Photography and the law ?

[moviemaker]

Guys,

Probably under the wrong topic, but I couldn't find one suitable.

I have have a friend, who has a neice and she has passed on a message to say that she would like to have some fashion photos taken. She has mentioned that she has posted some photos on a modelling site. Now the thing is she is coming up to 16 very shortly.

I am a little reluctant to say yes or no, but have just said that I am busy at the moment, as I'm not sure what the law is on this type of thing, as she is not quite 16.

would I need to have a consent form signed by the parents (bearing in mind, she has made the approach and not me). Does has anyone had this before in the UK ?

Kind Regards

[mizuno]

I believe you would need a model release form signed by her legal guardian and I would make sure that guardian was present at the photo shoot, as well as a witness/associate as a safeguard for yourself.

[moviemaker]

Thanks Mizuno.

I was thinking along the same lines, but just wanted to make sure on what you guys thought.

Once again, Many thanks

[JWright]

I'd also bring along someone to act as your "assistant." This way if any accusations are made by her and her guardian, you have another witness...

[cwphoto]

By all means have a 'guardian' or someone present in case of dodgy allegations later, but there's no such law requiring any form of consent form to merely photograph a minor.

[cwphoto]

I believe you would need a model release form signed by her legal guardian.

The law makes no such assertions.

[mizuno]

Regardless of what the law states, I would never photograph a minor without official parental consent in the form of a written and signed document. :)

[cwphoto]

Regardless of what the law states, I would never photograph a minor without official parental consent in the form of a written and signed document. :)

Thousands of us do it every day without a problem Dan, but if you want to make life harder for yourself for a bit of superfluous peace-of-mind don't let me stop you. :)

The release form is only needed for non-editorial publishing. For merely capturing the image, it offers you no greater protection or rights other than that already afforded to you under Common Law.

I know you posted your first reply to the OP in good faith, but really you shouldn't comment about lawful matters unless you know for sure what you are talking about - it just muddies the waters.

I mean that in the nicest possible way.

[mizuno]

Thousands of us do it every day without a problem Dan, but if you want to make life harder for yourself for a bit of superfluous peace-of-mind don't let me stop you. :)

The release form is only needed for non-editorial publishing. For merely capturing the image, it offers you no greater protection or rights other than that already afforded to you under Common Law.

I guess I dont view it as superfluous.

I wasn't thinking so much of my own protection as the common courtesy afforded to a parent.

Thanks for the legal lesson, though! :cool:

[cwphoto]

I guess I dont view it as superfluous.

I wasn't thinking so much of my own protection as the common courtesy afforded to a parent.

Thanks for the legal lesson, though! :cool:

What do you do at a wedding Dan? How do you manage all those release forms when doing the group shot? :cool:

What practical courtesy are you affording the parent anyway that a model release form gives you?

[mizuno]

What do you do at a wedding Dan? How do you manage all those release forms when doing the group shot? :cool:
My wedding contract covers all necessary aspects of the wedding day.

What practical courtesy are you affording the parent anyway that a model release form gives you?
I've given a parent the opportunity to accept or decline my terms of service regarding the images rendered of their son/daughter.

If a 14 year old girl rang you up asking for a portrait sitting, would it not make sense to confirm that her parents/guardians were both aware and consenting to it?

Thanks for your obviously well-motived concern over what you view as an unecessary and time-consuming process, but I'm pretty comfortable with it, regardless of what the finer details of the law might state. If I have to err, I'll err on the over-careful side of the ledger.

[cwphoto]

If a 14 year old girl rang you up asking for a portrait sitting, would it not make sense to confirm that her parents/guardians were both aware and consenting to it?

That's an improbable example (the parents contact me on behalf of the child anyway - so consent is implied (even though it's not required under general law)).

Why the paperwork? The parent would normally be at the shoot anyway, isn't that enough for you?

In fact it's just this sort of practice which makes it difficult for photographers to operate professionally. I'm sick and tired of reading about/seeing ill-informed parents who think they have a legal right to object to us photographing kids playing sport for the local club. It's exactly the propogation of false 'rights' such as these that makes it hard for the rest of us trying to work lawfully.

[cwphoto]

My wedding contract covers all necessary aspects of the wedding day.

All the guests sign a model release on the wedding contract do they? I think not...

