Check out your images posted here folks. If you don't have the model releases signed by your models better remove your photos now to avoid trouble. We might have great images to show but there are legal matters we might have ovelooked. Payong kapati lang.:)

Ross,

Do you have more or less a model release template to share with the forum members?

N

Check out your images posted here folks. If you don't have the model releases signed by your models better remove your photos now to avoid trouble. We might have great images to show but there are legal matters we might have ovelooked. Payong kapati lang.:)


Actually, not really. I inquired that with lawyers a long time ago. I was informed that unless the image was not being used for commercial purposes there is nothing against exhibiting samples of one's work. Let me post quotes from answers to queries I made with Romulo Mabanta law offices.

QUERY:

If a photographer owns the copyright of the images, does it mean he has the right to publish or exhibit the photograph, or is it countered or limited by the rights of the subject?
Does the photographer need the permission of his subject, where the subject is a person or group of people, for the following uses:

1.An exhibit of works of the photographer, in a venue open to the public (no charge).
2.An online portfolio (a web site exhibiting the works of the photographer).
3.A portfolio card showing samples of the works of the photographer, to be given away (to promote his photographic skills)
4. Being featured in a magazine or news article, where some samples of his work are shown.


ANSWER:

There is no law requiring the photographer to obtain the permission of his subject in order to display or exhibit his works to the public. Neither the Intellectual Property Code (R.A. 8293) nor any relevant treaties to which the Philippines is a party (e.g. Berne Convention, the TRIPS Agreement) requires that a photographer obtain his subject’s permission prior to any public display of the images.

Since the photographer owns the copyright of the images, he has the following economic rights:

1.Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of the work;
2.Dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgment, arrangement or other transformation of the work;
3.The first public distribution of the original and each copy of the work by sale or other forms of transfer of ownership;
4.Rental of the original or a copy of an audiovisual or cinematographic work, a work embodied in a sound recording, a computer program, a compilation of data and other materials or a musical work in graphic form, irrespective of the ownership of the original or the copy which is the subject of the rental; (n)
5.Public display of the original or a copy of the work;
6.Public performance of the work; and
7.Other communication to the public of the work. (Section 177, Intellectual Property Code)

Even assuming that the photographs were commissioned by particular individuals, the author of the work (in this case, the photographer) still owns the copyright. Section 178.4 of the Intellectual Property Code states that:

In respect of work commissioned by a person other than the employer of the creator and who pays for it and the work is made in pursuance of the commission, the person who so commissioned the work shall have ownership of the work, but the copyright thereto shall remain with the creator, unless there is a written stipulation to the contrary. (emphasis supplied)

Similarly, the photographer does not lose his copyright despite the sale of the pictures subject to copyright. The Intellectual Property Code provides:

SECTION 181. Copyright and Material Object. — The copyright is distinct from the property in the material object subject to it. Consequently, the transfer or assignment of the copyright shall not itself constitute a transfer of the material object. Nor shall a transfer or assignment of the sole copy or of one or several copies of the work imply transfer or assignment of the copyright.

Section 181 distinguishes between the copyright (the bundle of the author’s exclusive rights) from the physical embodiment of the exercise of that right (which is the material object of the protected work). On account of this provision, a painter may sell his painting but retain his copyright; the painter can, therefore, object to any reproduction of his painting or any use of it as a derivative work. On the other hand, he may retain the painting but assign his copyright separately. Consequently, the author may still distribute the photographs despite the sale of the actual picture.

However, in at least 2 cases, it is submitted that the subject of the photograph may object to its public distribution or display:

First, with respect to work which is created during the course of employment, the copyright may belong to the employer under certain circumstances, to wit:

In respect of work created by an author during and in the course of employment, the copyright shall belong to:
a)the employee, if the creation of the object of copyright is not a part of his regular duties even if the employee uses the time, facilities and materials of the employer.
b)the employer, if the work is the result of the performance of his regularly-assigned duties, unless there is an agreement, express or implied, to the contrary. (Section 178.3, Intellectual Property Code)

This may not be applicable in the present case, as it appears that the photographer actually owns the copyright to the pictures.

Second, in case the photographs are libelous, then the subject of the photograph may have grounds to object to the picture’s dissemination. The photographer may also be held criminally and civilly liable for the alleged defamation. (See Art. 360, Revised Penal Code)

Although it is not specifically mentioned in the answers to the query. I have been told that as long as you don't use it for commercial purposes such as selling the images, or using it in an advertisement then there is nothing against it.

