal, or that a release is needed to shoot, or that the DA will come and take you away, ho ho.  All sorts of scary, fear-filled notions that simply cannot be disputed.  Fear wins over rationality every single time.

LOL.  You are correct.  And a historical post!  We actually agree on this one. 

Bryanna Nicole wrote:
I for one sign a release and get a copy of that release everytime my daughter is photographed. (save twice - and gentlemen, you know who you are ;o)

If the photographer refuses.. simple, they don't shoot her - it should be the same for a photographer - if I refuse - they don't shoot her - why would someone refuse to sign a release? Unless they are keeping a door open for something in the future.. I mean - if I refuse to sign a release, the shoot goes on anyway.. and I see my kids shots posted on the net.. without a release, that photog is in a heap of trouble if I want to be nasty.

I ask for a release, for the protection of all parties concerned, whether its tfcd for promotional use or not..

I have mixed feelings about your post, Tracy.  In part that's because your daughter is absolutely stunning, and I'm sure there is a future for her in modeling, especially if she happens to get an inch or two taller.

But the release business doesn't make sense.  Professional test shoots do not involve releases.  It is very common for good photographers to shoot without one, and there is nothing at all wrong with that.

And a release does not protect "all parties concerned" - it only protects the photographer.  Insisting on signing a release does not protect you in any way.  Rather, it removes some of the protections you would have under law if the release were not signed.  That's what releases are for.

darkfotoart wrote:
im not against photographing minors , im against doing so without a strong point.    i have seen a photograpers art that was nude underwater pictures of boys and girls 6-16 years or so.   his images where strong proffesional  , beautiful works of art.     not a slightly underage model posing sexy.

You obviously aren't, since there are several in your own port here.    But here we go, we tend to rationalize what we shoot, not allowing others to have the same privilege.

cisstudio wrote:
I never get a release when i photograph underage models and I am talking as low as 1 years old.  Damn....looks like I am going to be stoned.  And to top it off, I am always getting paid too, by the parents.  then again, i don't know of a single photography company that photographs school pictures and gets a release from each individual.  do you?

LOL.  One school company was already mentioned here, but then again, it wasn't the photography company itself, but the school.  If you go to Wal-Mart and have your kids shot by their studio, no, you don't sign a "release."  But we have too many misunderstandings of the purpose of a release anyway.  TX can elaborate more.

Tim Hammond wrote:
Just think how much more mature our 20-somethings would be if we turned them loose to make and learn from their own mistakes at 13.  Granted, fewer of them would make it to 20, but many more of the people who are old enough to vote and drink would really be adults then, not just adolescents in grown-up clothing.

Yes!!!   What makes no sense now is one cannot buy beer at 18, but our country thinks 18 is old enough to help determine the leadership of this country.  Go figure.

Anyway.....

TXPhotog wrote:
And a release does not protect "all parties concerned" - it only protects the photographer.  Insisting on signing a release does not protect you in any way.  Rather, it removes some of the protections you would have under law if the release were not signed.  That's what releases are for.

In respect to an under 18 model, the release protects both parties, at least according to the law in the State of New Jersey.

If we don't sign a release stating the images were to be used for promotional purposes only, the photographer could sell those images for profit and we could do nothing about it.

Telling me I wasted my money speaking to an attorney?

Bryanna Nicole wrote:
Telling me I wasted my money speaking to an attorney?

You wasted time and money speaking to an attorney.  Apparently he wasn't a specialist in Entertainment law, because he got it wrong.

I am very familar with New Jersey law on the issue, and in fact have been to court on those subjects with a New Jersey client.  In addition, if you work with a New York photographer, it is New York law that applies, which is very different from New Jersey.

A release DOES NOT PROTECT YOU.  It cannot.  Nothing you sign can protect you.  If it could, you could sign a complete prohibition on the photographer ever even looking at his own pictures.  How far do you think that would fly?

Only pieces of paper signed by the photographer can protect you - and model's releases are not signed by the photographer.  Even if they were, if they contain typical wording, they still wouldn't protect you.

Doug Jantz wrote:
If you go to Wal-Mart and have your kids shot by their studio, no, you don't sign a "release."

Actually you kinda do if you read the order form and such. You sign it in agreement that if they want they can use the images for advertisement and you cant go after them if they do. That can be considered a release although it is not a long drawn out release most of us use.

Bryanna Nicole wrote:
Telling me I wasted my money speaking to an attorney?

You wasted your money speaking to an attorney.  LOL...just kidding, it is always nice to speak to an attorney, however, you'll find that if you speak to a dozen attorneys you will probably get a different answer from each one.  the fact is that the law can be interpreted by each individual differently and it is up to the judicial system to help us decide what is wrong and right legally.  One way to look at this is through following case law and seeing what precedents have been previously set.  One case to bring to mind is the high profile case of Cameron Diaz.  No release was signed and the photographer was found quilty and sentenced to prison for forgery, as well as attempted grand theft and perjury on the court for threatening to sell the photos.  You see NO RELEASE was signed and he presented one that was, which is forgery, and if he hadn't presented one, he would not have been able to sell the images without her permission.

Jphoto wrote:
The problem is that "pornography" is one of those "I know it when I see it kind of things".

"Community standards" have something to do with it. After all, NYC, San Francisco, Miami and LA are different from Cleveland, Kansas City, Salt Lake City and Memphis.

The internet blurs jurisdictions, resulting in a "least common denominator" approach where the prudish standards of rural America are federalized.

