Taking pictures of children is wrong!

How is street photography (or photo journalism) possible under this regime, I wonder? Would Cartier-Bresson's photos have been quite the same if a model release had been required?

Personally, I don't like people photographing me, but that has more to do with not quite having come to terms with the fact that I no longer look like a 17 year old ;-) but I think it would be unreasonable if the law or society gave me complete protection from being photographers.

Photography has always been and should always be a vital medium for documentation and commentary.

james arnold 71 said:

Barry Pearson said:

John Motts said:

I find it hard to understand why people here think that it's their
right to point a camera at whoever they please, wherever they
please, whether at children or adults. There seems to be a
particular arrogance about photographers.

Click to expand...

[snip]

Step away from photography - it may be confusing the issue.

Click to expand...

The issue isn't looking, it is photography. Tyring to imply that
taking a photo is the same as looking is an attempt to confuse the
issue. They are not the same and to argue that they are is obtuse
at best.

I agree with John. There wouldn't be an issue if people were up
front open and honest about what they are doing. And demonstrated
respect for others by respecting the feelings about being
photographed or not as the case may be. Regardless of what the law
says and what you believe your rights are.

Simply because a particular activity hasn't been made illegal
doesn't mean its right or harmless, in only means that it hasn't
become enough of an issue for a law to be made. Keep ignoring the
feelings of the people in the park that you are pointing your
camera at and eventually that will change. Show a little respect
and all should remain cool.

Jamie
Cheers

Click to expand...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

digirob said:

I do agree with you re children not generally harmed by innocent
pics, even those shot by stangers in a park, although I did not
articulate that well in my previous post.

The problem is, like I said, no one in the moment is going to
attempt to determine the motive of the shooter. If some man is
snapping pictures of children in a park, he is very likely to raise
suspicion if he exhibits any of the "classic signs of ill-motive"
1. Shooting from distance and not intimately part of the scene.
2. Appearing to be lurking, in any manner. That means using cover
or glancing about furtively, 3. attemtping to hide his camera
between shots, and whatever else a "perv" might do to conceal his
activities.

Even if he the shooter does none of these things, IF someone
accuses him of impure motive, he will often be presumed guilty --
maybe not in a court of law, where, thankfully, evidence is still
(usually) important -- but certainly in the "court of the moment".
If a cop is nearby, the shooter will almost certainly be
questioned, possibly asked to display/erase his pictures, asked to
show id, and whatever else the LEO can do to harass the shooter
while staying just this side of the legal line.

And this isn't just about kids. It's about anything else that a
bystander, in their clueless and misguided thinking, believes to be
a threat. Shooting pictures of bridges, gov't buildings, other
infrastructure. We've seen post after post on these forums of
photogs being harassed for doing nothing more than taking pictures
in an upfront and non-furtive manner. Yet they continue to be
harrassed.

Shooting pics of kids in a park is simply the pedophilic equivalent
of the "terrorist" shooting pictures of "sensitive" targets.

No one in the moment is going to analyze the metrics of the
situation. Why? Because they fear the worst, no matter how remote
that possibility may be. Any why is that? The drive-by media!

Click to expand...

There is nothing in your post that I Absolutely disagree with - But your post ignores my point.

What does the media have to do with the contents of Vogue, or the underwear ads in the Sunday magazines?

What is the direct impact of the non-news media on the objectification and sexualising of children?

What I am suggesting will not produce an overnight change. But it's a start.

Advertisors Sell their products. If enough people simply say and write that the object to turning children into "hot adults," and will no loner buy their products, perhaps we can make a dent in this.

If photographers start to shoot children, and celebrate thier childhood, perhaps we can make a dent in this.

I'm not suggesting an evangelical Christian change of morality here...

But as a society we should be glorifying childhood, not eliminating it.

Dave

The risks to children from pervert strangers is about the same as it has always been.

The public hysteria about is whipped up by the media for purely business reasons. "Moral panics" are a media business tool because they work.

When I was a school child in the 1970s I was expected to walk to and from school on my own. There was a remote danger of being preyed on by a pervert as there is for today's school children. But social perceptions have changed and these days a parent who routinely sent a 7 year child off on an unaccompanied mile long walk to school everyday would probably be regarded as wilfully endangering the child.

But today, as in the past, the biggest risk is still relatives, friends and carers. They have easy access and the unwitting trust.