I further inquired what if the images are used in a website, or other means that showcase your work. I was told that if the images were displayed to show a sample of your art work, it is different from using the image to appear as if the person was endorsing the product.
The same lawyer I asked handled the multi-million peso case of a particular celebrity some years ago who sued certain individuals and companies for using a photo of him in an ad without permission. Thus, I am confident they have experience in that regard.

Of course, if you know that the person requested that the images be used for private consumption only, then its best to honor that - i don't think its worth the headache and bad blood that might be created.

Ross,

Do you have more or less a model release template to share with the forum members?

N






ADULT MODEL RELEASE





In consideration of my engagement as a model, upon the terms herewith stated, I hereby
give to________________________________________________ _______________his heirs, legal representatives and assigns, those for
whom_____________________________________________i s acting, and those acting with his/her authority and permission:



a) the unrestricted right and permission to copyright and use, re-use, publish, and republish photographic portraits or pictures of me or in which I may be included intact or in part, composite or distorted in character or form, without restriction as to changes or transformations in conjunction with my own or a fictitious name, or reproduction hereof in color or otherwise, made through any and all media now or hereafter known for illustration, art, promotion, advertising, trade, or any other purpose whatsoever.


b) I also permit the use of any printed material in connection therewith.


c) I hereby relinquish any right that I may have to examine or approve the completed product or products or the advertising copy or printed matter that may be used in conjunction therewith or the use to which it may be applied.


d) I hereby release, discharge and agree to save harmless [photographer], his/her heirs, legal representatives or assigns, and all persons functioning under his/her permission or authority, or those for whom he/she is functioning, from any liability by virtue of any blurring, distortion, alteration, optical illusion, or use in composite form whether intentional or otherwise, that may occur or be produced in the taking of said picture or in any subsequent processing thereof, as well as any publication thereof, including without limitation any claims for libel or invasion of privacy.




e) I hereby affirm that I am over the age of majority and have the right to contract in my own name. I have read the above authorization, release and agreement, prior to its execution; I fully understand the contents thereof. This agreement shall be binding upon me and my heirs, legal representatives and assigns.



Dated: ________________Signed:___________________________ __________


Address:__________________________________________ ________________


City:_____________________________________________ ________________


State/Zip:______________________________________________ ____________


Phone:____________________________________________ ________________


Witness:__________________________________________ _________________:)

What are deviantART's policies on nudity? perhaps DPP will establish a policy too for future legal issues that may arise.
FYI, devianART is one of the leading art photo web portal.


I quote..."Official Nudity Policy
The following is the official policy on deviantART for the submission of nude art. Nude Art is any type of art work depicting the nude or partially nude human body, or in the case of certain genres of art the depiction of any nude humanoid body sharing the gross anatomical traits of the human body. It is important to note that nude art is not limited to photographybut also includes other art forms such as life-like sketches, drawings, renderings and potentially even explicit and highly descriptive writings (to name a few possibilities).

First and foremost nudity is allowed to be submitted to deviantART. In all cases involving explicit nudity the submitting artist should mark their submission as mature content and the administration reserves the right to place a mature content tag on any submission which is deemed to require one.
It is strongly suggested that photographers submitting nude art have the neccessary model release form documentation recorded. While the model release form documentation is not required as of this writing the deviantART administration reserves the right to demand such documentation at any time and to remove any work for which it is demanded but not provided":)

ross, sir louie, et al,

if you ask me, for commercial purposes or otherwise; including showing your artwork online, i'd rather have that model release form signed by the subject, unless he/she would ask, in my case, the negatives and/or original prints...meaning, that i wouldn't have a copy of the images anymore.

my question is, after having the form signed, do i have to have it notarized?

a friend photographer of mine who used to shoot for ad agencies says it's not necessary but it wouldn't hurt if i do so.

thanks

granting that a photographer got a model release, is it also inherent to compensate the model?

Of course its always best to play safe. But if you notice the standard model release, it is not applicable for most situations. Notice that it gives the photographer so much right over the usage of the image including even commercial usage. This is perfect if you plan to use the photos for commercial purposes such as advertising, or if you are selling a calendar, etc. But for most cases, it will scare your model.

Many models come to you to be photographed for their portfolios or who simply want photos of themselves. So why would any of them agree to such a model release that relinquishes any rights they have. Why in the world would someone who comes to you to have their portrait taken, sign such an agreement that gives you the right to sell their images in a product, use it in an advertising campaign or whatever.

