A cautionary tale when photographing minors

http://shine.yahoo.com …ts-2529083/#photoViewer=1

That was five minutes of my life that could have been used for something more productive...like sorting pocket lint.

Bob

Sounds like they feel like they were not paid enough for farming their daughter out as a model.

If the court goes along the same line as the GARRY GROSS v. BROOKE SHIELDS decision, the parents are likely to lose--the provocative nature of the images is not likely to be an issue, as long as they were not explicitly pornographic. The only thing likely to be an issue is whether the "understanding" that some of the pictures were not to be used is enforceable....

The bottom line is that parents have to man-up in the first place and not let dollar signs blind them to their parental responsibilities.

http://ny.findacase.co​m …9851015_0050296​.NY.htm/qx

http://iconicphotos.wo​rdpress.com …ke-shields-by-gary-gross/

+1

That's what I got out of it too.

RDKirk wrote in post #12973566
If the court goes along the same line as the GARRY GROSS v. BROOKE SHIELDS decision, the parents are likely to lose--the provocative nature of the images is not likely to be an issue, as long as they were not explicitly pornographic. The only thing likely to be an issue is whether the "understanding" that some of the pictures were not to be used is enforceable....

The bottom line is that parents have to man-up in the first place and not let dollar signs blind them to their parental responsibilities.

Hey how about a NWS warning on your links next time seriously