When my mother was a young teenager she was regularly (mildly) abused by her piano teacher (as were presumably many others) but her parents and other adults were unthinkingly happy to leave their children in the care of this individual in his home for a couple of hours each week....

Fabio Amodeo said:

A pupil of a photo course I was involved in used to work in the
summer for a beach photographer. What he did was walk the beach,
ask children, and young ladies, and families “Hey, make me a
smile!”, take the shot, and then pass the business card of the
photographer to people photographed. If they liked, they could drop
in the shop in the afternoon, retire the photographs, pay for the
prints and take them happily home. It had been like this for years.
The summer after the first criminal case involving children in
Internet photo exchanges, this chap went to the beach as usual. At
the first “give me a smile” said to a child, he found himself
surrounded by menacing and angry people: relatives of the little
boy (or girl) but also other people sunbathing around. They accused
him to steal images to put them on the Net, and made clear he was
not welcome. He had to give up the job, and nobody dares to make
photographs on the beach anymore. Collective paranoia? New
sensibility towards the right of image? Who can tell. I know one
thing for certain. I wouldn't point a camera towards a minor
withouth explicit consent of the parents. I do not know who is
right or wrong, but I know for certain what the collective
sensibility is, and do not want to collide with it.
I must also remind that when I was a child, in the middle of last
century, I was accompanied to school for the first day, and that
was all: after that I had to take care of myself, and walk from
home to school and back, trying to avoid cars (not so many, at the
time), pedophiles (nobody talked of them at the time) and gangs of
youngsters bigger than what I was, the real menace in those days.
Today no child goes to primary on his own, and most are taken to
the door of the school by car and taken by car back home. That must
mean something, and we photographers must take in account it as a
fact.
Fabio

Click to expand...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

Angular Mo said:

I believe, and everyone can disagree, that parents have an ABSOLUTE
right to not have their child's picture taken if they do not
consent...even if they are in public. No one can determine the
motive of the photographer, or any subsequent recipient of such
photos.

Click to expand...

Angular Mo said:

I am a parent, and a hobbiest photographer. I am always on the
watch for suspicious people based on their behavior, it is called a
"zone of safety". If someone were to be taking pictures, I would
ask that they do not take pictures of us.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure you have that legal right. If I'm taking pictures of a public space (eg. no expectation of privacy) from a public space, and your kid is in that space, you cannot make me stop (legally) that I'm aware of.

From a moral perspective and certainly from the perspective of common courtesy, you have the "right" to ask the shooter to cease and desist. And the shooter should oblige, without question. But you don't have the LEGAL right to force him to stop (AFAIK).

Angular Mo said:

I also believe, parents are not entitled to enforce their rights
themselves and violate the rights of the phtographer through
physical intimidation, or menacing.

Click to expand...

Yep.

--
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/digirob

Mi_Ri said:

The simple way around this is to approach the gownups around them,
tell them who you are and what images you may be taking. Share
around some business cards. Presto - problem solved (most times)

Click to expand...

How can we convince crowd or places where a bunch of kids are playing altogether & you want to take a general picture, but eyes suddenly start staring suspiciously at you just because you hold a big camera & you are alone. Do we need to shout now that I'm perfectly innocent in doing it or what?
---
amolmd

I think we're discussing two closely related ideas and finding that we pretty much agree with each other??

I, too, find the sexual objectification of children in advertising disturbing. And there may be some correlation between that objectification and the fright that people have of a potential pedophilic situation from a photog in the public -- no matter how absurdly remote that potential may be.

But I can speak from what I see in the media and I believe without question that the media drives this irrational fear of evil from all quarters. Too many people believe too much about what the see and hear in the media and form their opinions based on that.

To clarify: The term "drive-by media" means that most popular media outlets cover the same stories (no variety), in the same manner (little original reporting) without regard to the damage their reporting leaves behind.

Much of the media are not merely news reporters, but news makers as well. But then that will lead into my conservative/libertarian views and, as you indicated re your views, we probably shouldn't go there

--
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/digirob

digirob said:

I think we're discussing two closely related ideas and finding that
we pretty much agree with each other??

I, too, find the sexual objectification of children in advertising
disturbing. And there may be some correlation between that
objectification and the fright that people have of a potential
pedophilic situation from a photog in the public -- no matter how
absurdly remote that potential may be.

