Irish photographers' responsibilities

Thirdfox

This is something that happens quite often in regards to the people who refer to the law - a lot of talk about rights but not so much about responsibilities.

This thread isn't trying to criticise anyone here, it's something that people naturally do - think about what benefits us. But after seeing the glut of photographer's rights threads on here recently I think it would equally interesting and important to talk about our responsibilities as photographers. (Moral or legal).

Would you take pictures of children in a public place? Shoot people's private moments when they are in public (expressions of tenderness etc.)

How about if an accident happened - help first or shoot first? If someone really doesn't want you to take a picture of them would you persist if you have the legal right to do so - and then sell their image on as art? (Which does not need a model release form as far as I have read on the internet - not a definitive source of course).

What other responsibilities, if any, do you think photographers should have or take into account?

Again, it's just something that popped into my head after seeing all the rights threads - not trying to take a snipe at anyone.

Paulw

Thirdfox wrote: »

Would you take pictures of children in a public place? Shoot people's private moments when they are in public (expressions of tenderness etc.)

How about if an accident happened - help first or shoot first? If someone really doesn't want you to take a picture of them would you persist if you have the legal right to do so - and then sell their image on as art?

Yes, yes, help first shoot later, if someone says no, then I'd respect that.

I think all of the above would really depend on the situation. Very little of the photography I do would be street photography as such, but sometimes you just see something that is a lovely image.

I've a few images in my collection that are of kids (none of mine since I don't have any). Most were just things I noticed, and nothing staged. Just some scenes that make a lovely photo.

Thankfully I haven't seen any accidents, but my reaction would most probably be as a person first and photographer second. But, in saying that, I wouldn't criticise a photographer who shoots first and helps second (as long as a life isn't in danger).

I think a lot of photography is about respect, and that shows in the images too. If someone says no, then I would totally respect that, as I think the vast majority of people on boards would too.

Just my personal views.

Quackles

I have taken pictures of other people's children in public places (St. Patrick's day parade, for example), but usually only if they are putting themselves into the public eye in that manner. That said, last year I was shooting a parade for a local paper, and I had one parent treat me with great suspicion for taking a picture of her kids. I have shot scenes, such as sunsets or nice ocean views, with children playing in the shot, but they would have been so far away or silhouetted so that they were hardly recognisable. I wouldn't whip a camera out in a playground or swimming pool (other than to photograph my own) . Speaking as a parent, I think I'll shoot a child in a situation where I'd be comfortable with someone photographing my child. I also think I'll get away with a lot more because I'm a woman. Not saying it's right, but that's how I think it is.

As for an accident - I would help first. Even if others were already helping, I couldn't see myself shooting unless it is a seriously amazing photo op, such as the helicopter crash pics posted here.

I think the rights thing has gotten ridiculous - my sister and her husband are not allowed photograph their son learning to swim in case someone else's child gets in the shot. That's ridiculous, in my opinion. I wouldn't think twice if I saw parents photographing their own kids.

nilhg

I think as PaulW says respect is the key, you have to give people the same respect you would like shown to you and yours, that applies in all situations especially accidents.

Photographing kids is difficult, some people see it as provocative if you point a camera in their kids direction, I normally only take detailed pictures of my own kids unless I'm at a private function. Having said that I did take some at the parade on Patricks Day, safety in a big crowd.

YeahOK

It's an interesting topic.

I don't post pics of my own son on the web. If when he's older he's okay with it, I'll post some. Right now, small and all as he is, I don't think it's right to assume that he'll be okay with it. He's entitled as a person to decide for himself where his image is published or not as the case may be and I feel it's my duty as a parent to protect his right until such time as he's old enough to make that decision for himself. But that's just me.

With regard to the accident, help first, shoot later and vice versa, I'm not sure where I stand. It depends I suppose on whether you call it photojournalism or not. For example there have been photographs of a photo journalistic nature that are iconic. Anyone familiar with this photo;



I'm sure most of you are.

It was taken in Vietnam and won the photographer, Malcolm Browne the World Press Photo Award in 1963 and a Pulitzer Prize in 1964. It's one photo out of four rolls shot at the time. Should Browne have tried to help the monk in the photo before shooting off an incredible four rolls? I don't know. If Browne had not taken the photo would the media have had the impact of shifting American thinking on Vietnam as the World Press description of the image suggests?

Not all photojournalism is iconic, but it does serve a purpose. It documents events of public interest. Sometimes if you don't shoot first, help later you miss the opportunity to document that moment in time. I suppose the question is really what can you and more importantly your conscience live with?

Thirdfox

In regards photographing children I come from an Asian country where people are a lot more okay with the idea that anyone can be photographed in public. So imagine my surprise when my American friend told me it's not acceptable in the US in many places due to fears of paedophilia. I doubt that the rate of sex crimes against children is significantly different in either country but it's interesting to note the different attitudes taken by people.

