Underage Models

<p>I shot some outdoor sportswear for a 15-year-old model. Now she wants to work in a studio and shoot lingerie. If I take those shots, do I go to jail? What if the poses are innocent? What if a friend of hers is in the room? What if she brings an okay from her mother?</p>

<p>You don't indicate which country you are located in, but I'll assume U.S. for the sake of discussion.</p>

<p>1) Don't do it - Easiest and best advice.<br>

2) Any item of lingerie could be considered pornographic by the right or wrong jury. See #1.<br>

3) There's a reason that 18+ year olds play teenagers (younger) on TV. See #1<br>

4) ANY PHOTO SESSION WITH ANY PERSON UNDER 18 HAS AT LEAST ONE PARENT OR GUARDIAN (LEGAL) PRESENT. Not a note from mommy, not a friend of a friend or a friend of the family (unless I know the family - and then I've talked to mom and or dad)<br>

5) See #4 and #1.</p>

<p>Just a big can of worms that you don't want to kick open.<br>

<br />Dave</p>

 

<p>Like Nancy Regan said...."Just say no".</p>

<p>It's legal, but could potentially result in so much hassle it's just not worth it unless you're shooting under a $50,000 contract from Calvin Klein.</p>

<p>BTW don't take legal advice from the internet. It's usually wrong. As far as I know there is no requirement that taking a photograph a minor (someone under the age of 18) <em>requires</em> the presence of a parent or legal guardian. It's sensible, it's prudent, but it's not <em>required</em>. Minors cannot sign a valid release, but that's another issue.</p>

<p>1. Bob is right, find a lawyer if you really want accurate advice.</p>

<p>2. I can't imagine why anyone would touch something like this with a 10 foot pole. There are so many things that could go wrong. When the "best case" of something going wrong with an unpaid job like this is a ruining of your professional/personal reputation (or an asskicking by an angry father) and the "worst case" is an embarrassing trial and years in jail, there isn't a lot of upside.</p>

<p>no. I shot 16 year olds when I was in my 20s. No issues, but the world is different now, get parental consent, even if it's a headshot.</p>

<p>America especially is very screwed up right now and needs money, so don't do anything that will cause you grief. Nothing wrong with the artist-model relationship (it's thousands of years old), but nowadays people are out to make money, so don't bother. Get parental consent then you're good to take pics.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I thoroughly agree with all of the above. Run away.</p>

<p>ANOTHER FOR NO!<br>

Most especially, even with parental written permission, another underage 'friend' present would only make things worse, not better.</p>

<p>SEE DAVID'S POINT 4</p>

<p>Who is going to be watching your photo equipment while you are in jail ?</p>

<p>No, no, no, never in a million years. Just not worth the risk even with the parents consent, not even with both parents present during the shoot, no, no, no.</p>

<p>I would advise the OP to stay away, if at all possible. OTOH, it's done all the time for commercial concerns, and I see the ads in the local Sunday ads for different dept stores, and some with much younger kids, so there are perfectly legitimate ways to approach this kind of shoot. I would talk with a lawyer specializing in photographic cases. Simpler to stay away, or find an 18+ yr old that can pass for 15. Did I mention to avoid this? :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would advise the OP to stay away, if at all possible. OTOH, it's done all the time for commercial concerns, and I see the ads in the local Sunday ads for different dept stores, and some with much younger kids, so there are perfectly legitimate ways to approach this kind of shoot. I would talk with a lawyer specializing in photographic cases. Simpler to stay away, or find an 18+ yr old that can pass for 15. Did I mention to avoid this? :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have shot children for clothing catalogues and on advertising shoots - a parent is always on the set and the release needs to be signed by a parent or legal guardian. </p>

<p>I am 100% with the other responders, I'm not sure why anyone would shoot a 15 year old in lingerie anyway to be honest . This is clearly a touchy issue driven, quite rightly, by the desire to protect minors. I would walk away and advise her to wait a few years and enjoy being a kid.</p>

<p>Oops, I missed that... <em>lingerie? </em>No way.</p>

<p>I've never heard the words "underaged model" and "lingerie" used together in any way, shape, or form of context that you could also add "innocent" to and keep a straight face. <br>

Even in the porn industry models are require to show proof of age to avoid exactly the trap you are walking into. </p>

<p>While everyone is handing out their two cents...</p>

<p>A professional photographer simply can not shoot minors for fun like anyone else can. Not even sportswear. Something akin to if I punch a guy and break his jaw, oops, if a pro kick boxer in the same location under the same circumstances punches a guy and breaks his jaw- it's assault with a deadly weapon. </p>

<p>If you meet a potential client and they turn out to be underage you tell them it's been great meeting but any further communications must be initiated by their parents. Minors do not have the right to engage a person in a business enterprise. As a pro, by default that's what shooting with you is.</p>

<p>From a career point of view shooting minors is less the problem than shooting minors or would be models of any age, who are not competitive and are not going to work, who are not with a creditable agency already or ready to walk in and sign. If you regularly present work featuring models who are outside accepted industry parameters you will develop zero credibility. It is one obvious difference between a pro photographer and a MWC. </p>

<p>If you find a girl who is 5'10", 34-24-34 and freak'n amazing looking and turns out to be 15 you should be escorting the girl and her parents to the best agency you have connections with. Then after she signs you shoot tests for her through the agency. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I saw a 16-year-old girl advertise on a model site for a photographer to do <strong>nude</strong> pictures of her. The site took down her ad plenty fast. I can't imagine anyone being fool enough to touch that one. I actually would like to have some nude pictures of myself at age 16. I'd like to know if I was really as awful-looking as I thought! That said, I don't think the girls we are talking about want to do skin shots to look at in the future. They are after money and have figured out that skin sells. </p>

@Josh: "... find a lawyer if you really want accurate advice."