But I can speak from what I see in the media and I believe
without question that the media drives this irrational fear of evil
from all quarters. Too many people believe too much about what the
see and hear in the media and form their opinions based on that.

To clarify: The term "drive-by media" means that most popular media
outlets cover the same stories (no variety), in the same manner
(little original reporting) without regard to the damage their
reporting leaves behind.

Much of the media are not merely news reporters, but news makers as
well. But then that will lead into my conservative/libertarian
views and, as you indicated re your views, we probably shouldn't go
there

Click to expand...

I'm also much of a Libertarian...

I wonder just when this kind of advertising I'm referring to started. I certainly have clear memories of advertising when I was a kid, the mid fities, but for the life of me, I can't recall the change over to kiddie porn.

That question really should be researched because advertisors aren't in this buisness for their health. And they do reflect what, we the people, are ready to put up with.

And these little kid beauty pagents?

Look, I don't want to be in the position of defending the media. But as you must be aware this is in fact an old story and an old refrain. And Media spokespeople periodically castigate themselves and then go right back to the same old cr@p, usually led by that very spokesperson. Dan Rather comes to mind - He used to be prominent in the mea culpa business...

Nor do I have a problem with enforcing strict laws, but it Should be obvious that those who commit actual crimes against children, not these little voyeurs that we are talking about, are just plain nuts. Children are the target because children can't fight back. Witness the recent Amish massacre, where the indiviudal had no pedophile record at all.

So while we may differ as to the root causes of societal problems, I believe that at a minimum we should, all of us should, get together, and if we cannot change all of society, at the Least, create an astmosphere where children are not the targets of those who are deranged.

Dave

Tom Meeks said:

The devil (literally) is in the details that seem to have escaped
you. The story specifically says that the man "admitted taking
INDECENT pictures of girls"

Leaving out the word INDECENT makes a considerable difference.

Click to expand...

The problem I'm having with your response is your assumption that the photographer ALSO claims the photos were indecent. He may well have admitted that he took the photos, but he may not acknowledge the photos were indecent.

And indeed, the photos might NOT be considered indecent by anyone other than the cop who arrested him, the government attorney who charged him, or the news agency reporting it. All of whom MAY have a vested interest in the case being decided in public rather than in the courts.

As far as running away goes, depending on the situation, running may well have been the logical thing to do, assuming he considered his life or saftey in jeorpady.

Now, I'm not defending this guy, he may well be every bit as guilty as the BBC claims, I think I am defending Western Civilization's concept of justice.

And in the spriti of full disclosure, I want you to understand that I'm coming from a right wing, US perspective on this. (I've had problems with GW Bush during the last election, but I voted for him, and I'll probably vote for the Republican candidate next time as well). I am a strict constructionist when it comes to the US constitution, It is a basic social contract among the people on how they will be governed, you don't 'mess' with it willy-nilly. The words have specific meanings and they are not open to 'modern' interpretation. That's what the amendment process is for.

(BTW - I understand this is a BRITISH issue under discussion, I just want to make sure you understand my philosophical background)

What I AM saying is this, There are enough holes in the story, and assumptions of guilt on the part of the reporter writing the story, that to assume this person is guilty from this one article is dangerous to the administrtion of justice. You guys who're willing to hang this man from this one story scare the heck out of me.
--
Never trust a man who spells the word 'cheese' with a 'z'

Glen Barrington wrote:
[snip]

Glen Barrington said:

And indeed, the photos might NOT be considered indecent by anyone
other than the cop who arrested him, the government attorney who
charged him, or the news agency reporting it. All of whom MAY have
a vested interest in the case being decided in public rather than
in the courts.

Click to expand...

[snip]

It isn't as vague as that. Here is a post that identifies the relevant laws:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=20349820

It still requires judgement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Children_Act_1978#Definition_of_an_indecent_photograph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecent

He admitted the offence (August):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/5303244.stm

Now he has been found guilty and sentenced (October):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/5413110.stm

The BBC isn't known for that sort of "vendetta" reporting.

Glen Barrington said:

Tom Meeks said:

The devil (literally) is in the details that seem to have escaped
you. The story specifically says that the man "admitted taking
INDECENT pictures of girls"

Leaving out the word INDECENT makes a considerable difference.

Click to expand...

