Would you let a Nanny sign a release for a minor?

[wophotog]

I just got a request from a 'Nanny' to do portraits of a child she works with - as a surprise for the parents.

Nice idea, but would you be OK with doing this?

[Naturalist]

Absolutely NOT. Parent or legal guardian only.

[asysin2leads]

I just got a request from a 'Nanny' to do portraits of a child she works with - as a surprise for the parents.

Nice idea, but would you be OK with doing this?

That's a toughy. If the parents have designated her as a "guardian," then I don't see an issue with it. If she is the nanny, then she would be an employee, or private contractor, of the family, depending on how they set it all up. I wouldn't have an issue with it.

[RDKirk]

That's a toughy. If the parents have designated her as a "guardian," then I don't see an issue with it. If she is the nanny, then she would be an employee, or private contractor, of the family, depending on how they set it all up. I wouldn't have an issue with it.

No, a nanny will not have been designated as a legal guardian--it takes an actual court order or standing law (such as natural parentage) to establish legal guardianship sufficient that for model release purposes.

[natalieegbert]

As a former nanny id suggest you suggest to the nanny that maybe a gift certificate for your services or something along that line would be better. I understand wanting to give a gift but just to be on the safe side a gift certificate might be better. So the parents still get a gift and the nanny can still be gift giver, with no legal issues to worry about.

[LeeSC]

In an emergency situation, a nanny/grandparent/school teacher could all act as legal guardians if parents were not available. However, I don't think a photo shoot would be deemed an emergency. The parents need to be consulted.

[Mr. E]

I agree with LeeSC, natalieegbert and others- I would definitely not accept it. I think the idea of a gift certificate is the order here. If the parents did not like it at all if you did the shoot, the nanny may lose her job (something else to consider).

[Karl Johnston]

legal guardian or parent only

[ssim]

I never get a release unless I plan on using the image for my purposes after the shoot. A release is there to hold you harmless and unless you are planning on doing something with the images I am curious as to the requirement for a release.

I've done portraits where aunts, uncles, grandparents or even friends bring the child to the shoot. It would be simple enough to follow up with the parents after the supposed surprise was done.

[LeeSC]

I personally wouldnt want a babysitter or nanny taking my children for pictures without my knowledge, even if it was for a surprise. Dealing with kids photos can be kind of tricky these days. I would hate for parents to get upset and blow this whole thing out of proportion, making the photographer look bad.

While these photos might not seem like much, the kid you photographer today could be adopted by Angelie Jolie tomorrow or grow up to be the next Britney Spears. There are many examples online of what originally started as a simple graduation shoot or kids photo day that turned into something totally different.

[asysin2leads]

First, I agree w/ the gift certificate idea. Much less hassle. A nanny is, at least in my opinion, different than a babysitter. A babysitter is someone who is a short-term solution. A nanny is more of a long-term, sometimes live in, solution. They perform more of a surrogate parent role rather than someone who sits on the couch and puts little Johnny to bed while the parents hit the town.

[dinny66]

Gift certificate for me.
Would avoid any potential problems, however well intentioned she is.
To put it another way, as a parent who has a nanny, ours doesn't have any 'legal guardian' status for that kind of thing. I would feel uneasy about her doing it too, however well meaning it is.

[natalieegbert]

I had my mother in law take my kids to get their pictures taken and it made me very mad. She had them taken with her and my sister in law and my sister in law took them to work and paraded them arround as her own kids. I never did anything about it but yell at my mother in law and my sister in law. Im not sure if legally the photograher could be held liable for anything, but without the parents consent you never know what the nanny plans to do with the pictures (like my inlaws maybe she will parade them arround).

[Mhappy]

Absolutely NOT. Parent or legal guardian only.
+1.

I just found out too that, even a divorced parent who has their child(ren) on the weekends can't sign a model release form... it has to be the parent with the most custody. I don't agree with it, but that's the law. (in Ontario anyways) sigh.

[dtrble95]

No way, they are not the parent/guardian and legally have no right to sign for that child. You are just looking for troubles with that one.

[wophotog]

Thanks everyone! (I told her it's a no go without the parent's signature.)

[DDCSD]

OP, there is absolutely no reason that you would need a release signed. Whether or not you are comfortable doing it or not is a different issue.