That model release makes sense if you use it for commercial purposes. In fact, not that I am saying it is not important, but it is not even a standard here. Advertising agencies have elaborate contracts with the models they hire for an ad. In fact, the terms are very detailed as to what it could be used for and for how long. Compare that to the model release which has no restrictions whatsoever.

Magazines, who always use models don't ask for model releases. I shoot for a lot of local magazines and a number of foreign ones and not once was a model release required.

I may be mistaken, but I believe those model releases are used mainly by photographers who plan to sell their images as stock images. It is not wise for a model to sign a model release that has no restrictions whatsoever as it can actually destroy their career.

I used to run a modeling agency and took care of 227 models. I would never have a model sign such a model release because it risked destroying their chances of doing any ads. Why? When you come into an agreement with an ad agency or advertiser, there are a lot of stipulations. For example: let's say the model is being hired for a toothpaste ad, there would be stipulations wherein the model must guarantee that she is not under any contract with and will not endorse any other toothpaste brand for x number of years. Now, if that model previously signed an all-encompassing model release such as the one above, then she would be at risk of a breach of contract at any moment. Why? Because the photographer that owns that model release could actually sell the images of the model to the competitor brand and the model no longer has control of it. By signing such a model release, it puts her modeling career at the mercy of the photographer.

Let's say the photographer sells the image for use in the ad of a really cheap brand of cologne by virtue of the all encompassing rights he has through the model release - no cologne brand would ever use her, not only that - if she is identified with the cheap brand... most other advertisers will avoid using her.

Thus, though that particular modeling release seems good for a photographer to have, I must say it is quite disadvantageous for the models. Unless you make it very clear to the model what signing it implies, I would even think it is unfair to have them sign it. It would be like asking them to sign a blank check.

Last month I did an ad shoot for a US company. They needed a similar model release, but we specified that it was to be used specifically for what purpose, for what media, for what company. I would think that is the fair way to do it.

sir louie,

what about for a gallery exhibit with intentions of selling prints? how should i go about this?

sir louie,

what about for a gallery exhibit with intentions of selling prints? how should i go about this?

I believe that you would need their permission since it is commercial already. Besides, if you will be making money off their images, I guess its just right that they should at least know and agree rather than they get pissed off at you.

I believe that you would need their permission since it is commercial already. Besides, if you will be making money off their images, I guess its just right that they should at least know and agree rather than they get pissed off at you.

they know beforehand that i'd be putting up the images in a exhibit and would be selling prints. i, of course, have their permission obviously but is the form still necessary?

btw, i have been having the prints done at DPI...very satisfied sir! :Grin: was there last saturday during the power failure. :)

granting that a photographer got a model release, is it also inherent to compensate the model?

it all depends on what you agree upon. abroad, uso ang TFP (time for prints) wherein models agree to be photographed by photographers in exchange for photos which they can use for their own portfolios. http://www.datahero.com/stmarc/tfp.html

they know beforehand that i'd be putting up the images in a exhibit and would be selling prints. i, of course, have their permission obviously but is the form still necessary?

btw, i have been having the prints done at DPI...very satisfied sir! :Grin: was there last saturday during the power failure. :)

Best to be safe if possible, but alam mo naman sa bansa natin, iba mentality. Most people will be flattered to high heavens to be included. I myself have never had a complaint about why their photo was exhibited, but have had tampo comments from models about why their photo wasn't included.

And even in some situations where contracts are needed, people are very lax about it. Naku, a decade ago when I handled models, there have been shoots wherein the contracts with the ad agencies were only signed after the shoot. Although verbally agreed upon, they are so lax with the paperwork.

There was one ocassion though wherein an agency came up with a new commercial made up of clips from old commercials. They had to get a contract from all the models to use the images from the old commercials in the new one. Well, they presumed that all models would agree, and worked on the contracts after. They were surprised when a huge controversy arose because one model didn't agree to the new contract and the new commercial was already airing. Although its a different situation, if you can play it safe, do so.

thanks so much sir louie. will definitely continue to have the forms signed

A few weeks ago, I was in a bind since an ad agency contacted me for them to use one of my pics which they found in flickr for a telecoms ad to be published in newspapers since I didn't have the model release. In fact, the photo was just one of my people pics that I shot during one of my travels. The offer was really good and when I asked if they needed model releases, the one I talked to didn't even know what it was for. I guess, I can confirm what Louie said about the practice here in the country about the need for these filled out forms considering that the ad agency is one of the biggest here in the country.