The problem I'm having with your response is your assumption that
the photographer ALSO claims the photos were indecent. He may well
have admitted that he took the photos, but he may not acknowledge
the photos were indecent.
And indeed, the photos might NOT be considered indecent by anyone
other than the cop who arrested him, the government attorney who
charged him, or the news agency reporting it. All of whom MAY have
a vested interest in the case being decided in public rather than
in the courts.
As far as running away goes, depending on the situation, running
may well have been the logical thing to do, assuming he considered
his life or saftey in jeorpady.
Now, I'm not defending this guy, he may well be every bit as guilty
as the BBC claims, I think I am defending Western Civilization's
concept of justice.
And in the spriti of full disclosure, I want you to understand that
I'm coming from a right wing, US perspective on this. (I've had
problems with GW Bush during the last election, but I voted for
him, and I'll probably vote for the Republican candidate next time
as well). I am a strict constructionist when it comes to the US
constitution, It is a basic social contract among the people on how
they will be governed, you don't 'mess' with it willy-nilly. The
words have specific meanings and they are not open to 'modern'
interpretation. That's what the amendment process is for.
(BTW - I understand this is a BRITISH issue under discussion, I
just want to make sure you understand my philosophical background)
What I AM saying is this, There are enough holes in the story, and
assumptions of guilt on the part of the reporter writing the story,
that to assume this person is guilty from this one article is
dangerous to the administrtion of justice. You guys who're willing
to hang this man from this one story scare the heck out of me.
--
Never trust a man who spells the word 'cheese' with a 'z'

Click to expand...

If the President simply declared him an enemy combatant, we could be spared all this legal folderol, merely send him to Guantanamo and throw away the key. Or perhaps to Syria, where his confession, along with what he did with the bodies, would be quicky revealed...

As for the British, they are at this moment suspending any protections for anyone, and Mr. Blair should sit down and teach Mr. Bush some lessons in advanced law enforement techniques...

At least here, even real Conservatives like Ron Paul are as appalled as I am.

NB. The invasion of privacy on the Internet is being pushed as a child protection act.

Dave

Dave

james arnold 71 wrote:
[snip]

james arnold 71 said:

The issue isn't looking, it is photography. Tyring to imply that
taking a photo is the same as looking is an attempt to confuse the
issue. They are not the same and to argue that they are is obtuse
at best.

Click to expand...

[snip]

I believe it CLARIFIES the issue. If you are in a public place, should there be restrictions on what you look at? Should you avoid looking at something indecent? Do people have the right to say "stop looking at me"?

Under normal circumstances, the problem isn't that of the looker. It is that of the person who wants to do something visible from a public place yet doesn't want to be seen. Is that reasonable? It means that that person is trying to restrict where someone can look in a public place, and I think that is unreasonable.

Now - assuming a person is allowed to look, why not also take a photograph? Remember that other laws restrict what can be done with the photograph - it can't be used for advertising (without permission), and there are other constraints. What sort of thing is OK to be looked at but not OK to be photographed for (say) private use?

There are major issues with doing things that people don't expect - hidden cameras is an obvious example. But when a photographer uses a visible camera, objections start to infringe on the rights of the photographer. There is NO right not to be photographed in a public place. I hope there never will be - else I'm not sure what "public" actually means anymore.

Technology is trumping these objections, of course - we'll have cameras in spectacles next, then in implants. If people can look, they will be able to take photographs, and the discussion needs to accept that. People like me with very obvious cameras are not the problem.

I have asked this question before when a case such as this gets publicity. Can anybody site a case anywhere in the world where a child has been harmed as a result of a stranger taking the child's photograph?

I can see that someone approacing people on the beach and taking close up photos without permission is a form of harrassment or breach of privicy, but I don't see where the harm comes from - arising from the photo.

This week's Amateur Photographer magazine has a letter from a photographer who was taking pictures of a village for a publication. He set up his MF camera and tripod near the village school, while all the children were inside at classes. A man came rushing out of the school and made a grab for the camera, a few minutes later the police arrived and told him that he was suspected of taking indecent pictures of children. After a few minutes it seems that everyone saw how stupid the accusation was and that was the end of it. No harm done but what an unpleasant exerience.

There is a paranoia surrounding children and photographs these days. Pedophiles' victims are nearly always family members or the children of close friends. This is an uncomfortable thought for parents. It is much easier to blame it all on strangers with cameras.

Angular Mo said:

I believe, and everyone can disagree, that parents have an ABSOLUTE
right to not have their child's picture taken if they do not
consent...even if they are in public.