I personally don't think there would be an issue and would do it.

I really can't understand some of the responses in this thread. Is it really that big of a deal if someone that the person obviously trust with the life of their children takes them to a studio for a couple of photos? Would it be OK if the nanny took the photos themselves?



I never get a release unless I plan on using the image for my purposes after the shoot. A release is there to hold you harmless and unless you are planning on doing something with the images I am curious as to the requirement for a release.

I've done portraits where aunts, uncles, grandparents or even friends bring the child to the shoot. It would be simple enough to follow up with the parents after the supposed surprise was done.

I agree.


While these photos might not seem like much, the kid you photographer today could be adopted by Angelie Jolie tomorrow or grow up to be the next Britney Spears. There are many examples online of what originally started as a simple graduation shoot or kids photo day that turned into something totally different.

Huh? Why would any of that mean anything?

I had my mother in law take my kids to get their pictures taken and it made me very mad. She had them taken with her and my sister in law and my sister in law took them to work and paraded them arround as her own kids. I never did anything about it but yell at my mother in law and my sister in law. Im not sure if legally the photograher could be held liable for anything, but without the parents consent you never know what the nanny plans to do with the pictures (like my inlaws maybe she will parade them arround).

So, it wouldn't have made you mad if they took the pictures themselves and "paraded" around with them? Sounds like there is other things at issue other than the fact that they took your kids to a photographer.

No, the photographer could not have been held liable for anything in the situation that you described.

[Dennis_Hammer]

She can't sign a release but why not take the pictures anyway. You have portrait clients sign a release?? I never have a portrait client sign a release. Maybe if there is some utterly fantastic unique image that has commercial value other than a portrait.....but a portrait has no commercial value other than the value to the person who hired you to do it.

Some people may have issues with others taking their children for portraits but honestly thats between them the person who did it. To start playing morals police as a photographer would be silly. My ex mother-in-law used to have my kids portraits taken all the time. No Big Deal.

Shoot the pictures so the Nanny can give the parents a nice framed portriat of the children they love instead of an envelope with a gift certificate that they will probably send the Nanny with to get them done.

[DDCSD]

She can't sign a release but why not take the pictures anyway. You have portrait clients sign a release?? I never have a portrait client sign a release. Maybe if there is some utterly fantastic unique image that has commercial value other than a portrait.....but a portrait has no commercial value other than the value to the person who hired you to do it.

Some people may have issues with others taking their children for portraits but honestly thats between them the person who did it. To start playing morals police as a photographer would be silly. My ex mother-in-law used to have my kids portraits taken all the time. No Big Deal.

Shoot the pictures so the Nanny can give the parents a nice framed portriat of the children they love instead of an envelope with a gift certificate that they will probably send the Nanny with to get them done.


Finally some sanity in here!

[natalieegbert]

OP, there is absolutely no reason that you would need a release signed. Whether or not you are comfortable doing it or not is a different issue.

I personally don't think there would be an issue and would do it.

I really can't understand some of the responses in this thread. Is it really that big of a deal if someone that the person obviously trust with the life of their children takes them to a studio for a couple of photos? Would it be OK if the nanny took the photos themselves?





I agree.



Huh? Why would any of that mean anything?



So, it wouldn't have made you mad if they took the pictures themselves and "paraded" around with them? Sounds like there is other things at issue other than the fact that they took your kids to a photographer.

No, the photographer could not have been held liable for anything in the situation that you described.


Of course it would bother me if they took them themeselves and paraded them arround. I was just saying my mother in law and my sister in law had pictures taken of my children without my consent and it made me mad. I did not deal with this photographer at all just my inlaws, I doubt there is anything I could really do after the fact anyways. Its just the point that you never know what people truely plan to do with pictures taken of other peoples kids, so I would stay on the safe side and not take the pictures with the nannys consent. Do the gift certificate thing or something. I do not no the laws nor claim to so legally I would assume unless the pictures were for ads or something legally you could take them. I just due to my personal experience would not take the pictures for someone other then parents. And yes there was a personal issue also going on my sister in law was trying to pretend my kids were hers with those pics.

[mikekelley]

Yeah I don't get the rest of the responses either. I do this in a heartbeat without thinking twice.

