Photographing children in public

Danny Morris said:

Erm, if they're using a zoom lens then surely they're going to be
some distance away? Therefore.... stalking them 'in stealth'.

Click to expand...

stealth is a tactic, so is hiding in plain sight. It was established that plain sight doesnt arouse suspicion. The problem with this thread is that there is an obvious logical difference between snapping some innocent PJ style stuff suitable for the "Living" section of the newspaper, and rattling off 400 frames of someones 10 year old daughter in compromising positions on a beach towel, then posting them to newsgroups. Lets not play naive here. It exists.

The real issue is: "What if you, as a parent or guardian, determine something to be inappropriate? What then?" Of course everyone assumes its all like something out of a Norman Rockwell painting.

Creative photo journalism deserves to be defended absolutely. Always has, always will. But to blatantly ignore, or worse yet deny the existence of a 'dark and sinister' side doesnt do anyone any favors. And that is my whole point. Same goes for politics and religion.

Danny Morris said:

We of the camera carrying persuasion simply want to capture the
INNOCENCE and BEAUTY of life, not make it something dark and
sinister.

Click to expand...

Thats the most PC hogwash I've ever heard. Who died and appointed you photography ambassador?? Its a big world pal.

Well, your post was a different perspective I hadn't considered before. I appreciate that. Couldn't you achieve the same goals without photographing kids? Say at a MLB game or quasi-professional soccer game?

Greg Biggs said:

I prefer to shoot real
live events of the game for practice rather than practicing on
bottles set up in my back yard. I captured some pretty darn nice
shots of little league action the other night. I like the results.
I do not know the kids that were playing and I will probbably show
the pictures to friends and family to show what the camera and lens
combo can do. At this point in my photography, that is about the
only reason why I take lots of my pictures, photography for me is a
part time carreer, hobby and to some extent a sport.

Click to expand...

Jumping in here at the risk of my own neck.

I would be very mad if I saw someone taking pictures of my children in a public place if I didn't know them. Certain circumstances it wouldn't really bother me, such as if it looked as if a tourist was taking scenery pictures my children just happened to be in. I tend to notice photographers and would have paid attention to what they had been shooting already as well as what they took after any picture my kids were in. Anything that even remotely made me uncomfortable and I would be confronting the photographer. A parent's JOB is to make sure their child is safe, if that means making life a little harder for someone taking pictures, I'm sorry, but that is just too bad, kids should come first!

I'm really rather horrified by some of what I've seen in these posts. I think the anger and belittling comments here are obviously VERY missdirected toward the parents.

People keep saying ridiculous comments about how we should keep our kids in seclusion for the rest of their lives if we want to protect them. How about allowing parents to simply have a say over whether a picture is taken of their child or not instead of trying to punish the parents who want to protect their child, or worse, punishing the child.

The thing with the perverts taking your child's picture is, they tend to be meticulous people. They will know where they saw your child and when they took the picture. If you have a routine you follow of going to the park every Thursday or whatever...if they want, they can figure out your routine quite easily. Then, heaven forbid you turn your back or have to use the port-a-poty some day and leave your kid outside on a day the pervert has gotten tired of just taking pictures. It isn't paranoia, it is simply having to parent according to the times we live in.

Don't knock the parents for trying to prevent something that may or may not happen, it is a parents' job to think of any and all possibility for harm. I never bothered to bolt my bookshelves or dressers to the wall till I had kids. Never worried about whether I had a toxic plant in my yard till I had kids. Never thought about a LOT of things till after I had children.

Sara
http://www.sjensenart.com - using art and photography to help fight cancer.

while I appreciate your hypothetical, clearly the difference is that the kids in your shots are inadvertently in there. For some reason, I thought the original post involved taking pictures of kids at the play park or something like that.

Obviously, inadvertently having kids in your pictures is something that happens. Further, if your taking pictures of your friends' kids or your kids' friends (may not be the same), that's different too.

I'm just talking about strangers taking pictures of your kids where your kids are the focal point of the pictures.