Click to expand...

[snip]

If they have such a right, you can point to it. If you can't point to it, it is wishful thinking, not a right. (When people talk about such vague rights, they are confessing that in a democracy they couldn't establish their rules as REAL rights).

Of course parents can't, and hopefully never will be able to, prevent their children's photographs being taken in public places! That would say "even if the child is a tiny part of the picture, the picture must not be taken". That is a mind-boggling form of censorship, which I believe is unacceptable in a modern civilised society.

"Absolute" statements like that are doomed to failure, because they are so obviously unreasonable. If people with those feeling don't formulate a more credible statement, they should accept the consequences.

DMillier wrote:
[snip]

DavidMillier said:

I was actually followed by a bunch of 'concerned citizens' because
I was doing the utterly bizarre and incomprehensible crime of
photographing grafiti.

Click to expand...

[snip]

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1775226.html

Danny Finn, 12, & Michael Fearn & George Supple, both 13,
were stopped as they walked home from school.

Danny was handed paperwork by the police which reads:
'Was seen taking photos of lamp post . . . advice given'.

Cops also gave an official note to Michael and George. It states:
'Hanging around lamp post - spoken to'.

Kent Police confirmed the boys were spoken to because they were
"taking pictures of graffiti".

(Ananova – March 2006)

Barry Pearson said:

Barry Pearson said:

The issue isn't looking, it is photography. Tyring to imply that
taking a photo is the same as looking is an attempt to confuse the
issue. They are not the same and to argue that they are is obtuse
at best.

Click to expand...

[snip]

I believe it CLARIFIES the issue. If you are in a public place,
should there be restrictions on what you look at? Should you avoid
looking at something indecent? Do people have the right to say
"stop looking at me"?

Under normal circumstances, the problem isn't that of the looker.
It is that of the person who wants to do something visible from a
public place yet doesn't want to be seen. Is that reasonable? It
means that that person is trying to restrict where someone can look
in a public place, and I think that is unreasonable.

Now - assuming a person is allowed to look, why not also take a
photograph? Remember that other laws restrict what can be done with
the photograph - it can't be used for advertising (without
permission), and there are other constraints. What sort of thing is
OK to be looked at but not OK to be photographed for (say) private
use?

There are major issues with doing things that people don't expect -
hidden cameras is an obvious example. But when a photographer uses
a visible camera, objections start to infringe on the rights of the
photographer. There is NO right not to be photographed in a public
place. I hope there never will be - else I'm not sure what "public"
actually means anymore.

Technology is trumping these objections, of course - we'll have
cameras in spectacles next, then in implants. If people can look,
they will be able to take photographs, and the discussion needs to
accept that. People like me with very obvious cameras are not the
problem.

Click to expand...

And people don't want to face up to the fact that looks are just as "harmful" as photographs.

Mind you, we are not talking about organised child molester rings and their photo sessions, but rather photographs of people in normal situations in normal public settings. It doesn't take a photograph for a pedophile to get their rocks off. And if a simple photograph hurts the child, then so does a look.

A number of people have said that these images will be sent to the net. I'm sure that is possible. But really, there is no commerical value to these shots compared to at least some of the ads in the Childrens edition of Vogue...

Or who knows? There were people who believed that a photograph could steal your soul. Perhaps I now have a better understanding of where that came from.

Dave

(this gets interesting, the difference between what is legal, moral, in good taste, or polite...whjatever choices of words one chooses to describe the continuum...)

Imagine this....

Your pubescent/adolescent daughter walks out of the ladies room in a bikini a hot summer day at the outdoor town tool, and someone snaps a photo of her, and places it on the internet of her in her bikini (or maybe altered to be nude)....she may not have known her photo was taken, and neither did you, her guardian. She is not an adult, unable to provide legal consent, and is just learning to be comfortable with her maturing body.

It is a municipal pool, not a private club, so perhaps there is no "right to privacy" as she is in a public place. She certainly has the right to wear a bikini...maybe she is not, maybe she is wearing a modest one-piece swim-suit...pick your own fact pattern....

Has she been harmed?

Have you, the parent been harmed? (Suppose you are a private individual, not a public governmental official)

Does it matter whether she knows her photo was taken or not ?

What if the photo was placed on the internet and distributed ? without any caption that would invoke a different law (such as slander or libel).