Idag dag ko lang about this copyright issues. Even if the photographer has a model release and had his/her shoot outdoors and nagkataon may mga background na nakuhanan that has trademarks, those label can sue the photographer.

Like when shooting outdoors and you happen to shoot your model on a street with a coffee shop across like starbuck or seattles best.... even the smallest logo of them might give you headaches =) ....... or shooting along edsa... those billboards can be a threat.

So ingat din.

=)

Since we are on the topic of posting images on line, I would like to just add my 2cents worth. In all my contracts with my clients, (especially weddings) it states in the contract that I own the copyright to the images taken and I can use it for publicity, exhibits, ect. HOWEVER, I always ask for permission...out of courtesy...and if they are sensitive about showing their images, then I respect that as well.

what if kung for stock photos? my company is need of models for our stock photo library, may mga natawagan na akong agency kaso ung iba, away pumayag pag stock photos.
thanks

sir Louie and to my DPP brothers...,

I do not know how to go about this but kindly tell me your thoughts on this...

I recently shot a 17 year old model in a Motel somewhere in QC and the theme was sexy, (sando and panty, no nudity)....though nothing happened because I know she's a minor and if ever there were sex, it would be consentual but I would rather not to save the headaches later on....

here is my dillema, she asked the sexy photos to be published in her FB and she allowed it, I told her it's perfectly fine to be just between us, but she wanted it to be public, now, can her parents sue me for taking sexy pics of her daughter?? nothing has happened but I wanted to have the peace of mind that this event would not happen later on...

thanks sir and God Bless....

hmm.....not sure but i think if she is a minor, her parents/guardian has power over her and can file a case of child abuse if they want to, the state might think that you took advantage of the fact that she is a minor and convinced her to model for you.

lalo na if the model would lie about things and would tell stories (hopefully not), i'm just thinking of the worst case scenario.

sir Louie and to my DPP brothers...,

I do not know how to go about this but kindly tell me your thoughts on this...

I recently shot a 17 year old model in a Motel somewhere in QC and the theme was sexy, (sando and panty, no nudity)....though nothing happened because I know she's a minor and if ever there were sex, it would be consentual but I would rather not to save the headaches later on....

here is my dillema, she asked the sexy photos to be published in her FB and she allowed it, I told her it's perfectly fine to be just between us, but she wanted it to be public, now, can her parents sue me for taking sexy pics of her daughter?? nothing has happened but I wanted to have the peace of mind that this event would not happen later on...

thanks sir and God Bless....

If your statement above is to be taken at face value, I'm sure the parents can get you on Acts of Lasciviousness, with a penalty of imprisonment from 6 months to 8 years.

I'm not even sure if you posted that because you're just plain clueless, or if it's some form of bragging to you.

But if you knew she was a minor and took her to a motel anyway, I'm sure the parents' lawyers can dig up some city ordinance to bury you in, because motels are not supposed to let anyone under the age of 18 on their premises.

You should be ashamed of yourself. You're putting other decent photographers in a very bad light because of what you wrote. Anyone who reads this will think that bringing minors to motels for sexy shoots is an ordinary thing for photographers.

In addition, maybe this very recent news item could jolt you back to your senses:

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/regions/11/22/11/guard-kills-self-over-daughters-sexy-fb-photos

MANILA, Philippines - Tragedy struck a family in Malabanban Norte in Candelaria, Quezon after a 52-year-old security guard killed himself after seeing his daughter's "sexy" photos on Facebook.

Relatives of Buenaventura Ilagan said he was shocked after seeing photos of his 16-year-old daughter wearing a tube dress. The photos were posted on the social networking site Facebook and were seen by Ilagan's co-workers.

Ilagan's wife, Susan, said her husband was affected by the photos because of his conservative upbringing.

And the pictures, as mentioned in the article, were not even obscene, not even provocative. In this case the father took out his anguish on himself.

What if the parents of the girl you shot take out their anger on you?

sir Louie and to my DPP brothers...,

I do not know how to go about this but kindly tell me your thoughts on this...

I recently shot a 17 year old model in a Motel somewhere in QC and the theme was sexy, (sando and panty, no nudity)....though nothing happened because I know she's a minor and if ever there were sex, it would be consentual but I would rather not to save the headaches later on....

here is my dillema, she asked the sexy photos to be published in her FB and she allowed it, I told her it's perfectly fine to be just between us, but she wanted it to be public, now, can her parents sue me for taking sexy pics of her daughter?? nothing has happened but I wanted to have the peace of mind that this event would not happen later on...

thanks sir and God Bless....