[nemo man]

You are kidding, right?

[RDKirk]

She can't sign a release but why not take the pictures anyway. You have portrait clients sign a release?? I never have a portrait client sign a release. Maybe if there is some utterly fantastic unique image that has commercial value other than a portrait.....but a portrait has no commercial value other than the value to the person who hired you to do it.

I ask portrait clients to sign releases so that I may use their images to promote my business. Often they ask me, "You're going to put me on your website, right?" I also have some exhibited in local businesses and submit some into competitions.

[mikekelley]

You are kidding, right?
Why would I have a portrait client sign a release...I am shooting them for them, not to sell them for stock or use them to promote a business, etc.

IF the shoot is solely to promote my business, I'll find someone I like who I will pay to sit with the sole intent of using the shots from that session to promote my business.

[cdifoto]

Of course it would bother me if they took them themeselves and paraded them arround. I was just saying my mother in law and my sister in law had pictures taken of my children without my consent and it made me mad. I did not deal with this photographer at all just my inlaws, I doubt there is anything I could really do after the fact anyways. Its just the point that you never know what people truely plan to do with pictures taken of other peoples kids, so I would stay on the safe side and not take the pictures with the nannys consent. Do the gift certificate thing or something. I do not no the laws nor claim to so legally I would assume unless the pictures were for ads or something legally you could take them. I just due to my personal experience would not take the pictures for someone other then parents. And yes there was a personal issue also going on my sister in law was trying to pretend my kids were hers with those pics.
You have a lot of holes in your logic.

[cdifoto]

You don't need a release unless you want to put the pictures in your portfolio/blog/website (or anywhere else to specifically benefit your business) to draw in more clients.

Shoot the pics. Make some money. If you don't wanna do that, send them to me. I'll shoot the pics and make some money instead. The relationship between the kids and the person holding their hands is none of my business.

[nemo man]

Why would I have a portrait client sign a release...I am shooting them for them, not to sell them for stock or use them to promote a business, etc.
I

It's not about release forms or whether you are using it for stock. The nanny is not a parent, and the parent(s) did not know of the pictures. The child is not an adult and can not reasonably make the decision. If the nanny makes that decision, it could be that she/he has been told by the parents that she can act in any way she thinks appropriate and reasonable. But how do you know that? Do you take the nanny's word?

[DDCSD]

You don't need a release unless you want to put the pictures in your portfolio/blog/website (or anywhere else to specifically benefit your business) to draw in more clients.

Shoot the pics. Make some money. If you don't wanna do that, send them to me. I'll shoot the pics and make some money instead. The relationship between the kids and the person holding their hands is none of my business.

No, send them to me!

It's not about release forms or whether you are using it for stock. The nanny is not a parent, and the parent(s) did not know of the pictures. The child is not an adult and can not reasonably make the decision. If the nanny makes that decision, it could be that she/he has been told by the parents that she can act in any way she thinks appropriate and reasonable. But how do you know that? Do you take the nanny's word?


The nanny is someone that the parent is comfortable with knowing who to call in case the kid drinks a case of Lysol. I would not worry for a second that the parent would be uncomfortable with me taking a photo of their child sitting in their child's nanny's lap...

[cdifoto]

It's not about release forms or whether you are using it for stock. The nanny is not a parent, and the parent(s) did not know of the pictures. The child is not an adult and can not reasonably make the decision. If the nanny makes that decision, it could be that she/he has been told by the parents that she can act in any way she thinks appropriate and reasonable. But how do you know that? Do you take the nanny's word?
1. Creating a portrait of a child is neither illegal nor harmful to the child in any way, so it doesn't matter a lick who brings them in.
2. Parental trust is inherent in the position of "nanny."

Nannies help raise the children. Some/most nannies are live-in. That means they sleep in the same house as the children. You gonna tell me a parent hires a person they don't trust to live in their house and help raise their kids? It's okay for the nanny to be responsible for cooking meals for the children, cleaning the house so that it's fit for them to live in, making sure they're on time for school and picking them up from the same, and teaching them to read, write, and do long division, but they can't take them to a photographer for a portrait sitting?

C'mon now.