Seriously, what the heck is the big deal with asking permission first and if the parents decline, not doing it?

And you got this information from? Sorry, but till I see some reputable studies on that I will take it for what it is...a personal opinion not based on any facts.

Sara

severoon said:

...about all this paranoia is: do you know what turns innocent
children into grown-up perverts? Overprotective parenting.

Ironic, huh?

Click to expand...

Rylee said:

I'm just talking about strangers taking pictures of your kids where
your kids are the focal point of the pictures.

Seriously, what the heck is the big deal with asking permission
first and if the parents decline, not doing it?

Click to expand...

Most images for child pornography are NOT taken in parks and schools, or ball games. This is becoming a whitch hunt, it's just as disgusting as child pornography itself.

--

http://www.pbase.com/nitro115
http://www.unc.edu/~haraszti

wcbert said:

... I do not go to public parks with a telephoto lens, tripod and
photography them in playgrounds, attract police attention and make
the front page of the newspaper.

Click to expand...

I do... but you know, if I didn't, I would miss stuff like this



of course, in Japan, it isn't that "bad" because a foreigner taking pictures is a tourist, and not a resident, right? ;-)

--
-CW

Rylee said:

while I appreciate your hypothetical, clearly the difference is
that the kids in your shots are inadvertently in there. For some
reason, I thought the original post involved taking pictures of
kids at the play park or something like that.

Click to expand...

There may have been another post about that, but the post that spawned this thread was about high-resolution camera-phones.

Rylee said:

I'm just talking about strangers taking pictures of your kids where
your kids are the focal point of the pictures.

Click to expand...

In your original reply, you didn't qualify your reaction. You said, "if I see you taking pictures of my kid" you would demand I delete the pictures, call in the police, or visit some form of violence on my person. I asked what your criteria would be for judging the photographer's intent viz. your children. Are you going to demand to see someone's photos every time a lens swings in your children's direction? It's not unreasonable to think so, judging by the emphatic nature of your statement.

Rylee said:

Seriously, what the heck is the big deal with asking permission
first and if the parents decline, not doing it?

Click to expand...

Nothing, really, as I think when one or a small group of children (or adult(s) for that matter) is the subject, it's only common courtesy. I do think it's foolish to, as in the cases cited by the UK posters, to require permission at a sporting or other public event, which is newsworthy by any reasonable standard.

There is the element of a false sense of security, as it presumes collectors of child pornography cannot be polite, well-groomed, and courteous.

Clark-Kent said:

I dont give permission for any manipulation, and know what the
images use is before it is sold, unless you class upsizing,
cropping and resolution adjustments as manipulation.

At the end of the day, I believe parents should be politely asked
before folks photograph their kids, despite the legal position.

Click to expand...

"...despite the legal position"?

Ah...so that's where we differ. I like and support freedom in all its forms. Now I see where you're coming from.

Ellette said:

And you got this information from? Sorry, but till I see some
reputable studies on that I will take it for what it is...a
personal opinion not based on any facts.

Click to expand...

And yet, many people are willing to accept that photographing kids in public hurts them and generally results in death and the moral decay of our society without any kind of proof whatsoever.

I hope you're not one of these people, because it would mean that you only demand scientific evidence to support views that differ from your own, while views that agree with your own require no such evidence.

Interesting. There's a phrase that describes people like this: "blind idealogue".

I don't believe that in the general sense, photographing kids in public hurts them, but I do know that there are sick people out there, and that is a fact. I would not agree with anyone saying that photographing kids in public results in the moral decay of our society...that would be the opposite of the truth. It is the moral decay of our society (or maybe not, maybe just the increase in technology in the hands of deviants? I'm not sure what the best way to state it is) that has made it dangerous to allow children to be photographed in public. There is proof of that, you may not have seen it, but it is there. Unfortunately there is abundant proof as well that predators can start by simply taking pictures of children, but often, they grow bolder and bolder...which often leads to the death of a child.