11-28-2011

@Dennis Domingo

Please do not paint yourself into a corner.

benrose

Miss Bambit,

I am just really clueless since the model herself told me she has done sexy and nude shoots before.....I am not the type who brags about these things and anybody who knows me can attest to that, your words are a bit harsh that I am putting other photographers in a bad light, I never meant to do so and if it does, then I apologize....this is a forum and I just want to get other people's opinions on these matters, though I have gotten full consent of the model though not in writing, maybe will just remove her sexy pics then.....just to be on the safe side...nothing ever happened between us because I do know the consequences of what will happen if i do so.....

thanks sir Marvin and sir Benrose....

A minor can't enter into any legally binding contract, which a model release form is. A legal guardian is required to sign it.

Did you know she was 17 before the shoot? Was there other people beside you and the minor inside the motel? Another model, make-up artist, assistant or another photographer? To at least support your claim that nothing happened.

A minor can't enter into any legally binding contract, which a model release form is. A legal guardian is required to sign it.

Did you know she was 17 before the shoot? Was there other people beside you and the minor inside the motel? Another model, make-up artist, assistant or another photographer? To at least support your claim that nothing happened.

nobody sir, that's the problem......but I have removed the album from my FB account....she even made some headshots of her as her profile picture.....she told me she was 17 when we were inside the motel, because I really don't know her yet, she just asked me sa FB if I can shoot her solo and she's a schoolmate of my basketball buddy.....

:)

I recently shot a 17 year old model in a Motel somewhere in QC and the theme was sexy, (sando and panty, no nudity)........

another taint of unPROFESSIONALISM on my beloved hobby, thanks to you Dennis Domingo.

if you have ANY sense of decency or ethics within you, you SHOULD'VE backed out, the moment you KNEW she was 17, and doing so, spared us, your brothers in this hobby, the shame. What have you got to lose, if you backed out ? nothing. it's apparent that by that time, it's your perverse thinking that is ruling your decision not logic. How desperate are you in getting a portfolio ? there are lots of workshops offered that has the sexy/nude theme, guided by pro's of the hobby, decent & legal opportunities to learn and practice.

I assume that you're not naive (before the shoot) about the nature of MINORS, the legal and ethical ramifications of shooting MINORS in a provocative, sexy, sparsely dressed and questionable environment. The fact that you went on with it, after the knowledge that she is a MINOR, says much on how you were brought up, how you respect and protect the welfare of MINORS. your parents failed you on this.

What is your sin ? FIRST : you've exploited a MINOR by shooting her in a degrading manner & SECOND : you have the audacity to brag & PUBLISH your 'mistake' in a social networking site. Both acts are done sober, and with ample time (from shoot > PP > publish) to deliberate & justify your action ... which just means that by nature your morality is screwed.

Next time, THINK with your brains and not with your pants ... it could save your life. Pray hard that the model's father/uncle/brother doesn't get hold of the pix, but if they do and act on it, you deserve it.

I have gotten full consent of the model though not in writing....



She told me she was 17 when we were inside the motel, because I really don't know her yet.....

:)

and so she tells you she's 17 after you checked in the motel. the smart thing to do and take control of the situation was by NOT doing the shoot and leave the place. however, you still took photos of her. you're not clueless brod, you're selfish. and given what you did, a verbal consent from a minor can get you in jail.

learn your lesson and protect yourself. there's a lot of clueless people in jail because they stayed clueless.

Legalese speaking ... to show you the gravity of your offense ... para wag ka na pamarisan ng iba Mr. Dennis Domingo.

google :
"REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7610
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSE".

Section 3. Definition of Terms. –
(a) "Children" refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition;


***** 17 years old qualifies well.


Sec. 6. Attempt To Commit Child Prostitution. – There is an attempt to commit child prostitution under Sec. 5, paragraph (a) hereof when any person who, not being a relative of a child, is found alone with the said child inside the room or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel, pension house, apartelle or other similar establishments, vessel, vehicle or any other hidden or secluded area under circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the child is about to be exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

***** the law does not care if you are doing Bible Study, Prayer Meeting, Playing Jack & Poy. Its explicit what the letter of the law says.


Section 9. Obscene Publications and Indecent Shows. – Any person who shall hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce a child to perform in obscene exhibitions and indecent shows, whether live or in video, or model in obscene publications or pornographic materials or to sell or distribute the said materials shall suffer the penalty of prison mayor in its medium period.