[nemo man]

Cdifoto

I don't disagree with anything you just said. Unfortunately, the world (at least here in the UK) has gone mad when it comes to photographing kids. I think it's way over the top, just like the reaction to terrorism, but what can you do?

[cdifoto]

Cdifoto

I don't disagree with anything you just said. Unfortunately, the world (at least here in the UK) has gone mad when it comes to photographing kids. I think it's way over the top, just like the reaction to terrorism, but what can you do?
I don't see how even the most nutty of parents would cause a stink over their nanny taking their kids for portraits.

Even if they did, they'd certainly have no legal basis for attacking the photographer. It would be between the nanny and the parent.

Since this thread is more about self-preservation than anything else, BRING ON THE KIDS!

[SuzyView]

Haven't read through all the responses, but as a parent, I would be very suspicious of the nanny. I know that sounds paranoid, but my children are mine and no one should be allowed to do portraits of the without letting me know first. I am also a pro so I can see the other side, if the images are somehow not protected in every way, how that may be very damaging. A gift certificate is a good alternative. Maybe you can suggest a family portrait and the parents will allow the child to have their own done.

[cdifoto]

Haven't read through all the responses, but as a parent, I would be very suspicious of the nanny. I know that sounds paranoid, but my children are mine and no one should be allowed to do portraits of the without letting me know first. I am also a pro so I can see the other side, if the images are somehow not protected in every way, how that may be very damaging. A gift certificate is a good alternative. Maybe you can suggest a family portrait and the parents will allow the child to have their own done.
Yes, to me it sounds irrational as well. It's completely devoid of logic, for the reasons I stated above.

[SwitchBlade]

The UK may have gone paedo mad, but I don't think that people are that mad yet that having Mary Poppins take the kids to the local photographer to have some pretty pictures done for the parents would have people reaching for the torches and pitchforks.

If you were to stand at the edge of the playground with a telephoto taking the photos you may set alarm bells ringing.

[nemo man]

The UK may have gone paedo mad, but I don't think that people are that mad yet that having Mary Poppins take the kids to the local photographer to have some pretty pictures done for the parents would have people reaching for the torches and pitchforks.


What about trusting a teaching assistant? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8178105.stm

[cdifoto]

What about trusting a teaching assistant? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8178105.stm
That's not even remotely similar to taking kids to a photographer for portraits.

[LeeSC]

This is an interesting discussion. I think some of us (especially those of us with children) are favoring our moral compass while others are taking this on a purely legal stance.

I guess a more important question would be could the nanny enter in a legally binding contract for the job with the kids as the photo shoots subject(s)?

Most, if not all, of our contracts contain our copyright/ reproduction preferences. If the parents take the photos and decide to make 1000 reproductions without the photographers knowledge/permission or paste one of the pics up on local billboards, would you have any legal standing to seek compensation?

[SwitchBlade]

What about trusting a teaching assistant? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8178105.stm

Sorry, are you accusing professional photographers of being in league with nannies to take paedophillic photographs of children? Because I'm fairly sure that's not what this thread is about, it's about taking proper portrait photographs of the children. What they print in the Sun isn't true all photographers are not paedophiles or terrorists. ;)

[nemo man]

Sorry, are you accusing professional photographers of being in league with nannies to take paedophillic photographs of children? Because I'm fairly sure that's not what this thread is about, it's about taking proper portrait photographs of the children. What they print in the Sun isn't true all photographers are not paedophiles or terrorists. ;)

All I am saying is that if you get a request to take some pictures of children in a private place, then it might be best to ensure that the parents know about it and have given it the OK. That is all I'm saying.

[nemo man]

That's not even remotely similar to taking kids to a photographer for portraits.

If someone is a position of professional trust, and that might include professional togs, then one might assume that it was safe. But what about the professional doctors who commit sexual abuse? The professional nurse who commits sexual abuse? The head-master who commits sexual abuse? In all those cases the parent has trusted the professional, and been let down. I admit it is rare, but it does happen. And because of that it might be best to get the parents agreement first.