It isn't responsible to make flippant statements without knowing the truth behind it. I can say...perverts will take pictures of kids they do not know, and spread them around child porn circles safely without worrying that my opinion is coming into play (other than I just called someone a pervert...maybe child predator would be less opinionated, just longer to type).

severoon said:

And yet, many people are willing to accept that photographing kids
in public hurts them and generally results in death and the moral
decay of our society without any kind of proof whatsoever.

I hope you're not one of these people, because it would mean that
you only demand scientific evidence to support views that differ
from your own, while views that agree with your own require no such
evidence.

Click to expand...

Sara

Rylee said:

Knowing the possible downsides (the fact that you could have law
enforcement contact you, write you up - even if it's only a card,
possible criminal investigation and charges, maybe even prison
time), is it worth it to not ask the parents first before
photographing their kid?

Click to expand...

That's the distorted fact. The real fact is that there is no law against taking photos of people in public and hopefully there never will be further restrictions enacted because of paranoid people.

FACTS:
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

If there are perverts out there then go after the perverts but putting into legislation more laws that restrict our rights based upon knee-jerk reactions is not the answer. Show examples of photos of a children taken in public that have harmed them. Till you do then your argument does not hold water ...and if there is even one instance (which I doubt), you certainly won't find a plethora of incidents.

There are already too many restrictive laws on the books because of knee-jerk reactions.

Regards,
Mike

--
New Gallery (in development stage) http://wnyphoto.com
Photography is just one of my hobbies

Ellette said:

picture my kids were in. Anything that even remotely made me
uncomfortable and I would be confronting the photographer. A
parent's JOB is to make sure their child is safe, if that means
making life a little harder for someone taking pictures, I'm sorry,
but that is just too bad, kids should come first!

Click to expand...

Ok, but you still haven't explained how preventing some guy from taking pictures of your kids in public "makes them safe".

I just think this is such a ridiculous, unnecessary stance on this issue. I am willing to bet you that way more kids are claimed every year by backyard swimming pools than photons bouncing off of them and winding up in some camera.

I just don't see the connection. Do you even see a connection?

Ellette said:

The thing with the perverts taking your child's picture is, they
tend to be meticulous people. They will know where they saw your
child and when they took the picture. If you have a routine you
follow of going to the park every Thursday or whatever...if they
want, they can figure out your routine quite easily. Then, heaven
forbid you turn your back or have to use the port-a-poty some day
and leave your kid outside on a day the pervert has gotten tired of
just taking pictures.

Click to expand...

Yes, clearly this situation could only happen in the presence of a pervert with a camera . If we outlaw cameras, then all of this pervert stuff will go away, right?

Do me a favor and recast your argument so that it periodically makes contact with reality. If you do this, I will actually understand your concerns and we can have a discussion.

Listen, perverts don't lurk around parks where parents take their kids. Perverts lurk around areas where children are without their parents to protect them. Like school bus stops. Like church confessionals. Like Neverland Ranch.

If you are even capable of walking up to a photographer who's taking pictures of your kids in public, then you should probably allow for the possibility that this is either: (1) just a photographer, or (2) like, the worst pervert EVER.

Ellette said:

Don't knock the parents for trying to prevent something that may or
may not happen, it is a parents' job to think of any and all
possibility for harm. I never bothered to bolt my bookshelves or
dressers to the wall till I had kids. Never worried about whether
I had a toxic plant in my yard till I had kids. Never thought
about a LOT of things till after I had children.

Click to expand...

Let me tell you a little story. When I was young I had a friend whose mom worried and worried about him. She child-proofed her entire house, she watched him like a hawk when she took him to the park, she hassled people that got too close to him, and she picked him up from school because she didn't want him to ride the bus or be alone at bus stops. She worried so much that her face got wrinkled and ugly and she smelled bad. She protected her kid from every single thing she imagined could cause him harm. And then, one day in my US History class, he got stung by a bee and had an allergic reaction and died.