Which is why I refuse to shoot minors until San Francisco and LA secede from the union.

read   U.S.  vs KNOX   its pretty amazing  porno does not reqire nudity or a sex act.  and thats a supreme court case knox got 20 years in prison.

cisstudio wrote:
No release was signed and the photographer was found quilty and sentenced to prison for forgery, as well as attempted grand theft and perjury on the court for threatening to sell the photos.  You see NO RELEASE was signed and he presented one that was, which is forgery, and if he hadn't presented one, he would not have been able to sell the images without her permission.

That has nothing whatever to do with the issue.  There was a release signed.  The photographer signed it, claiming that Cameron Diaz had signed it.  That's forgery.

He would have been able to sell the images for editorial use (which is probably all they could have been used for anyway) even without a release.  He just handled it badly, and turned what could have been a simple sale into a case of extortion and forgery.

Czenkephoto wrote:
He guys/gall!

Couldn't help noticing how many minors we have here. I just joined recently and was going thru the the models list and I see models 17 & 16 years old. How do those models find work and how do they enter a contract? Their parents are MM members too? Don't mean to sound ignorant and I fully understand how one should follow their dreams, but these days you never know and sometimes all it takes is one person to label you a "perv" or whatever, even if you talk to a minor. I have a 15-year old at home and many nieces in the family, but not sure how I would feel about letting them pose for a stranger, than seeing their pix on the web?! What's your take on this issue if you can call it one?

John

I guess to me the issue isn't the "posing for a stranger" one, it's what's the quality and intent of the work your neice would be partaking in.

And depending on what sort of work is being done, 14-15 year olds would be useable for photography as well.   

Everytime this topic comes up, I just keep thinking that what's on everyone's mind is glamour or nudes and thus the worries about minor status.

There are a lot of things that can be shot besides these two genres.  Ones younger models could and obviously do fit into quite well because it's done all the time.

TXPhotog wrote:
A release DOES NOT PROTECT YOU.  It cannot.  Nothing you sign can protect you.  If it could, you could sign a complete prohibition on the photographer ever even looking at his own pictures.  How far do you think that would fly?

Only pieces of paper signed by the photographer can protect you - and model's releases are not signed by the photographer.  Even if they were, if they contain typical wording, they still wouldn't protect you.

Perhaps it's all in the wording of the release on who it protects - surely no release would ever be worded in such a way that would prohibit the photographer to view his own images. If it was, what photographer would sign it?

Perhaps I am working with a different grade of photographers - each release is signed by Bryanna, myself and the photographer agreeing images will be used only for promotional purposes on both sides and cannot be used for anything else without express written consent from both parties.

About the school photo issue - Call any school - no school photography company can photograph those kids without signing a release with the school - the school already has releases from their students, that's one of those million sheets of paper we all sign and return that first week of school.

darkfotoart wrote:
i can see minors for advertising , but really to me a 11-17 yo has no real value.    a 4-10 year old has a whole different market as a model than an adult.   but a borderline girl is just a risk for no good reason.   and if you use a 16-17yo without permission in some areas you can get 90 days for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. ( true in mich.  happened to a friend ) [/quote

Excuse me?  11-17  year olds have no real value? You just knocked the majority of models in agencies right into the mud.

Now again... speaking from a 17 VERY soon to be 18 year old.... I really don't see anything wrong with lingerie modeling when its done within a certain genre...i.e. no crotch shots, touching. sucking fingers.or lollipops.. you know anything "suggestive". The girls that get paid the bucks to model lingerie are right in my age group. (and younger) That is a fact. And yes they do have suggestive tendancies, because that is what they are selling. ( and yes its different when you are with an agency, why I don't know!!) But there is a lot of lingerie that actually has more material than a bikini and you see teens modeling those on here all the time and giving you those "looks". So what the heck is the difference???? (and please don't quote me the laws. I'm aware of the ones in most states)

There are a lot of really good photographers on here that don't shoot for agencies, nor do they do a lot of paid work, so yes they should probably make sure what the laws are in their states. But you really shouldn't knock the ones that do paid work and get the necessary forms signed, sealed and delivered by the minors parent.

I have shot in lingerie, but my poses, while kinda sexy are the kind you would see in a catalog. ( no not Fredricks of Hollywood, or other "adult" catalogs (wink!)lol)
And it was my mom who bought the piece for me and felt it was appropriate for my age. And yes I have paid work coming up in the swimsuit and lingerie area. But I wouldn't have gotten it if I didn't have those shots to see if I had the body type to pull it off. Ya know? A really simple question to ask the model and parent is what are you going to do with these shots. Make sure your butt is covered in the model release and YOU know what they will be used for.

Its really quite simple. You don't feel comfortable doing it, then don't.

P.S. There are soooo many good photographers on here, so don't lamb blast me for this post!! Its my age group that I'm defending!!! LOLOL

Bryanna Nicole wrote:
If we don't sign a release stating the images were to be used for promotional purposes only, the photographer could sell those images for profit and we could do nothing about it.

Telling me I wasted my money speaking to an attorney?

Why yes.  You generally wasted your money in speaking to an attorney.

cisstudio wrote:
i don't know of a single photography company that photographs school pictures and gets a release from each individual.  do you?

I never get my kids' school pictures, obviously because I photograph them myself, but at the beginning of the year a consent form is sent home for me to sign giving permission for my child to be photographed, whether it be for school pictures, yearbook, whatever... If I don't sign it and return it to the school, they won't photograph my child.