Does that matter, to her, to you, her guardian ?

What if she is then psychologically harmed as a result ? How would you feel?

Paparazzi go out and stalk the children of celebrities...is that in good taste? Maybe the children of celebrities have been "trained" to understand that will happen to them....still, they are innocent little ones.

Back to your daughter, the innocent untrained one, who is not prepared to have her photo taken in such a situation, does it matter to "you"?

Is it in "good taste", even if it is not illegal?

(I take photos at our town pool, but I am VERY careful to make it obvious that I am focusing exclusively on my children, and that they fill the frame, I am that close to them...)

What if that phot inspires some lunatic to go and search your daughter as a result of that photo and stalk her ?

Are all of these questions so remotely impossible as to not be worthy of consideration ?

Angular Mo.

--
'Photos are what remains when the memories are forgotten' - Angular Mo.

DMillier said:

How is street photography (or photo journalism) possible under this
regime, I wonder? Would Cartier-Bresson's photos have been quite
the same if a model release had been required?

Click to expand...

What Regime? I am not suggesting in any way that street photography should be suspended, nor that a model release be required from everyone in a scene? I am not as familiar with Bresson as I would like to be for this discussion. Did he make a habit of upsetting and offendin people in parks?

DavidMillier said:

Personally, I don't like people photographing me, but that has more
to do with not quite having come to terms with the fact that I no
longer look like a 17 year old ;-) but I think it would be
unreasonable if the law or society gave me complete protection from
being photographers.

Click to expand...

What if you had just suffered a tragic car accident and lost a child, or were trying to enjoy a moment in a park with your family, or proposing to your girlfriend in a cafe. Somebody starts pointing a camera at you and snapping pictures. If it bothered you enough that you wanted them to stop, wouldn't you appreciate it if they were reasonable and did stop. Maybee these scenarios wouldn't bother you thats not the point. The point is that because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it is right. Like I have said before there will never be the need for a law if people respect others rights.

DavidMillier said:

Photography has always been and should always be a vital medium for
documentation and commentary.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but that shouldn't be at the expense of treating each other without respect, and not individual should be allowed to decide that it is. And that is what I am talking about. I can't imaging that any law would ever be passed to prohibit phtography of people in public, but I could see a bylaws prohibiting photography in specific places if the photography was becoming a bother.

It just an opinion about respect, not an argument for total state controlled photography. I just don't want to see more and more restrictions and I feel that unless we respect the subject of our photography that is exactly what will happen.

Cheers
Jamie

DavidMillier said:

james arnold 71 said:

Barry Pearson said:

John Motts said:

I find it hard to understand why people here think that it's their
right to point a camera at whoever they please, wherever they
please, whether at children or adults. There seems to be a
particular arrogance about photographers.

Click to expand...

[snip]

Step away from photography - it may be confusing the issue.

Click to expand...

The issue isn't looking, it is photography. Tyring to imply that
taking a photo is the same as looking is an attempt to confuse the
issue. They are not the same and to argue that they are is obtuse
at best.

I agree with John. There wouldn't be an issue if people were up
front open and honest about what they are doing. And demonstrated
respect for others by respecting the feelings about being
photographed or not as the case may be. Regardless of what the law
says and what you believe your rights are.

Simply because a particular activity hasn't been made illegal
doesn't mean its right or harmless, in only means that it hasn't
become enough of an issue for a law to be made. Keep ignoring the
feelings of the people in the park that you are pointing your
camera at and eventually that will change. Show a little respect
and all should remain cool.

Jamie
Cheers

Click to expand...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

Click to expand...

I have slight experiences what happened with me as a child.

My father liked to take pictures of me, and I had problems with my father, who tried sometimes to take me in his arm when I did not want this.
Not huge problems but I had problems.

I did never have problems with strangers. So even if a stranger took a an image of me, this was not a big disadvantage.

It sometimes sounds like "the parents own a child and have to protect them against the bad bad strangers", this may be true with other areas of life, but whats happening with photography, sometimes ( not always ) the opposite is true.

So I strongly suggest, either restrict the behavior of the own parents and the behavior of strangers, or not to do it, but regarding photography, not to follow the "the strangers are always bad, the parents are always good" approach.

Barry Pearson said:

Barry Pearson said:

The issue isn't looking, it is photography. Tyring to imply that
taking a photo is the same as looking is an attempt to confuse the
issue. They are not the same and to argue that they are is obtuse
at best.