[cdifoto]

If someone is a position of professional trust, and that might include professional togs, then one might assume that it was safe. But what about the professional doctors who commit sexual abuse? The professional nurse who commits sexual abuse? The head-master who commits sexual abuse? In all those cases the parent has trusted the professional, and been let down. I admit it is rare, but it does happen. And because of that it might be best to get the parents agreement first.
You're really blowing it out of proportion. No wonder the UK has such nutty laws...everyone thinks everyone else is a pervert.

Yeah. Sexual abuse happens. But this is a simple PHOTO SHOOT. If the photographer is a paedo, prosecute the bastard. If the nanny is a sicko, prosecute the bitch. But we have NO evidence that the OP and the Nanny are up to no good. I know for a fact that as a photographer I would not have ulterior motives, so I don't give a damn who brings the kids in. If client wants pictures, client gets pictures. What he or she does with those pictures after the fact is on him or her.

[SwitchBlade]

Have to agree with cdifoto. Yeah there's some dodgy types, the red tops blow it all out of proportion trying to stir up paedogeddon, but if you let it really get to you like that all you end up is pandering to the shock media trying to scare you into staying at home. The nanny is fully trusted to look after the children, and while may not whisk them away to a magical fantasy land taking the kids to a local photo studio to have a nice picture done for the parents is a nice gift idea.

Were I to hire a nanny/au-pair to look after my kids (once winning the lottery) the idea of trusting that person means that I believe that they are looking after the best interest of the children. If I didn't think that I would be at home and not spending the money on that person. Yes, I agree in the original context that signing a modelling release is something that should be up to the parents, but if you don't do the release the photos are done simply to hand them to the nanny, who cares if she wants them for her memories or to give to the parents. If she were after photos for a depraved purpose it's far more likely she'd use a P&S at bath time IMHO, not go to a pro.

[DealsGapCobra]

This is an interesting discussion. I think some of us (especially those of us with children) are favoring our moral compass while others are taking this on a purely legal stance.

I am not sure where these moral compasses are pointing :p

I have a nanny, I trust her completely with my child or she wouldn't be in that position. I would have NO issue with this at all.

[DDCSD]

I guess a more important question would be could the nanny enter in a legally binding contract for the job with the kids as the photo shoots subject(s)?



This has no relevance to this discussion. There is no requirement for a contract to be signed to take a photograph of someone.

A nanny could not sign a model release giving the photographer right to use the photos commercially.




Most, if not all, of our contracts contain our copyright/ reproduction preferences. If the parents take the photos and decide to make 1000 reproductions without the photographers knowledge/permission or paste one of the pics up on local billboards, would you have any legal standing to seek compensation?


Yes there would be plenty of legal standing. No contract needs to be signed for the photographer to have copyright of their photos. If someone infringes upon the photographers copyright, the photographer can take legal recourse against that person.


Do you really require a contract for a simple portrait session? That would be like going into a book store and having to sign a contract before they will let you take the book out of the store. :rolleyes:

I understand having a model release signed for some shoots so that you can use the photos for self promotion, but you certainly don't need one for every single shoot.

[RDKirk]

I understand having a model release signed for some shoots so that you can use the photos for self promotion, but you certainly don't need one for every single shoot.

Because that is the question the OP asked, clearly a model release was what the OP wanted...for whatever reasons he or she wanted it.

The OP did not ask "do I need a release?" The OP asked if a nanny could sign a release. There is an answer to that question: No.

Then the thread got hijacked by people who wanted to argue about the necessity (or lack thereof) of model releases.

[cdifoto]

Because that is the question the OP asked, clearly a model release was what the OP wanted...for whatever reasons he or she wanted it.

The OP did not ask "do I need a release?" The OP asked if a nanny could sign a release. There is an answer to that question: No.

Then the thread got hijacked by people who wanted to argue about the necessity (or lack thereof) of model releases.
Because OP canceled the shoot entirely, which was an unnecessary move from a legal standpoint.

[DDCSD]

Because that is the question the OP asked, clearly a model release was what the OP wanted...for whatever reasons he or she wanted it.

The OP did not ask "do I need a release?" The OP asked if a nanny could sign a release. There is an answer to that question: No.

Then the thread got hijacked by people who wanted to argue about the necessity (or lack thereof) of model releases.


Some of us are trying to point out to the OP that they don't need to have a release signed to photograph someone's children, as the OP is clearly under the impression that they need one.

