Meagan Colf wrote:

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

your not following  (1) photog  works for a company shooting ads / or real commercially used work , of course thats ok.    (2) photog is taking pictures to sell as pictures or for practice or personal enjoyment.          you can take pictures of a 14yo in her underware as a advertisement ,    try taking hundreds of pictures of 14 yo girls advertising them as minors and starting a paysite , bye , bye.    its the context of usage of the photo.

Bryanna Nicole wrote:
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?

That's the point.  PHOTOGRAPHERS DO NOT SIGN MODEL RELEASES.  Models do.

Bryanna Nicole wrote:
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.

That's not "a release".  That is an agreement that the photographer entered into which limits his rights that he would otherwise have.  Model's releases don't do that.  What you are describing is something else entirely.

And yes, you are apparently working with a different grade of photographer.  Many TFP photographers wouldn't sign that.  See this thread for an example:  https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=91502

Most professional agency test photographers wouldn't sign it either.  They don't use releases or shoot contracts.

TXPhotog wrote:
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.

This is not completely accurate.  It all depends on jurisdiction and the court can rule that there is either jurisdiction through jurisdiction in personam, subject-matter jurisdiction, jurisdiction in rem or long arm jurisdiction.   Now this would all depend on the specifics of the case and there can be numerous reasons why a court in New Jersey could hear a case.  For instance, if the photo shoot took place in New Jersey a lawyer for the plaintiff could argue for jurisdiction in personam since the actual photo shoot took place within their state.  No different then if you were to get into an accident in another state then you actually reside.  It just all depends on the specifics and you CAN NOT simply state that merely since the photographers business is from one state, that he can not be brought to trial in another state.

Bryanna Nicole wrote:
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.

That stuff in bold is, at the very least, the first part of what is different here. The "standard" release, only gives the PHOTOGRAPHER rights of usage, and specifically DISENGAGES the model from certain rights of reproduction of his/her image. That's why it's a "MODEL" release... because the model is releasing his/her rights over what conditions are legal for the photographer to engage in with his/her image.

Bryanna Nicole wrote:
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.

It's standard stuff for a "client" to receive all the rights of a photographer's work upon the photographer receiving payment. I'm sure the story goes a lot further (like the photog must not be allowed to reproduce "out-take" images of the students... etc..   

BTW - I'm neither a lawyer, nor am I experienced in such matters. I just read the dam releases carefully, and know when to ask pointy questions.

Bryanna Nicole wrote:
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.

TXPhotog wrote:
That's not "a release".  That is an agreement that the photographer entered into which limits his rights that he would otherwise have.  Model's releases don't do that.  What you are describing is something else entirely.

And yes, you are apparently working with a different grade of photographer.

Then evidently, my lawyer gave me some pretty good advice ;o)

Rossi Photography wrote:

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.

Definetly a nice way to save money.  Well for me and the photographic companies I have worked with, we have never sent any such forms home.  Then again, I as well as the other companies I have worked with, have worked on a pre-paid basis where the payment for services could be construed as a release to photograph....Then again, I have also worked with a hugh company that worked on a speculation basis where they photographed every child without a release.  So my assumption, is that the photographic company you have at your childs school is simply trying to cover themselves and also see which parents would be willing to have their childs photographs taken -- after all, there is no reason to photograph a child if you know for sure that their parents will not not purchase.

Bryanna Nicole wrote:

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.

I have worked with numerous schools and have never signed any release at all with any school and I am talking over a 100 different schools.  So when you say "No school photography company" you are completely in-accurate because I have been doing this for years!

Bryanna Nicole wrote:
Then evidently, my lawyer gave me some pretty good advice ;o)

He may have, if he wrote up a contract which you have the photographers sign.  But that's not what you described in your initial post on the subject.

cisstudio wrote:

I have worked with numerous schools and have never signed any release at all with any school and I am talking over a 100 different schools.  So when you say "No school photography company" you are completely in-accurate because I have been doing this for years!

i think  admitting you take school pictures must be harder than admitting your gay.     have you ever seen school pictures ?  they are terrible  lighting looks like a couple car headlamps and a 12 volt battery.   at least that there digital now the white balence is right , i just cant figure out how they blow out highlights indoors so badly.

TomLaPointe wrote:
"I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY," so what I write is merely heresay, but there IS a difference between a RELEASE and a CONTRACT.  And there are hundreds (if not thousands) of both in circulation.

I ask for a release from EVERYONE I shoot, and if they have issues that we can't resolve, no deal. If we write in any limitations or stipulations on pay (like spec shoots for magazine publication) I will honor them, but reading hundreds of posts here shows me the debate is eternal on contracts, and the minor issue is merely an extension of it.