If I see a child walking on a path with their parent (in a public park etc.) and it was a touching image I wouldn't personally have qualms about taking the picture. But getting the views of people from lots of countries (my German friend said it's fine in Germany) I have realised that there is a wide divergence of opinion and out of respect if I'm a tourist in any country I'll obviously follow their laws and to a point their cultural "quirks".

sheesh

Whats this thing about it unethical to photograph (was going to say shoot lol) children?
I wouldn't do it myself because I'm a man and I might be accused of being a Paedophile and to be perfectly honest I'm not that interested in photographing other peoples kids I have a niece and 2 nephews thats enough.

ethics of shooting people in public? the Problem with ethics is that there is always a perfectly good reason not to take a picture. most people don't want their picture taken especially by a stranger most of the street photography you see on here would not be done if people asked permission to do it.

therein lies street photographys value it records a moment in time in the real life of real people. Everytime I see old photographs the things that interest me are the cars the way people dress the expressions on peoples faces something you are not going to capture in a staged shot.

As regards accidents I think you should really be helping people although I would nearly make an exception for pros working for a newspaper.

Thirdfox

The argument I hear for allowing pros to document rather than help is that they will be able to do more good by getting the story out than just helping individually. Of course if someone's drowning in the sea the first thing people should do is notify the emergency services and look for a life ring.

Sheesh - do you think it's right that people may think you're a paedophile? Indeed - if you see someone taking a picture of your child while you're walking on the street would you assume s/he is a paedophile? I just find it strange to see how someone could just jump to those assumptions...

sheesh

Thirdfox wrote: »

Sheesh - do you think it's right that people may think you're a paedophile? Indeed - if you see someone taking a picture of your child while you're walking on the street would you assume s/he is a paedophile? I just find it strange to see how someone could just jump to those assumptions...

this is going to take some time......

no i do not think it is right and if i see someone with a camera taking pictures of people I assume its a photographer doing some street photography.

but I am interested in photography I know that people go out and take pictures of random people.

Whats the betting that if enough people see me taking one picture of one child that one of them will think that I am some sort of pervert?

Statistically I would have to admit that I believe that as the number of people viewing me goes towards infinity the probability of one of these people deciding that I am some sort of pervert and doing something stupid approaches 1.

I know it is worse case scenario but I believe it could happen so i avoid it.

I should really stop wearing the dirty rain coat too i suppose

I'm sending you a pm with a more long winded explanation.

Dodgykeeper

I would never take pictures of kids, even when I am covering an underage match I produce photo ID to both managers before taking a pic, almost always other kids say "Mister will you take my picture" I never do.

I would not appreciate pictures of my kids being taken/put on web without permission and have never put any of my kids on web.

(not saying anyone who does is wrong its just my decision)

Quackles

I'm one of those horrendous parents who puts their kids pictures online (jk, I know you didn't mean it that way). I don't believe that a paedophile will use a picture of a fully dressed child as masturbation fodder, forgive my bluntness. The pictures are not provocative in any way, shape or form. If it was that easy to attract the wrong kind of attention,all Mr. or Ms. Paedophile would need to do is pick up a family album catelogue. If no-one was willing to share pictures of their kids, two things would happen - the internet would become a "children of man" scenario, and we'd be giving in to fear. The photographing kids thing, indeed, interracting with kids in general, is reaching a sad place. I brought my son to a play area thing recently. While I was there, one of the parents left a less than two year old alone in the toddler area while she went with the older kids to the larger part. After a few minutes, the child started crying, very distressed, for her mammy. It was awful - myself and the other parents there were all doing an awkward hovering thing, wanting to console her and help her, but afraid to. The fear of being labelled is taking a lot of goodness out of society, and it would be very interesing to see if the instances of child abuse are dropping as a result. Considering most abusers are known, trusted individuals, I doubt it.

nilhg

/\ /\

Well said, a sad place indeed.

Fionn

i think taking photographs of kids when they are presented for public view i.e. parade staged event etc. is fine - if parents dont want their kids to be photographed or looked at, then they really need to make a decision as to whether to have them attend or not! taking photos of kids in their own back yard or whatever with a telephoto lens is another matter.
My sister had her two grandchildren in the local swimming pool last year and wanted to take a snap of them splashing about, the staff went ballistic, i've also heard of park staff and councils banning photography in play areas etc. I really think its an over-reaction to the whole pervert thing - it's another case of PC gone mad!!!
If a pervert wants to stalk a kid and take photographs they'll use covert methods to get the photos not out in the open with a big camera and tripod and bag and whatnot - it's ridiculous. On the accidents thing, I suppose the photographer has to make a judgement call here – is it appropriate will people’s privacy, sensitivities be damaged? All these questions have to be faced by the photographer. I know in my own case a man was killed off a motorcycle about 100 yards from my house –I heard the crash grabbed my camera and ran down, but I never took any photographs first it was very gruesome secondly his wife and family came on the scene in a car and out of respect I didn’t think it was appropriate, I presume I could have earned a few quid from it but it didn’t feel right. So I guess each event has to be evaluated on its own merits I would say go with your gut instinct to whats right/acceptable and what’s not.

Paulw

Fionn wrote: »

ii've also heard of park staff and councils banning photography in play areas etc. I really think its an over-reaction to the whole pervert thing - it's another case of PC gone mad!!!

I have to totally agree. The world is going mad, and I very much doubt that the children are any more protected.

Kids are so full of life and such much fun. Their expressions are priceless.

I think that we all just need to show respect and care, to everyone.