Realistically the nanny could sign the release, since the release would mean absolutely nothing anyways.

The OP actually never even mentioned a model release.

My mention of a model release was in response to the people that hijacked the thread and made it about model releases, when the OP wasn't asking about them.

[DDCSD]

For clarification, here are both of the OP's posts in this thread.



I just got a request from a 'Nanny' to do portraits of a child she works with - as a surprise for the parents.

Nice idea, but would you be OK with doing this?

Thanks everyone! (I told her it's a no go without the parent's signature.)


Here is the title of the thread.

Would you let a Nanny sign a release for a minor?

[MJPhotos24]

What about trusting a teaching assistant? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8178105.stm

Where is your mind that you jump from taking a simple portrait in a professional manner to this??? Seriously disturbing when someone makes that leap! I understand there's people that will find the bad in everything but to take it right to this is insane. Especially with limited info given.

As for the situation at hand, it depends. If she wants a portrait as a surprise for the parents what's the harm? You do the portrait in a professional manner and if you're worried about it then do a follow up. Ask for when they'll be giving it to the parents so you can contact them a week or so after and ask if they liked it and how you'd just like them to know who did it, or any excuse you can think of to contact them if you're that worried.

[ssim]

I can't believe how quickly things can go sideways here. I will echo others in that the comparison between the people in the link provide by nemo and photographers operating as a business is just plain silly. There is no comparison. Of course there are always going to be people to look at the worst possible scenario in a given situation I think common sense would prevail and I highly doubt that the parents would be overly concerned with this given that they were taken to the photographer as a surprise gift for the parents. Lets try and look at the good side of this human action.

I get the impression that alot of photographers are getting their clients to sign releases for all shoots. I just don't get that. More administration than is necessary.

I only know one person that has a nanny which is a live in. The parents have a written contract with her. She essentially functions as the parent and is given the authority to do so.

I think that the OP could follow up with the parents after the date of the gift to make sure that they are ok with had transpired. If they are not they could offer to shred the offending file. Chances are that they will be fine and this is the opportunity for the OP to be shown as a caring person and this can actually turn into a future marketing call all wrapped up in one.

[nemo man]

HERE (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=741861)

[cdifoto]

HERE (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=741861)
You set up your own scenario and put a negative spin on it to get the poll results you want to get. You also phrased your poll differently than your opening post.

Your poll has no validity whatsoever. :rolleyes:

[nemo man]

You set up your own scenario and put a negative spin on it to get the poll results you want to get. You also phrased your poll differently than your opening post.

Your poll has no validity whatsoever. :rolleyes:

The scenario I put together is what I believe to be a typical one. It's easy (watching American movies) to believe that everyone in the Western world is part of a wealthy family, where the father is a Southern California lawyer and the mother is something in corporate world, and they just need a live-in nanny (they put her up in the annexe of their beach house) She comes from a reputable agency who list celebrities on their client list. What possible harm can come from that?

The reality is that the parents have middling jobs and live in Detroit, or Sheffield (that's in the UK). They employ someone, perhaps on a casual basis, to look after junior.

The scenario I painted is somewhere in the middle.

Get real, will you.

PS Two people have already said 'serious questions' and one has said 'sack' What if you were the photographer who had accepted the nanny's word? What if you were the (honourable) nanny and the photographer had turned out bad?

[FlyingPhotog]

The reality is that the parents have middling jobs and live in Detroit, or Sheffield (that's in the UK). They employ someone, perhaps on a casual basis, to look after junior.

The scenario I painted is somewhere in the middle.

Get real, will you.

Pot Meet Kettle...

[SwitchBlade]

That poll is hilarious in it's retardedness. You might as well have tossed in the photographer being on the sex offender's register for good measure.

[nemo man]

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg259/carregwen/forum/windup.jpg

[mikekelley]

lol this is so ridiculous. i can't wait to have a 6 year old some day and get a nanny and have the nanny give me a gift like that. i'd give her a bonus and take her out to dinner.

best nanny.

[Moppie]

It appears this thread has been run of its tracks and finnaly stopped.


Next time a similar topic comes up I suggest everyone behave a little more rationally and not take things to extremes.
In the future, if you can't be rational, don't post. If you do, you can expect a private PM from a mod.