I heard a rumor that shooting a minor in FL requires a guardian present, and I'm not going to shoot a minor again until I clarify THAT.

do you watch the news , florida is where all the borderline  c.p. comes from.   you are at the very bottom of a long list of photogs to investigate.   it will be a while till they reach photog number  24,897,890,001

darkfotoart wrote:
i think  admitting you take school pictures must be harder than admitting your gay.     have you ever seen school pictures ?  they are terrible  lighting looks like a couple car headlamps and a 12 volt battery.   at least that there digital now the white balence is right , i just cant figure out how they blow out highlights indoors so badly.

LOL!  I have seen some really horrible images from some companies.  Part of the reason that you get this is because they generally send an inexperienced photographer to complete the shoot -- generally, someone who has no technical experience and are simply shown how to set up the lights, put it on a specific setting, and shoot.   However, there are some of us out there who take really great photographs for schools.  I have numerous schools in the california and surrounding states that I have photographed, all of which receive high quality images that are nothing like you described above.  Also, I have worked with several really great photographers who are extremely talented at doing what they do and could photograph almost any type of work they wanted to.

Edit:  P.S.  Let me know which school you are specifically talking about and I would love to send my marketing information over to them as well.  If the photographers work is as awful as you describe, I should be able to get in to that school in no time.

cisstudio wrote:

LOL!  I have seen some really horrible images from some companies.  Part of the reason that you get this is because they generally send an inexperienced photographer to complete the shoot -- generally, someone who has no technical experience and are simply shown how to set up the lights, put it on a specific setting, and shoot.   However, there are some of us out there who take really great photographs for schools.  I have numerous schools in the california and surrounding states that I have photographed, all of which receive high quality images that are nothing like you described above.  Also, I have worked with several really great photographers who are extremely talented at doing what they do and could photograph almost any type of work they wanted to.

Edit:  P.S.  Let me know which school you are specifically talking about and I would love to send my marketing information over to them as well.  If the photographers work is as awful as you describe, I should be able to get in to that school in no time.

i know i was teasing , my niece has oily skin.  i can barely light her with a reflector and not get glare.   a girl with the settings duct taped on her camera did school pics of her and literally washed out parts of her face to white.  she also used a silvery grey background for a pale blond.

darkfotoart wrote:

i know i was teasing , my niece has oily skin.  i can barely light her with a reflector and not get glare.   a girl with the settings duct taped on her camera did school pics of her and literally washed out parts of her face to white.  she also used a silvery grey background for a pale blond.

I know...I was really laughing when I read your post.  I actually enjoy working with children, and find it quite relaxing.  For one thing, no matter how bad my day or week has been, nor how I am feeling, or whether I am tired, when I go to a photo shoot for a school, I am instanteously changed by their smiles and consumed with making them laugh. Now, I pretty much specialize in pre-schools, so it is different then photographing a high school or middle school.

jade83 wrote:
The LifeTouch photos at my grade school one year were so bad they had to re-do them for everybody. (my sister had a wallet-size proof of her and just a big white blown-out flash spot in place of her head.)

Lifetouch is one of those companies that employes individuals that do not have much experience.  I remember reading an ad on monster where they were bragging how you can make 20,000 a year, working fulltime as a photographer.  Now, as we all know, no seasoned photographer is going to take a position that pays so little.  Additionally, they also indicated that no experience was necessary.

TXPhotog wrote:
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.

What I read was that an assistant had given him the release and might've faked the sig, not that he'd ever admitted to forging her signature. (that's why I ask for a notary or 2 witnesses & a pic of the model holding the release & her ID)
I wouldn't call asking her agent & attorny to a business meeting & offering to sell everything back to them "extortion" either.  I imagine if he knowingly forged her signature it was after they began to take extremist legal tactics against him.
I think Diaz and her people went WAY overboard in that case.
And frankly I don't believe them either.
Vanessa Williams tried EXACTLY the same "lies, extortion and forgery" tack and the ONLY reason that photographer didn't go down is because another photographer popped up with more pcis & signed releases that matched the sigs.

SLE Photography wrote:
What I read was that an assistant had given him the release and might've faked the sig, not that he'd ever admitted to forging her signature.

A jury of his peers thought otherwise.

Regardless of what you think happened, the point is that "not having a release" wasn't the issue, and that he could have sold the pictures without one.

cisstudio wrote:
This is not completely accurate.  It all depends on jurisdiction and the court can rule that there is either jurisdiction through jurisdiction in personam, subject-matter jurisdiction, jurisdiction in rem or long arm jurisdiction.

All that is true.  I wasn't trying to make a dissertation on long arm statutes, but to make the point that New Jersey law is not necessarily all that matters.