[mizuno]

That's an improbable example (the parents contact me on behalf of the child anyway - so consent is implied (even though it's not required under general law)).
You operate with implied consent, I operate with formal written consent. Each to their own.

Why the paperwork? The parent would normally be at the shoot anyway, isn't that enough for you?
No, evidently, it's not.

In fact it's just this sort of practice which makes it difficult for photographers to operate professionally. I'm sick and tired of reading about/seeing ill-informed parents who think they have a legal right to object to us photographing kids playing sport for the local club. It's exactly the propogation of false 'rights' such as these that makes it hard for the rest of us trying to work lawfully.
I think you're being a little pedantic. There are many more pressing concerns endangering the rights of professional photographers. My contract policy is not one of them. :cool:

[cwphoto]

You operate with implied consent, I operate with formal written consent. Each to their own.

Formal consent isn't required - must we go back to square one?

You're mis-leading this poor bloke.

[mizuno]

Formal consent isn't required - must we go back to square one?
I've already said (more than once) that it's a policy I would like to continue regardless of whether or not it's required by law.

You're mis-leading this poor bloke.
Ignorantly, in the first instance, but I think you've more than made your point since. Once again, thanks for setting the record straight regarding the law. The AIPP encourages the use of parental consent contracts, that's good enough for me at this point.

Cheers!

[cwphoto]

I think you're being a little pedantic. There are many more pressing concerns endangering the rights of professional photographers. My contract policy is not one of them. :cool:

Don't you believe it. You're creating unnecessary fear in the market-place that one needs a consent form merely to photograph other people (in this case minors).

Don't you read the news? This is one of the major issues for photographers in this country.

Waverly Council
Coffs Harbour Eisteddfod
Randwick Council
The Education Department

All run by people who think they have rights, perhaps that ill-informed seed was planted by policies such as yours?

[mizuno]

Don't you believe it. You're creating unnecessary fear in the market-place that one needs a consent form merely to photograph other people (in this case minors).

I think the Bondi Beach peeping toms, Australian Open upskirt spy camera operators and the proliferation of child pornography have a little more to do with the photography law hysteria that we're currently experiencing.

I get the feeling that this is your hobby horse, I'm sorry for spooking it. :(

[cwphoto]

I get the feeling that this is your hobby horse, I'm sorry for spooking it. :(

Good guess, point made - over and out.

[Jason Cole]

Personally I would NEVER shoot anyone under 18 without the parents actually being there. That way there are no possible hassles or issues. The parent was there the whole time, they know exactly what was going on.

WIth Weddings you dont need a release as the photos are given to the Bride and Groom and for their use only. There is no commercial use of the photos. If I use ANY photos for advertisingh I always get permission from the Bride and Groom first.

[Annabel Doskey]

Uh, gentlemen, please consider that the many English-speaking people on this board adhere to different laws in their respective countries.

In the U.S., if there are any contractual obligations to be met by either of the parties concerned, then the minor may NOT enter into the contract whether it is written, spoken, or implied.

In this case we have a fifteen year-old who wants pictures taken for modeling purposes. Inasmuchas there are commercial and copyright issues involved in the eventual disposition of the images, whether the agreement is written, spoken, or implied, the minor model may not enter into the agreement. If the photographer intends to show the images for purposes of self-promotion, the minor may not enter into the agreement. It's that simple.

Portraiture is a different situation. Though there are copyright issues involved, it is generally understood that neither the client nor the photographer will use the images for publication for commercial purposes.(BTW, publication in the U.S. ranges from hanging the image in your storefront, inclusion in a portfolio for public display, to actually placing the image in a circulated magazine or website).

Generally, there is no problem with portraiture unless the underage client is expected to buy X number of images. Most seniors photographers in the U.S. dispense with the contractual obligations for the client to pay because the overwhelming majority of clients will pay for further images from the sitting. If the photographer wanted to pursue the matter in court for purposes of collections, and the client were to be found underage at the time of the creation of the portrait, the photographer wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

To the OP: What are YOUR plans for the future use of the images?


If you have doubts, get a parent's signature. If it's for a friend, I'd skip the signature, shoot the job, provide the number of pictures that I agreed upon, and then put the files away, and otherwise forget the matter.