 

Lawyers do not give "accurate advice." They give opinions that they are willing to accept payment to pursue. In any

adjudicated litigation, one of the lawyers gave inaccurate advice.

 

--Marc

<p>Ken Hansen--probably not the Leica guy--has a website He does model portfolios, apparently. He has an elaborate set of restrictions on shooting as per the age of the model. I presume the restrictions were suggested by a lawyer. They make for amazing reading. Look at Model Information. Here:<br>

<a href="http://www.kenhansen.net/joomla">www.kenhansen.net/joomla</a></p>

<p>Why did you ask this question? It looks like you easily found your answer.</p>

<p>I should point out that it's not illegal to shoot images of minors. It's not always illegal to shoot pictures of them in swimwear, lingerie or even nude.</p>

<p>However just ask Jock Sturges about the can of worms you may be opening.</p>

<p>"...Many of Sturges' works feature young girls and boys in the nude. As such, some critics have claimed that his work is child pornography disguised as fine art. In April 1990, FBI agents raided his studio, confiscating his equipment and his work, and alleged he was creating child pornography. The art world and naturist communities were enraged, and publicly defended him. After over a year of investigation, the case was thrown out by a grand jury. Eventually Sturges got most of his work and equipment back. Later in the same year, his work came under attack by Christian conservatives led by Operation Rescue and Focus on the Family. Protestors picketed at major bookstores around the country which stocked his works. Sturges received more support from civil libertarians and artistic associations. Sturges also defended himself through a series of talks and interviews..." [credit photography-now.net]</p>

<p>In other words just because it may not actually be illegal if done in the right context, doesn't mean you won't regret it. I should also point out that in some contexts (and in the view of some law enforcement agencies) it may well <em><strong>BE</strong></em> illegal, depending on the nature of the images.</p>

<p>Also, what may be considered art or acceptable photography in Europe may be considered child pornography in the USA. Under US statutes, child pornography does not require nudity (and in fact does not require that the model is even a minor).</p>

<p>Think of it as being like sticking your head in an alligator's mouth. While it's certainly possible you won't get your head bitten off, it's not a risk most sane people would want to take.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lawyers do not give "accurate advice." They give opinions that they are willing to accept payment to pursue. In any adjudicated litigation, one of the lawyers gave inaccurate advice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ha! A fair point.</p>

<p>Still though, I would trust most lawyers more than most random internet forum participants when it came to issues of this magnitude.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've never heard the words "underaged model" and "lingerie" used together</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have in the context of catalogs but I don't recall seeing any for a very long time. I recall a issue coming up from incarcerated pedophiles seeking newspaper flyers of that sort. Maybe they sneak in cell technology a la Charles Manson now. I don't know.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In any adjudicated litigation, one of the lawyers gave inaccurate advice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not true. They often argue positions the client wants despite the client being given sound advice not to pursue such a course. They also frequently give advice on well settled issues and no litigation or prosecutions are ever involved. I'd agree with Josh's last sentence completely although everyone's play it safe advice to decline is, well, a safe bet.</p>

<p>Fashion is an industry based on 12 to 17 year olds. Every fashion photographer I know, has shot "underage". You have to as every model that is represented by an agency and has a comp card has been shot in a bikini or under wear. Evidence of this is on any agency website. Just google image search any supermodel ie Noot Seear</p>

<p>If you go forward, just makes sure her mother or father is there as well as a third party such as a stylist of sorts.</p>

<p>Just a remark in the margin. Reading you I find it all very sad that we seem to need a lawyer to shoot a photo of a sixteen years old ! ! ! Asking the girl and the parents (until the age of majority) seems not to be sufficient. How did we come to there ?</p>

<p>Anders, you obviously don't <em>"need a lawyer to shoot a photo of a sixteen years old". </em>This is not what this discussion is about.</p>

<p>We are talking about a photographer shooting a FIFTEEN year old girl in lingerie (presumably for her modeling portfolio, and "innocent" is really not on the cards).</p>

<p>Unfortunately we live in a world where there are in fact predators, pedophiles and a child porn market. There are, quite rightly, laws set up to protect children and to convict molesters and child porn merchants. Like all laws, they have a broad sweep and something like this (which sounds unnecessary to me on every level anyway) can easily come on the radar of those trying to protect our children.</p>

<p>In answer to your question, we came here through a desire to protect our children and because of evil people. Admittedly sometimes the law can be over zealous and over reaching, but the alternative is far worse.</p>