could photographers get sued for working with underage models?

Question

I was wondering if a photographer who is taking pictures can get sued by someone other then the persons parents? If the pictures arent at all explicit is there anyway that they could get introuble? The parents know they are modeling so they have no problem just the kid is under 18

i said sued because my mom brought it up today when we saw some tv show, i dont really know what she ment by it.

Answer 1

No....if it isn't child pornography and you aren't making them do anything they don't want it's fine.

Answer 2

Sued for what?

A lawsuit is a civil dispute over money between two individuals. For someone to succesfully sue a photographer, they'd need to show that the photographer did something that financially harmed them.

Now, if the photographer takes photos of a minor which are illegal (even WITH parental permission) then he could be *criminally* charged with manufacture of child pornography, but I can't think of any way that even that could give rise to a *lawsuit*.

To the poster below who mentioned nudity..... nudity alone does not make photos of minors illegal, nor does the lack of nudity mean that they're NOT illegal.

Let's say that a photographer takes photographs of nude kids playing at a nudist resort to be published in the resorts newsletter. Just because the kids are nude doesn't mean those pictures are illegal, or every nudist club in the country would have it's magazine shut down.

Now, on the other hand, if he takes pictures of 12 year old girls posing provocatively in sexy lingerie, those pictures probably ARE illegal, even though there's NO nudity, because of the "prurient intent" with which they were made. If the same pictures, though, were taken to illustrate a sales catalog, they're likely legal.

It's NOT a simple subject, and there's no "bright line" test.

Richard

Answer 3

If the photographer is working with models under the age of 18 and does not have a release signed by a parent, guardian or legal agent, he WANTS to be in trouble. He can not use the pictures without the release, so I would assume anyone trying to sue him would not have much of a case.

Anyone can bring a suit against anyone else at any time for any reason. This does not mean it will ever get to the point of a hearing, but the suit can still be filed. So can a counter-suit against a frivolous suit.

Answer 4

You haven't stated the full contract which will define the obligations. Is she modeling for free, paying the photographer or getting paid? A release is not always necessary, but it's best to have one. Is their agreement in writing? If there is a clause about making a timely decision, the photographer might be able to invoke it. If she's a model, what emotional distress can having one's picture taken and displayed cause? Was it a private photo, an illegal one? It all depends on the contract and what is exchanged for what consideration. No contract, use of her photos taken in a non public area might be actionable.

Answer 5

The photographer should have an adult member of the opposite sex present at all times, even though the photos are not explicite. I see no reason why the photographer would get into any kind of trouble. He would have to have the parents' permission.

Answer 6

that all depends. explicit or not it could be considered, by the local law enforcement, to be "pornagraphic" in nature. A minor say in his or her underclothes and no shirt is called Child porn!! both you and the parents can get into trouble.

Answer 7

Sued? I don't know. But they could go to jail if the content was determined to be "inconsistent with community standards", which may or not mean anything!

Answer 8

As long as there's no nudity involved, they only need the parents' permission.