|
A couple of years ago I did a nude shoot in California with a MM model who said she was 22.
Recently this same model posted photos from her just passed 21st birthday on her IG page. I went back and looked at the paper work to find she had given me a fake ID and used that fake information on the model release, including a name. I was able to calculate that she was in fact 19 at the time of our shoot. I contacted her asking her to provide a new release with her legit info, and a copy of her real ID for my records. She then blocked me on IG and FB. Note: I wasn't angry or demanding when reaching out to her, just wanted to straighten out the paperwork... I went thru my various social media pages and deleted her pictures. But I can't help but feel she committed fraud against me, costing my time and the fee she was paid. I considered reporting her to the MM mods, but didn't want to be petty about the whole thing. She is still active on MM. How would others handle this? Any insight from the models perspective? Photographers, have you ever had to deal with an issue like this? Would you use the picture anyway, since she was of legal age? (I know this is the Model forum, but I figured photographers will see it here as well.) Thanks. Aug 18 19 10:57 am Link Klung1 Photographic wrote: First, there are more photographers "chiming in" in the Model forum than models.
Aug 18 19 12:20 pm Link Nor-Cal Photography wrote: I trusted her MM profile data, The ID she showed me was from the midwest (I don't know what an Iowa license looks like, but it looked authentic, had holograms), and it was her photograph on the document.
Aug 18 19 12:42 pm Link Could it possibly be that she was lying in both situtaions ?
Firstly presenting herself as an adult so that she could pose naked for the photographs . and secondly indicating on social media that she was now 21 ( perhaps so she could consume alcohol ) ? I rarely shoot nudes - and in such situations i would insist on seeing the Models ID before starting the shoot ( making sure they are over 18 ) But i also generally make a few minutes to talk with them before the shoot - both to build up thier comfort level in working with me but also to figure out what they are all about (as people interest me ) Aug 18 19 03:29 pm Link This is an ethical discussion, not legal advice. Even the possession of a fake ID, in many states, is a serious problem, likely to result in at least a misdemeanor charge. It gets worse depending on what it is used for. It is legal to use a stage name on a release, so I am not sure if her use of the fake ID would have any impact on that. You have certainly been put in a bad position. Now any use of the photos is going to cost you legal fees to get advice prior to using them.
The model has taken a common route when confronted with the problem: block and ignore. The reality is that if you wanted to make an issue of it, to get your money back, you could. You could have a lawyer write a letter, demanding your fees be refunded and a fee to cover the legal costs. Something like this might bring a little reality to her. It would have been far more reasonable for her to do the right thing and provide a new release with valid ID then to risk facing a suit and the POSSIBILITY of criminal charges coming from it. There are ethical considerations that you have to work out, or already have. There are unknowns to consider. How many other times has she done this? Is someone that is unaware of her deception going to take a bigger hit from this if the release is not valid? I am not sure that the right thing is to ignore it. At least, MM needs to be informed. You got her when she seemed to be of legal age to sign a contract. What if she worked for other people when she was not? I think, ethically, you should not leave her other victims hanging in the wind. But it is tough call whenever we have to decide to be a prick, even if being a prick is the right thing, or a nice guy. Aug 18 19 04:03 pm Link Maybe, just maybe she was in fact 22. Then claiming to be 21 to hide her real age. I'd go by the ID with holograms rather than a random post on social media.
My 2¢ Aug 18 19 06:18 pm Link O.P. wrote " I considered reporting her to the MM mods, but didn't want to be petty about the whole thing. She is still active on MM. "
What is petty about reporting fraud to the MM mods? If it were a reversed type situation there would be no question but to report the photographer. You are rewarding her bad behavior. The fact she has blocked you seems to me to be her admission of doing something untoward and knows it. Honesty benefits everyone. Its like writing a good review for a bad meal just so you don't hurt the feelings of the nice server. It hurts the rest of the folk who are looking for a good meal and discover the reviews are not honest. Aug 18 19 07:13 pm Link Naw, You're spending too much time focusing on the life of the model and veracity of stories she may tell. Why are you even questioning the ID? Over an Instagram post? Why care what she's saying her age is on different social media posts? Nobody was bugging you about the images. She wasn't asking you to take them down.