[TeeJay]

Annabel; those are very knowledgable words, I agree. (where are you based - I guess its the US, but it helps for us to know)

Dan; I have to say I totally agree with your entire view of things. I would never shoot a "minor" without written consent and their parent/guardian being present.

TJ

[moviemaker]

I'm based in the UK just like Tee Jay.

The photos will NOT be used for any form of advertising or promotions. They will be for the individual only. I'm just going to have one of her parents there, my wife will accompany me, I'm going to take the photos, hand them over and that's it, nothing more.

I will still get a form signed by the parent/s to say that they agree to me taking the photos of their daughter (which is what she requested). As I don't want ay come back in the future from the parents or anyone else to say that I took photos of their daughter withut them knowing.

More importantly, The law in the UK is very strict here in the Uk on such matters involving photographing children.

[TeeJay]

Sounds like you have thought it through, good luck with the session!

TJ

[Phil V]

More importantly, The law in the UK is very strict here in the Uk on such matters involving photographing children.
No it's not, the law is virtually non-existant (as im most other countries), the media is full of half truths and would have us all believe that just carrying a camera is an intrusion into other peoples right of privacy and that we must all be terrorists or paedophiles (unless of course they're paparazzi - who can harass people at will as long as they can fill the papers with thinly veiled porn).
There is no such thing as privacy law in the UK, as in many civilised countries, the ONLY LEGAL consent you need is for publication (ie model release).
However if I were in your shoes I'd also have a parent present, as well as an assistant, doesn't mean you have to, it's just sensible. I'd probably write up a release form too (even if you're handing over rights - you should be specific about what rights exactly).

[moviemaker]

Hi Phil, I didn't say it WAS the law but the law is a bit funny and is a very grey area,

Try taking pics of even your own children either at the swimming pool for galas, or even at sports days without permission and watch them come down like a tonne of bricks. can you image a parent finding out that someone has been taking pictures of their child without them knowing? It is a difficult subject as we capture children at weddings (candid).

So for this reason, not wanting any come backs, I want them to sign a consent to say that they agree with me taking photos, protecting myself for the future that's all.

Cam you image a few months later and the law turning up at your doorstep saying you have been taking photos of whoever etc etc.

I just want piece of mind for myself and her parents.

[liza]

No way in hell would I ever photograph a minor without a parent/ guardian and another witness present. My son goes with me when I photograph senior portrait sessions. People these days are much too paranoid and litigious.

[moviemaker]

I agree Liza. One of her parents will most definately have to be present. I too will be taking my wife with me.

[98photo]

If this was my shoot I would, as a formality, get a signed model release signed by the parent and the model. If there was a time that I wanted to use the photos for advertising or what not, I would have permission to do so. Legal or not, needed or not, it would give me a piece of mind and it would only take a moment of their time also it would cover my ass if it was needed at a later date!
I would also have the parent there as well as an "assistant" of mine!

[Phil V]

Hi Phil, I didn't say it WAS the law but the law is a bit funny and is a very grey area,

Sorry I must have misunderstood what you meant when you said:


More importantly, The law in the UK is very strict here in the Uk on such matters involving photographing children.
Obviously my mistake!;)
The law isn't a grey area at all. All we are doing as photographers if we create 'legalese' documents to 'protect' ourselves against imagined problems is setting a precedent that restricts our freedom.

Don't be surprised if, in 20 years time we need signed permisssion from all atendees at a wedding, just because 'well the last wedding I attended, the WP had us give permission to take our pic's'.
You should definitely ALWAYS ensure that you're not put in a compromising permission, but creating this contract (which actually means very little in law) is just formalising (poss justifying) prejudices. As always just my 2 pennorth:)

[cwphoto]

it would give me a piece of mind

Is that a small piece or a large piece? :p ;)

[cwphoto]

Obviously my mistake!;)
The law isn't a grey area at all. All we are doing as photographers if we create 'legalese' documents to 'protect' ourselves against imagined problems is setting a precedent that restricts our freedom.

Don't be surprised if, in 20 years time we need signed permisssion from all atendees at a wedding, just because 'well the last wedding I attended, the WP had us give permission to take our pic's'.
You should definitely ALWAYS ensure that you're not put in a compromising permission, but creating this contract (which actually means very little in law) is just formalising (poss justifying) prejudices. As always just my 2 pennorth:)

Make that four pennies, couldn't agree more - exactly what I was trying to say a few posts back.