Suzan Aktug wrote:
As someone who started as an underage model (and only am recently not), legalities aside... Why gives a shit about what age the model is? If she has a rockin' body, for the project that you want to work on, why the hell not? Trust me, I look the exact same now as I did 6 months ago when I was 17. All my lingerie pics were me when I was 17, are you going to complain? What's the big difference between a 17 and an 18 year old other than the fact that she can sign her contract on her own?

I am not going to complain.    And I think you rock!  Keep shooting!

Bryanna Nicole wrote:

Bryanna Nicole wrote:
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.

Then evidently, my lawyer gave me some pretty good advice ;o)

Independent of what it's called I like your approach, since it gets all parties to agree to usage ahead of time.  I think the lawyer gave you good advice.

Suzan Aktug wrote:
As someone who started as an underage model (and only am recently not), legalities aside... Why gives a shit about what age the model is? If she has a rockin' body, for the project that you want to work on, why the hell not? Trust me, I look the exact same now as I did 6 months ago when I was 17. All my lingerie pics were me when I was 17, are you going to complain? What's the big difference between a 17 and an 18 year old other than the fact that she can sign her contract on her own?

Well, we live in Canada, which is a bit more sane about such things, and your lingerie shots are very tame. Not that you don't look lovely:-)
But yes, nobody is arguing that a 17 year old and 18 year old LOOK any different, just the legal line is arbitrarily drawn between them. One's a "child" the other an "adult". Quite absurd.

Miles Chandler wrote:

Well, we live in Canada, which is a bit more sane about such things, and your lingerie shots are very tame. Not that you don't look lovely:-)
But yes, nobody is arguing that a 17 year old and 18 year old LOOK any different, just the legal line is arbitrarily drawn between them. One's a "child" the other an "adult". Quite absurd.

The only LEGAL lines are:

1) Can't enter into a contract

2)  Can't shoot porn. 

Other than that, as far as shooting pictures, there is nothing.  As far as shooting lingerie, bikini, there are no legal limits except as what defines pornography.  That's it!!!!!!

I am moving to Canada!  LOL

SLE Photography wrote:
What I read was that an assistant had given him the release and might've faked the sig, not that he'd ever admitted to forging her signature.

TXPhotog wrote:
A jury of his peers thought otherwise.

Regardless of what you think happened, the point is that "not having a release" wasn't the issue, and that he could have sold the pictures without one.

Agreed.  I just find her & her case considerably less credible.  Juries tend to be wowed by star power in cases like this.  As noted, something similar could've happened to Vanessa Williams' photographer is another hadn't come forward.
But this's way off topic of how pictures of minors will destroy western civilization. 

To stay on point, I think the solution is to lock all children away from the age of about 3 until 18 in large monastery/boarding school type establishments and not allow them in to society at large.  It would solve INNUMERABLE problems, this whole debate of underage models among them. 

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.

hey GB, I am sure my own biases are projecting this on myself, and I am probably wrong (because I don't think I am well liked), but for the record, a parent is always present and - if a release is required, the parent signs it. Usually for the first shoot, they will also sign a 'post session statement of professional conduct'.

Jack North wrote:
hey GB, I am sure my own biases are projecting this on myself, and I am probably wrong (because I don't think I am well liked), but for the record, a parent is always present and - if a release is required, the parent signs it. Usually for the first shoot, they will also sign a 'post session statement of professional conduct'.

"Always" is a very big term.

That may be "always" true in your shoots, but it is not true in many other shoots, especially those involving agency models. Models who are 16 and 17 go on shoots unaccompanied, and their agency (which is not present at the shoot) signs the release (or voucher) for them.

Doug Jantz wrote:
The only LEGAL lines are:

1) Can't enter into a contract

Even that isn't strictly true, in two respects:

1.  They can, in many jurisdictions and on many issues, enter into contracts.  However, those contracts can be nullified later in many (not all) cases.

2.  Emancipated minors can enter into contracts in most states.

TXPhotog wrote:
"Always" is a very big term.

That may be "always" true in your shoots, but it is not true in many other shoots, especially those involving agency models. Models who are 16 and 17 go on shoots unaccompanied, and their agency (which is not present at the shoot) signs the release (or voucher) for them.

sure, I exaggerate. -> I was referring to a specific model that I imagined he was reffering to.

Bryanna Nicole wrote:
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.

As an aside, your lawyer should not be being paid to "suggest" things. Either they know what is the correct protocol according to law, or they should refer you to someone who does.

Secondly, his point is null and moot at law - the reason your signature as a parent or guardian would be required (especially considering you note that a minor cannot enter into a contract) is because the minor is assumed /not/ to be able to understand what she is signing (regardless of the reality of this).