Sec. 27. Who May File a Complaint. – Complaints on cases of unlawful acts committed against the children as enumerated herein may be filed by the following: (a) Offended party;
(b) Parents or guardians;
(c) Ascendant or collateral relative within the third degree of consanguinity;
(d) Officer, social worker or representative of a licensed child-caring institution;
(e) Officer or social worker of the Department of Social Welfare and Development;
(f) Barangay chairman; or
(g) At least three (3) concerned responsible citizens where the violation occurred.

... here is my dillema, she asked the sexy photos to be published in her FB and she allowed it, I told her it's perfectly fine to be just between us, but she wanted it to be public ...

... but I have removed the album from my FB account...

Snips from two of your posts. Contradictory, no?

First you say SHE asked for the photos to be posted on HER Facebook.

THEN you say YOU have removed the album from YOUR Facebook account.

YOU ACTUALLY had the GALL to post a 17-year-old girl's sexy photos on YOUR FB account!

There are times when I wish the ground would open up and swallow someone alive. Really. This is one of those times.

There are times when I wish the ground would open up and swallow someone alive. Really. This is one of those times.

+1 mam bambit.

this is a pressing issue and is something that should not be ignored. a lot of people are owning cameras by the day but they tend to forget and not consider a lot of things before taking pictures. may God have mercy on your soul.:Sick:

Well, let's leave the issue at that, I don't want to waste your time anymore my good fellow DPP citizens, I felt I committed a grave mistake on this, I learned my lesson, no need to punch further my DPP brothers and sisters, If things happen, then it will but It doesn't so I still have to be thankful on this.....I am not bragging as well as some of you may think, If you have lived my life, then this event is someone not to brag about, BELIEVE ME ON THIS, I have done a lot of bad things in my life but that is another story........I am just asking for a kind opinion....benrose and Marvin Dungao gave their opinions without lambasting me so much, but I guess different strokes for different folks as they say....

but If you tell me that I give photography a bad name, then I am sorry but I really take this seriously, I wasn't really thinking straight at that time maybe this will not change your decisions but I tried to tell her that we could just postpone it some other time but she really wanted to.....

so, sir ARTHUR and MISS BAMBIT -- I do am sorry for letting my stupid act give photography a bad name.....I am sorry I don't live clean as you do.....

Thanks to those who posted and reacted...

best regards everyone.....

Dennis, I have a daughter, as do some of my friends have daughters. Do YOU have a daughter? Perhaps not, since you appear to be young and o sige, i'll use the word clueless ulit.

Just think of how you would feel if some stranger took YOUR daughter alone into a motel on one premise or another.

You may not know the answer to that now. But the time may come that you will.

so, sir ARTHUR and MISS BAMBIT -- I do am sorry for letting my stupid act give photography a bad name.....I am sorry I don't live clean as you do.....



yup, soon you'll learn how to live 'clean', more so if you like me have 3 teenage doters. I just pray that the likes of you, dont ever cross the paths of my kids, for the sake of your family.

spare your halfhearted apologies. if you're sincere and man enough, you'll ask an apology from the persons you transgressed most ... the parents of the minor.


maybe this will not change your decisions but I tried to tell her that we could just postpone it some other time but she really wanted to.....

i guess there is no mature adult at the venue then. If a minor can influence your adult principles even at the cost of risking your life & limb, then what does it say about you.


but If you tell me that I give photography a bad name, then I am sorry but I really take this seriously, I wasn't really thinking straight at that time

granted that a MINOR twisted your arms for a shoot at a motel, I'll give you that. But did someone twisted your arm to publish the offending photos on a social networking site ? this is a separate offense. your decision, yes? lots of time to think between the shoot and posting ? yes?

you may not like how i post, but that's how a father posts. ask your uncle or father with a doter how he'll react to the same situation ... his MINOR doter, ALONE in a MOTEL room, with a STRANGER, doing SEXY poses in her UNDERWEAR. I'll bet my 6figure wage that the first reaction you'll get will be FULL of expletives and MURDEROUS anger afterwards. believe me i am being civil.

the FB status where i heard this issue being discussed are full of expletives and murderous intent from parents. the reason i followed the link and gave my very civil comment.

you have proven your point and explained well...now, let us get back to our regular programming shall we???

and to answer your questions, YES....I do have a daughter but I am separated going on 2 years... and the child is living with my wife's relatives in the province, I visit her from time to time...so, I do get what you are saying on if my daughter were in my model's shoes....