You're just causing yourself problems. And then considering possibly causing the model problems as a result. I recommend: less sleuthing, more shrugging. Aug 19 19 05:29 am Link Last I heard, 2257 had been declared unconstitutional and the AG had not appealed so on that score you're probably safe, at least for the moment., however New York's laws at the time would probably apply. I don't know of any law that specifically prohibits a model under 18 posing for an artistic work but it probably would be possible to bring charges of various forms of misconduct with a minor to bear if a prosecutor wanted to. Only a lawyer could advise you but my guess would be that in this situation he would advise you to keep your wallet open and your mouth closed.
If 'twere me, I would report it to the mods (actually you've probably just done so with this post.) And beyond that it might be worth taking a good look at your vetting pjrocedures. Just as there are some (and I repeat some) less than ethical photographers, there are some (and again I repeat some) less than ethical models (everybody knows photographers are all rich dirty old men who are ripe for plucking) so it's always better to be too cautious than not cautious enough. Certainly, requiring a separate confirming piece of ID would not be overkill. I do it all the time for all shoots. All IMHO as always, of course. Aug 19 19 09:02 am Link Rays Fine Art wrote: I believe the 2257 case was appealed based on the information in this thread
Aug 19 19 10:07 am Link Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote: This. Aug 19 19 11:20 am Link Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote: This 2. Op you over reacted big time. Aug 19 19 02:43 pm Link Hunter GWPB wrote: I think we are getting into the weeds here. Nudity per se does not trigger any 2257 requirements. It requires "actual sexually explicit conduct", which BTW can happen fully clothed. People really need to read the regulations. Here is current info from the government.
Aug 21 19 12:55 pm Link I went back and looked at the paper work to find she had given me a fake ID and used that fake information on the model release, including a name. I was able to calculate that she was in fact 19 at the time of our shoot... Whether for protection, perceived anonymity, or experimentation with various stage names, some models tend to change their public facing names frequently. What about the original paperwork made you realize it was fake? Is it possible that the ID given back during the original shoot was actually the real one the whole time? Aug 21 19 02:33 pm Link Eye of the World wrote: Please look at the post above mine (the one you quoted) to put into context what I was referring to and the reason I discussed 2257, specifically about appeals of 2257 cases. I thought that being the next post after it came up was sufficient for context, even though it was a tangent. I guess not. So, I just edited my post to quote what I was responding to. I didn't discuss nudity being a trigger for 2257 in this thread. In the other thread I asked what is sexually suggestive, I didn't say nudity was required, so our opinions would concur. Aug 21 19 02:43 pm Link She did commit fraud. In addition to that, faking an ID is a nono of a much higher magnitude than it was before 2001. Being 19, she probably wanted the fake ID to buy booze. Why she needed to use it for your photoshoot, I don't know. By using a fake ID for your shoot, she has exposed you to many kinds of possible criminal and civil law risks. Aug 31 19 12:03 pm Link You have what appeared to be a valid ID so there is no reason to believe what she says about her age on social media. People can be who ever or what ever they want to be on social media. Sep 21 19 05:48 pm Link Is this concerning because the shoot was nude? I don't see why it'd matter unless you're releasing commercially or doing something that requires a real concrete release. If someone told me they were a potato and showed up a human, I don't think it'd make a difference for me. I'd be glad though because I have no experience photographing potatoes. Oct 07 19 10:56 pm Link Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see a problem, at least not one for you. If your calculations are right, she was 19 at the time of your shoot, above the age of consent. You've seen what appeared to be, and perhaps was, a valid Iowa license. You have a release that matches the Id.
You can use the images as you wish. She is certainly not going to complain about it and reveal her fraud -- if in fact it was a fraud on you. As some have suggested, she may have misstated her age on the recent IG post. Quit worrying and forget about it. Oct 11 19 07:06 pm Link |