If one were to be obsessively pedantic (and it may well not pass a judge's laugh test), your minor's signature on a release / contract even with yours may well allow an unscrupulous photographer to try to void the contract for the same reason you note: just as a minor cannot enter into a contract, nor can they be a /party/ to a multiple party contract either.

Achromatic wrote:

As an aside, your lawyer should not be being paid to "suggest" things. Either they know what is the correct protocol according to law, or they should refer you to someone who does.

Secondly, his point is null and moot at law - the reason your signature as a parent or guardian would be required (especially considering you note that a minor cannot enter into a contract) is because the minor is assumed /not/ to be able to understand what she is signing (regardless of the reality of this).

If one were to be obsessively pedantic (and it may well not pass a judge's laugh test), your minor's signature on a release / contract even with yours may well allow an unscrupulous photographer to try to void the contract for the same reason you note: just as a minor cannot enter into a contract, nor can they be a /party/ to a multiple party contract either.

Most releases I sign both me,the photographer and my guardian sign it.

Bryanna Nicole wrote:
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.

Achromatic wrote:
As an aside, your lawyer should not be being paid to "suggest" things. Either they know what is the correct protocol according to law, or they should refer you to someone who does.

Secondly, his point is null and moot at law - the reason your signature as a parent or guardian would be required (especially considering you note that a minor cannot enter into a contract) is because the minor is assumed /not/ to be able to understand what she is signing (regardless of the reality of this).

If one were to be obsessively pedantic (and it may well not pass a judge's laugh test), your minor's signature on a release / contract even with yours may well allow an unscrupulous photographer to try to void the contract for the same reason you note: just as a minor cannot enter into a contract, nor can they be a /party/ to a multiple party contract either.

I'm sorry Achromatic but you don't seem to understand contract law and minors.  Before I go further, it is totally appropriate for an attorney to make a recommendation.  That doesn't mean they don't understand the law, they are suggesting ways to protect yourself.

Second, one of the great misconceptions is that a minor can't enter into a contract.  That is entirely untrue.  Minors enter into contracts all the time.  If a minor goes into the bicycle store and places an order for a new bike, that is a contract.  The issue is that, in general a minor can rescind a contract (i.e. change their mind) but it will be enforceable against an adult.

I will break it down into several scenarios:

1.  MINOR ORDERS A BICYCLE AND DECIDES TO CANCEL - in that case, they will most probably be entitled to their deposit back.  There are some exceptions, but they are a minor and can rescind an agreement.

2.  MINOR ORDERS BICYCLE, PICKS IT UP BUT DOESN'T PAY FOR IT IN FULL - In that case, the minor (or their parents) are either going to pay for the bicycle in full or return it.  There are some variations, but the point is, simply because they were a minor doesn't get them off the hook if the product was delivered.

3.  MINOR ORDERS BICYCLE, PICKS IT UP AND PAYS FOR IT BUT THE BICYCLE IS DEFECTIVE - In that case, the seller and manufacturer are liable under the warranty (both real and implied), just as the contract states, even though the buyer was a minor.  If the minor ordered a "blue eyed mini" and you delivered a "green eyed maxi" you could be sued for breach of contract even though it was entered into by a minor.

The idea that minors can't enter into contracts is simply absurd.  There are just ramification which is why, for example, a car dealer wouldn't sell a car to a minor because they wouldn't want the minor to rescind and return the vehicle.

That having been said, there is no legal barrier to a minor signing a release, they can just change their mind.   Obviously a minor couldn't sign a release for photos that were illegal on its face (child pornography), but neither would a release by a parent be binding.  You can't enter into a contract to do something illegal.

The other obvious thing is the younger the minor the less likeley they will be to have understood what they signed.  The point is if they don't understand it, it is not a "meeting of the minds" which would make it challengeable.  In any case, when a minor signs a release, they can change their mind at any time and the release would be unenforceable.

That is the reason you have a parent sign on behalf of the minor child.  The parent has the authority to grant consent to use their child's likeness, and for that matter, enter into a contract that concerns their child.

However, it is standard practice in most states, particularly with older teen models, to have both the parent and the minor execute the release.  The release is binding since it was executed by the parent.  What it indicates is an awareness that the parent was making a commitment on their behalf.  Assuming that they were old enough to read and understand the release, there is some benefit to having them acknowledge the consent to the use of their likeness.

Some states like California have very strict laws regarding minors.  There is one in particular, the Jackie Cougan laws which require parents to set up a trust to hold portions of the money collected on behalf of minors working in the film industry.

Advising a parent to have their teenage daughter co-sign the release is not only appropriate, it is standard procedure in California.

GLB Graphics wrote:
There's a lot of food for thought in this thread. Bottom line with me, there would be a parent and release involved for nothing more than to legally cover my butt.
Gary

ditto!!!