The model in question has never, to my knowledge, shot nude or suggestive. That is not the point of my message.

And while I do not have in my possession proof in this particular instance, I have seen the proof, so I am certain of the facts. The model in question brings in someone she claims is her legal guardian, he signs the release on her behalf, and it is also proven that he has no such legal status. He has admitted as much when pressed.

My point in saying this, and it applies whether you are shooting nudes or not, is that if you wish to be sure you have a legally useful model release, you need to make sure it is signed by someone who actually has the legal authority to do so. There are liars out there, wandering the countryside without adult supervision. And if you think it is not so, ask any bartender. Google "Tracy Lords," who was a porn actress with a lengthy list of credits, among them spreads in Penthouse and other men's magazines, all by the age of 15. So it has been going on forever. It should not be news to anybody, and it should concern everybody. Unless, of course, you wish to be the one making headlines at the butt end of a lawsuit.

I absolutely agree.

I insist upon seeing identification at every shoot, before the shoot, and always do my due diligence on everyone with whom I work, models or otherwise. I encourage everyone to do the same.

Nobody can take responsibility for your business but you. And people lie. That's just human nature.

This is always good advice.

I don't know what to make of a post like this.  In part it is misleading; in part it counsels action that is difficult, if even possible.

First, the misleading part:

It is not true that a model's release signed by a minor is not valid.  Eight states (and only eight) require consent by a parent or guardian; in at least one of those eight a court has ruled that there are still situations in which a release signed by a minor can be valid.  That is not to say that there is not some legal jeopardy associated with having a minor sign a release:  it's possible, until after they reach the age of majority, that in some states they can rescind the release under some circumstances.  Still, until and unless they do, releases are generally valid when signed by minors.

(A certain amount of reasonableness is required in reading the above; releases signed by a two-year-old aren't likely to hold up.  Common sense needs to be applied to the issue.)

Then the "what do we do with it?" part:

If a person shows up at a photo shoot with ID which appears to be valid, or with a claimed guardian who appears to be legally able to sign a release, what is the photographer to do?  "Be careful"?  How, exactly? I don't have proof of a model's age; it's her responsibility to provide it.  Except in exceedingly rare cases, I would have no reason or ability to challenge a legitimate-appearing ID for a model who does not have the physical attributes of a child.  So what, exactly, is this post urging me to do?

I'm sure we have all misrepresented out age at one time or another, remember being out of beer at 18? Lying to a coworker (i.e. photographer) is far different than lying to a cop about it.

In this case, the point of the misrepresentation is not so the model can work, but probably that the model can feel like an adult or has been in the habit of using the false ID so long that is what gets used with the photographer too.

Additionally, if a model lies about her age such that she is under 18 and doing work that might be covered under statute, that could be problematic, at best.

My agreement is narrow in that I'm saying that it's always good advice to cover your bases and do your due diligence to the extent that you feel you have performed your expected duty.

Often, in cases where liability comes into play, being able to show that you did all in your power to comply with the law and mitigate any potential damage is 99% of the battle.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

A M Johnson wrote:

Let's say a model poses for an ad in Time Magazine. The agency vetted her, the photographer took her information as well. Everybody gets paid.

Now, 4 months later, the girl gets in trouble for truancy and everybody blows a gasket because she wasn't 19, she was 15!

Everyone did their part to comply with state and federal laws concerning hiring this class of employee. Do you think for a second anyone would be in trouble besides the girl and her parents? I suspect not.

You have suggested that this is an agency job.  If it is, the agency has the ability to sign a model release in the model's name; it is as valid as if the model did.  The photographer really doesn't need to vet the model; the agency does that for him.

Assuming the model did not live in one of those states which require signature by a parent or guardian, and that the model does not attempt to rescind the release, there likely would not be a problem.  It's unlikely the client would even know about it; if they did, the agency would sign the release for the model.

If anyone gets "in trouble", it would be the agency, which may find that they had lost a client.

Even if the model does rescind the release, it would apply only to uses after the date of the recission, so the existing ad would not be a problem.  It would just keep the client from continuing to use her picture.  They might want a return of some of the fee they paid the model and the agency, and in such a case, the rescission is not effective until the model makes the client and agency whole.

All in all, an issue, but not a terrible issue.

Lumigraphics wrote:

It would be fraud for a model under 18 to represent herself as over 18, and do a workshop or shoot with nudity which would be illegal for a minor. That might not get anyone into legal jeopardy if they acted in good faith while shooting her, but they would be compelled to destroy any pictures and would thus be cheated out of what they paid for. I suppose it could also expose the workshop organizer to liability- attendees might well decide to sue for their money back.

Maybe this is why our OP is posting?

? wrote:

The model in question has never, to my knowledge, shot nude or suggestive. That is not the point of my message.

Lumigraphics wrote:

... and do a workshop or shoot with nudity which would be illegal for a minor. ...

To my knowledge, it is not illegal to shoot or posses pictures of a naked minor. It just cannot be sexualized.

Any "ass in the air" GWC glamour workshop is going to be over the line for a minor model.

I can see four areas where misrepresentation of age might cause a problem:

1. Sexual content

2. Adult products such as alcohol or cigarettes

3. Violation of labor laws (California for example)

4. Model unable to contract as an adult

This would be a great way to get some really bad publicity, too.

I'm very much against models lying about their ages. I understand that agencies often market an "age range" but for me, I like to be told the truth. Deception is a bad thing.

Now, I understand that in many cases, commercial and non-commercial, it won't matter if a model is 15 or 17 or 20- the look is what matters IN THE IMAGE. For business purposes, though- that's where I expect honesty.

Lumigraphics wrote:

Any "ass in the air" GWC glamour workshop is going to be over the line for a minor model.

I can see four areas where misrepresentation of age might cause a problem:

1. Sexual content

2. Adult products such as alcohol or cigarettes

3. Violation of labor laws (California for example)

4. Model unable to contract as an adult

This would be a great way to get some really bad publicity, too.

I'm very much against models lying about their ages. I understand that agencies often market an "age range" but for me, I like to be told the truth. Deception is a bad thing.

Now, I understand that in many cases, commercial and non-commercial, it won't matter if a model is 15 or 17 or 20- the look is what matters IN THE IMAGE. For business purposes, though- that's where I expect honesty.

Agency models aren't really an issue.

If a product has age restrictions, like tobacco or alcohol, the agency will not send a person who is under 25, and they check, no matter what the model's "age range" says.

If the model's "age range" includes over the age of majority and she is not, the agency will sign the release for her, so there is no legal issue with that.

If there is an issue with child labor laws, the agency won't solve it for the client (although they will make sure the child has a work permit), but they will notify the client if the model is of an age where it matters.

"Age ranges" are used for marketing purposes, but not when there is a legal issue (or just a client issue - I've had clients insist on a particular legal age, even though there was no law requiring it).  Then they are very honest about who they send.

This is not uncommon.  I have had underage girl lying to get good pics before.  Stupid myspace wanabe.  While it may be OK to shoot underage even if nude, I just don't want to go there.  I don't want to have to answer or justify why I was shooting younger girls.  It's just not worth the hassle. There are so many over 18 for me to choose from, I don't need to go to that route.

Just ask for government issued ID, if in doubt.