Click to expand...

[snip]

I believe it CLARIFIES the issue. If you are in a public place,
should there be restrictions on what you look at? Should you avoid
looking at something indecent? Do people have the right to say
"stop looking at me"?

Click to expand...

I disgree looking is not the same as taking a phtograph. Looking does not produce a transferable permanent lifelike representation of the scene. I don't know if people have the 'right' say "stop looking at me" but if they did and the looker/leerer might expect reprocusions either legal (as in being reported to the police), or illegal (as in being beaten by larger boyfriend ).

Barry Pearson said:

Under normal circumstances, the problem isn't that of the looker.
It is that of the person who wants to do something visible from a
public place yet doesn't want to be seen. Is that reasonable? It
means that that person is trying to restrict where someone can look
in a public place, and I think that is unreasonable.

Click to expand...

I think that in most circumstances this has nothing to do with it all. And again this confuses the issue. I think in most cases the objection is simply from not wanting to have someody taking pictures of them or there children. Again looking is not the same a photographing.

Barry Pearson said:

Now - assuming a person is allowed to look, why not also take a
photograph? Remember that other laws restrict what can be done with
the photograph - it can't be used for advertising (without
permission), and there are other constraints. What sort of thing is
OK to be looked at but not OK to be photographed for (say) private
use?

Click to expand...

Yes everyone obeys all laws. I don't think the concern is use in advertising. And simply because there is no law against somebody phtographing my girlfriend in a bikini and taking it home for 'personal' use doesn't, mean its right to ignore her objections and keep taking photos dispite them.

Barry Pearson said:

There are major issues with doing things that people don't expect -
hidden cameras is an obvious example. But when a photographer uses
a visible camera, objections start to infringe on the rights of the
photographer. There is NO right not to be photographed in a public
place. I hope there never will be - else I'm not sure what "public"
actually means anymore.

Click to expand...

I hope not. But from many postings here those rights have already been restricted in some public places (todler pools etc). Will it stop there?

Barry Pearson said:

Technology is trumping these objections, of course - we'll have
cameras in spectacles next, then in implants. If people can look,
they will be able to take photographs, and the discussion needs to
accept that. People like me with very obvious cameras are not the
problem.

Click to expand...

I thought I also read somewhere that a company was working on technoloty that would disrupt a digital cameras ability to operate?

Even when there are adult subjects, there are major problems with even street photograpy of strangers.

The problem is for the genuine documetary/fineart or casual photographer.

How do you take photographs on a steet openly without having people alter their nartural behavior?

The whole idea is to take pictures without being noticed! Hiding the camera or using a black rangefinder is a reasonable choice!

Asking first is going to make people pose, smile or just turn their backs! One doesn't document natural behavior that way!

I feel it's rude,( in most cultures) to take a picture up close without asking. (Not immoral since that ruler for measuring things is based on no transcultural logic). Taking pictures is akin to shouting at someone or crowding the person while they are eating or chatting. It's sort of invading their space and controntational. So what does one do.

OTOH, to take pictures from afar with a long lens arouses the fear of bystanders of the photgrapher acting stealthy because of nefarious purposes.

My way of working is to hold my camera with one hand and shoot from the side at high speed while walking.

If anyone objects I delete the picture.

If I have great pictures taken with a long lens, then I introduce myself and give my own email and let them know they can get a free copy. They ask what the image is for. Sometimes they want more pics.
Other times they want the iamges deleted.

On the beach, it is really tough to take pcitures even of birds without being questioned.

If however one get's there just after dawn, there are birds, great skies and perhaps people playing volleyball, who don't mind pictures.

During the day, I guess that one might have female assistant and talking to any beach patrol officers, before hand, might be helpful. I haven't tried that.

With children in a street market, there is a more relaxed atmosphere. Here one can ask the parent if they could give permisson to take some pictures and give one's card. If that is agreed to, and the child is still paying or looking at the clown or flowers, then one has a great chance to take unperturbed and natural child behavior.

For the beach, people are so paranoic, one has to really want those images. I guess going to the beach with several friends who have kids and with whom you have discussed the shoot, is probably the easiest. Maybe a sign, "Private Photography Shoot in Progress",or informing the beach patrol would save one from most hassles.. However, I would not bet on it.

Asher Kelman

http://www.openphotographyforums.com