avoiding child pornography

[evilluckycharms]

sorry for the crude title, but i wanted to catch people's eye so i can get as much feedback as possible...

i have a client asking me to do nude photos of her 10 month old little girl. i LOVE nude baby photography, i think babies are absolutely adorable (i'm a mother to 2 under 2 myself) but i'm a little worried what with all of the crazy child pornography charges going around.

if you don't know what i'm talking about, the most heard of one was when the grandmother got arrested for developing photos of her grandchild in the bathtub. a worker at walmart turned her in for child pornography and she was charged, just because she took photos of her grandchild taking a bath (which is very very VERY common and innocent).

i want to be sure that, should this client have a screw loose, the photos i take cannot be held against me or misconstrued as something they are not.

i DO NOT intend to have any shots of the child's genitals, but we all know that kids can move at the last second, and some shots may end up a little wonky. i intend to delete all of the shots that are not suitable for public view, but i'm still a little apprehensive about the whole situation.

should i put in a clause into the media release stating that she gives me full permission to photograph her minor daughter? how would i even word that?

i'm lost! but i really want to do this shoot! i just want to have my butt covered as well (no pun intended)

[zona5101]

Originally Posted by evilluckycharms

sorry for the crude title, but i wanted to catch people's eye so i can get as much feedback as possible...

i have a client asking me to do nude photos of her 10 month old little girl. i LOVE nude baby photography, i think babies are absolutely adorable (i'm a mother to 2 under 2 myself) but i'm a little worried what with all of the crazy child pornography charges going around.

if you don't know what i'm talking about, the most heard of one was when the grandmother got arrested for developing photos of her grandchild in the bathtub. a worker at walmart turned her in for child pornography and she was charged, just because she took photos of her grandchild taking a bath (which is very very VERY common and innocent).

i want to be sure that, should this client have a screw loose, the photos i take cannot be held against me or misconstrued as something they are not.

i DO NOT intend to have any shots of the child's genitals, but we all know that kids can move at the last second, and some shots may end up a little wonky. i intend to delete all of the shots that are not suitable for public view, but i'm still a little apprehensive about the whole situation.

should i put in a clause into the media release stating that she gives me full permission to photograph her minor daughter? how would i even word that?

i'm lost! but i really want to do this shoot! i just want to have my butt covered as well (no pun intended)

turn it down.

[Jim Poor]

I can't be much help on this one, but it is totally nuts the way things are going.

DPS does have a nudes section, but I don't know how much infant photography gets discussed in there. Perhaps a note to Sime about access to that forum to post your question wouldn't hurt.

FWIW, I'd definitely be VERY specific in the contract.

[candleman]

its really not as big of a big deal as you're making out...

if you are truly worried,

simply sit down with the mother after the shoot and delete any images where "private parts" are showing, or appear to be showing.
either teathered to a laptop, or simply on the back of your camera.
dont give me "this image is too small" speach.... i'm 99% sure your DSLR will have a zoom function.

IF there is anything showing the shot is worthless anyway.. so it can be deleted, right there an then.

any GOOD shot of an infant will never have those bits showing anyway, they are always discreetey covered by a prop or a leg placement.
and its realy quite easy.
newborn baby boy curled in white basket on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

then.
1. she sees you're being honest and open about her/their privacy
2. you physically dont have any images which people can point a finger at.

now lets all take a deep breath...

[i speak in math]

Having a contract laid out ahead of time outlining what the mother wants out of the photoshoot and signed by both parties seems like it would be pretty easy way to cover your ass. Maybe include a clause that says the mother was present and any and all shots were okayed by the mother.

[Sime]

There's no baby nude stuff in the nudes section - but yeah, I'd suggest not worrying about it as much as you are. I'd tend to agree with what Candleman said.

Nudes of a little bub are pretty common - have a look around the web - flickr, redbubble... Anne Geddes... you'll work it out - keen to hear how you get on.

sime

[private]

Just dont have any pics showing his/her goodies.... and you'll be fine.

[zona5101]

fwiw, a contract would not protect you if the police were to decide you crossed the line.

But as the others have keenfully pointed out, probably not a big deal, especially if you control what you're capturing. For me, toddlers have clothes on or diapers or blankies or something.

[GadgetVirtuoso]

@zona5101 the contract isn't to protect the photographer from the law but the client. With a contract the client would be hard pressed to come back later and make anything out of it.

I hate that we even have to have a thread asking such a question. I know I have taken many pictures of my kids in the tub and have several as they have streaked through the house, what kid hasn't.

No matter of prep will prevent all shots from having any "parts", especially with kids; they move too much to have that much control. I wouldn't worry about it, I probably wouldn't even bother with a contract beyond what you'd use for any other client. You may not want to keep the originals on your PC but I'd still keep a copy like any other client. I'm not an attorney but in my company when it comes to record retention you have to treat all documents the same. You can't destroy or keep files selectively. If there ever were a question and the files were missing and you had all your other clients, the implication is there is something wrong with the photos, thereby the reason the photos were destroyed.

All these cases mentioned are the exception, not the rule.

[zona5101]

Originally Posted by GadgetVirtuoso

@zona5101 the contract isn't to protect the photographer from the law but the client. With a contract the client would be hard pressed to come back later and make anything out of it.

I hate that we even have to have a thread asking such a question. I know I have taken many pictures of my kids in the tub and have several as they have streaked through the house, what kid hasn't.

No matter of prep will prevent all shots from having any "parts", especially with kids; they move too much to have that much control. I wouldn't worry about it, I probably wouldn't even bother with a contract beyond what you'd use for any other client. You may not want to keep the originals on your PC but I'd still keep a copy like any other client. I'm not an attorney but in my company when it comes to record retention you have to treat all documents the same. You can't destroy or keep files selectively. If there ever were a question and the files were missing and you had all your other clients, the implication is there is something wrong with the photos, thereby the reason the photos were destroyed.

All these cases mentioned are the exception, not the rule.

thanks - excellent points.