After that, she gave up worrying altogether about his newborn little brother. She let him do whatever he wanted, took long baths while he played with knives on the kitchen floor, and even let him ride the bus. She married the local park-lurking pervert with a camera and let him raise the kid. Now the younger brother is a millionaire and retired at the age of 25. He is married and has two kids, one of which he used to keep locked in the basement for his own protection and the other of which he doesn't care about at all. (I say "used to" keep locked in the basement because they had a flood and little Bobby couldn't make it out in time.)

I think we can all learn something from this story. We can learn that crazy ramblings that have no connection to reality and don't actually happen should not impact how we live our lives.

In the last month I've probably taken on the order of 1500 images of kids 13-18, of which about 100 are of my own. The rest have been given to the coach of the team, and are made available to the parents of the kids in question. No, I never asked for their permission beforehand, but I did receive many thanks for taking the pictures afterward. I've even been asked to make prints by some of the parents.

It's all in the apparent intent. I was never questioned about taking the pictures.
Granted, this was at sporting events, not a public park.

Oh, and this was in CA, for that poster.

Just to be clear where I stand..... I take photos of what I WANT to photograph for purposes that I chose. I will NEVER consult the likes of you and your hysterical sexually revisionist nutcase brigade. If I'm taking photos of a tennis match I couldn't give two s* ts whether you think it's "improper" or not.

It's difficult to put into words how much I despise the way you think.

Rylee said:

Rylee wrote:
Well, where do you draw the line? What about at a middle school
football game and the "pervert" is taking pictures of the
cheerleaders - still o.k.? What about at a swim meet - the kids
are "dressed" but in their swim wear - still o.k.? How about boys
and girls tennis? Bottom line, as a parent, I don't want anybody
taking pictures or video of my kids and using them for some
"improper" purpose.

I frankly don't think it's that absurd and would rather the schools
be proactive in this. Honestly, what is the compelling need to go
to middle or high school sporting events and take pictures of other
people's kids? (unless, obviously you're like a newspaper
photographer, etc.).

Click to expand...

mycroft said:

In the last month I've probably taken on the order of 1500 images
of kids 13-18, of which about 100 are of my own. The rest have been
given to the coach of the team, and are made available to the
parents of the kids in question. No, I never asked for their
permission beforehand, but I did receive many thanks for taking the
pictures afterward. I've even been asked to make prints by some of
the parents.

Click to expand...

Mine situation was similar but was with boating activities. Not as many images of kids that age though, but if I take into consideration statistics the percentage of complaints/problems is exactly the same.

mycroft said:

It's all in the apparent intent. I was never questioned about
taking the pictures.

Click to expand...

Same here.

mycroft said:

Granted, this was at sporting events, not a public park.

Click to expand...

This was in a public park where boating activities abounded.

Regards,
Mike

--
New Gallery (in development stage) http://wnyphoto.com
Photography is just one of my hobbies

LOL - loved that last story! Did you do debating in college? If not, you've a great sense of logic... and humour. I understand that a parent has to protect their child, but as you correctly point out, the link to photography is tenuous at best.

Daniel

severoon said:

Let me tell you a little story. When I was young I had a friend
whose mom worried and worried about him. She child-proofed her
entire house, she watched him like a hawk when she took him to the
park, she hassled people that got too close to him, and she picked
him up from school because she didn't want him to ride the bus or
be alone at bus stops. She worried so much that her face got
wrinkled and ugly and she smelled bad. She protected her kid from
every single thing she imagined could cause him harm. And then, one
day in my US History class, he got stung by a bee and had an
allergic reaction and died.

After that, she gave up worrying altogether about his newborn
little brother. She let him do whatever he wanted, took long baths
while he played with knives on the kitchen floor, and even let him
ride the bus. She married the local park-lurking pervert with a
camera and let him raise the kid. Now the younger brother is a
millionaire and retired at the age of 25. He is married and has two
kids, one of which he used to keep locked in the basement for his
own protection and the other of which he doesn't care about at all.
(I say "used to" keep locked in the basement because they had a
flood and little Bobby couldn't make it out in time.)

I think we can all learn something from this story. We can learn
that crazy ramblings that have no connection to reality and don't
actually happen should not impact how we live our lives.

Click to expand...

Rylee said:

Well, where do you draw the line? What about at a middle school
football game and the "pervert" is taking pictures of the
cheerleaders - still o.k.? What about at a swim meet - the kids
are "dressed" but in their swim wear - still o.k.? How about boys
and girls tennis? Bottom line, as a parent, I don't want anybody
taking pictures or video of my kids and using them for some
"improper" purpose.

I frankly don't think it's that absurd and would rather the schools
be proactive in this. Honestly, what is the compelling need to go
to middle or high school sporting events and take pictures of other
people's kids? (unless, obviously you're like a newspaper
photographer, etc.).

Click to expand...

This has reached a ridiculous point. The US has been one of the biggest promoters and exporters of fear mongering, paranoia, and suspicion of everything and everyone.

I, for one, find our overly paranoid and litigious society disgusting. Cops can stop you for photographing a bridge or architecture, people don’t want anyone photographing them due to privacy concerns, parents believe that if you’re looking at a cute kid (boy, girl, doesn’t matter) means you’re a pervert, sex offender, kidnapper, murderer, or a potential threat. What have we done to ourselves? I’m divorced with no children, but I still think kids are cute – even if they’re not mine…

You’re not doing anything to change the situation, you’re just spreading the paranoia.

That's absolutely true. The ever-expanding statute books reflect a value of symbolism over substance and a refusal to assign responsibility where it belongs -- to individual harmful acts. Too many rules/laws are based on potential and demographics. People seem to be comforted by the idea that "something is being done" no matter whether it actually solves a problem or not. And trampling the rights of others seems a small price to them as long as their deep seated irrational emotions are soothed.

What people like Rylee are trying to do is legitimize the concept of thougthcrime. No actual harm has to exist, only potential harm, or imagined harm or worse yet, thoughts in the minds of others that they disapprove of.

As a person who values freedom and autonomy, the above is about as evil as it gets.

Stopping a photograph isn't "protecting" anybody. If these people were actually interested in protecting children from harm, they'd be more interested in things that actually cause harm. Like the steady dose of intimidation, harrassment, and violence that permeates most of our school environments, or abusive family life. Instead, they inevitably choose to focus on imagined sexually related things. For them, it seems, it's always about the S-E-X. Or at least how their minds imagine sex to be in the minds of others.

Wild-Mike said:

Wild-Mike wrote:
There are already too many restrictive laws on the books because of
knee-jerk reactions.

Regards,
Mike

Click to expand...

Rylee said:

Seriously, what the heck is the big deal with asking permission
first and if the parents decline, not doing it?

Click to expand...

What's the big deal with me exercising my First Amendment rights? Why is it reasonable for you to expect me to beg a stranger to please let me behave in a perfectly legal, perfectly sane, non-perverted way?

Let's consider this policy in other contexts:

"Gee Sargeant. I'm wondering if perhaps it would be ok with you if I asked you not to station your troops in my house? It's just that they're tracking mud all over my kitchen floor and eating up all my Van Kamp's pork'n'beans. I totally understand if you refuse to move them, but I thought I'd ask."

"Dear Mr. President, I was considering posting in my blog my thoughts about the political speech you gave last night. I have to warn you that not everything I say will be complimentary of your policy positions, so I totally understand if you would prefer that I just keep my thoughts to myself."

"Hi Bossman! Hey, listen, I wanted to talk with you about something...I was considering converting to Islam last weekend, and I wanted to make sure it was all right with you. If you'd prefer not to have any Islamic people working for you, just say the word and I'll forget about the whole thing."

"Howdy officer. Well I certainly understand your concern about the children, but I want to assure you that I'm not smuggling any heroin, especially in the way you're suggesting. I would prefer it if you didn't perform such an invasive random search on my person--what's that? Oh, you've already put on the glove? Ok, then, let me just turn around and...UNNGGGHHH!"