Taking Photographs of Children

Captain Flaps · 14-01-2010 11:41am #1

Hi everybody,

I'm currently writing my undergraduate thesis for my BA degree in Photography in DIT. My paper deals with the issue of sexual imagery on the internet and whether the fear of this coupled with the potential for spreading a photograph throughout the internet has an effect on the way photographs are viewed. There is currently a trend, especially in the UK, of parents viewing photographers with increasing mistrust, even in situations where the photographer is taking images of his or her own child, with other children ignored or included in the shot by necessity.

I'm posting this in parenting because, as parents, the people in this forum will have certain views of different people taking photos of their children. I'm hoping that a few of you will take the time to answer the below questions as honestly as possible, it'd really help me to get a parent's perspective and I feel that this forum will allow people to answer more openly than they would if I were to approach them on the street, at a playground etc.

1. If you saw a stranger taking photos of your child in a public setting, what would your initial reaction be?

2. More specifically, what would influence this reaction? (examples: age/sex of the photographer, location of the image) Why?

3. If the photographer explained that he/she was just taking images to use in a portfolio, how would you feel? Why?

4. If the photographer explained that they were writing an article for a well known newspaper, would that be more or less acceptable (in your opinion) than someone taking the photos for a portfolio?

5. Would being told that the image of your child would be publicly visible on the internet make you more or less likely to allow the photographer to take the images?

6. If the photographer did not mention the possibility of the image appearing online, would you inquire about this?

7. If you found, at any stage, an image of your child or a child you know on the internet, be it on a personal site or accompanying a news article, would you request it removed? If so, why? If not, why not?

Any responses to the above questions would be greatly appreciated, I'm really interested in getting your take on the subject.

Rob

Captain Flaps · 14-01-2010 12:05pm

Thanks for the reply metrovelvet.

While, as you say, you might be more paranoid about this stuff than others, my suspicion is that this is a pretty common view. If you don't mind my asking, what is it about pictures of your son being online that makes you uncomfortable?

Ludo · 14-01-2010 12:26pm

I have no problem with photos of my kids being taken or put online as long as I know the photographer. For example we got shots taken of our kids by a photographer who now uses them for promotional purposes online and in shopping centres. I have no problem with that.

I would find some random stranger in a playground taking photos odd though and would not approve of that. Whether the photos are going online or not would not change that opinion.

So to me it all comes down to whether I know the photographer or not...nothing to do with what they are being used for.

Captain Flaps · 14-01-2010 12:44pm

Thanks for the reply ludo.

Again, a follow up question. You say that you would find it odd seeing a stranger taking photos in a playground. That's a common view and it predates the internet, because obviously people are worried about sexual predators and a playground is a fairly stereotypical place for deviants to go.

However, let's say that I'm a tall, male, 22 year old (all true!) who isn't lurking or doing anything 'weird'. I simply come in and start snapping. I might even approach you as the parent first and explain what I'm doing, and show you examples of what I'm trying to capture. The images would be used for an online portfolio of work to promote myself as a photographer. Would you find that objectionable or would knowing my motives make you more comfortable?

And again, would knowing the images would be displayed on a website, albeit a professional photographer's 'trade' site, influence whether you let me take the images or not? Thanks in advance.

littlebug · 14-01-2010 1:01pm

I've been approached a few times by people wanting to take photographs of my children and I've also said no. I've also been in situations where people have just taken photos of them without permission which drives me (and them) nuts and is also unfair because the people who asked don't get the shot but the rude ones do. I just find it very obstrusive.... there my kids are enjoying themselves and when they realise there's a camera pointed at them they become very uncomfortable.

if I saw a young man seemingly unattached to any child in the playground taking photographs of the kids I'd probably ring the gardai..... if you approached me and explained as above I'd be less wary of you and your motives but I'd still say no.
Any photographer should have access to enough friends and family with children without having to approach strangers (or not) in a playground so I would just find it odd.

Ludo · 14-01-2010 1:26pm

Captain Flaps wrote: »

However, let's say that I'm a tall, male, 22 year old (all true!) who isn't lurking or doing anything 'weird'. I simply come in and start snapping. I might even approach you as the parent first and explain what I'm doing, and show you examples of what I'm trying to capture. The images would be used for an online portfolio of work to promote myself as a photographer. Would you find that objectionable or would knowing my motives make you more comfortable?

And again, would knowing the images would be displayed on a website, albeit a professional photographer's 'trade' site, influence whether you let me take the images or not? Thanks in advance.

Littlebugs answer would probably sum up my feelings to your follow up question. Don't know if it matters but I am male also by the way.

littlebug wrote: »

if you approached me and explained as above I'd be less wary of you and your motives but I'd still say no.
Any photographer should have access to enough friends and family with children without having to approach strangers (or not) in a playground so I would just find it odd.

di11on · 14-01-2010 2:07pm

1. If you saw a stranger taking photos of your child in a public setting, what would your initial reaction be?

I would demand the SD card from the camera. If the person refused, I would take it by force. Why does someone need to take a picture of my child? I can't think of a scenario where this would be necessary of interesting for someone.

2. More specifically, what would influence this reaction? (examples: age/sex of the photographer, location of the image) Why?

I would view anyone photographing my children all equally with suspicion.

3. If the photographer explained that he/she was just taking images to use in a portfolio, how would you feel? Why?

I would say no. I find it difficult to think of a scenario where pictures of my children are required for artistic reasons.

4. If the photographer explained that they were writing an article for a well known newspaper, would that be more or less acceptable (in your opinion) than someone taking the photos for a portfolio?

If the person is a known journalist and can show this, and my child has been involved in something newsworthy, then sure. But otherwise, I can't think of a valid reason for my kids to be photographed.

5. Would being told that the image of your child would be publicly visible on the internet make you more or less likely to allow the photographer to take the images?

Less likely. But I would assume that any journalistic photography would end up in the internet.

6. If the photographer did not mention the possibility of the image appearing online, would you inquire about this?

Yes

7. If you found, at any stage, an image of your child or a child you know on the internet, be it on a personal site or accompanying a news article, would you request it removed? If so, why? If not, why not?

Absolutely.

ash23 · 14-01-2010 2:25pm

1. If you saw a stranger taking photos of your child in a public setting, what would your initial reaction be?

That depends. Are they with their own children? Is my child just being caught in the shot or is a person specifically taking shots of her playing? If it was the former I probably wouldn't even notice. The latter would make me very uncomfortable.

2. More specifically, what would influence this reaction? (examples: age/sex of the photographer, location of the image) Why?

Age and sex wouldn't bother me. If they were there without their own children it'd bother me. If they were lurking, it'd bother me. If my child was in swimming togs it's bother me a great deal.

3. If the photographer explained that he/she was just taking images to use in a portfolio, how would you feel? Why?

I would think it was very rude of them not to have asked me initially and I would be inclined to ask them to stop.

4. If the photographer explained that they were writing an article for a well known newspaper, would that be more or less acceptable (in your opinion) than someone taking the photos for a portfolio?

Depends on the location. If it was a race or a fundraiser or a sporting event then it would be ok once permission was asked first, especially if it were a solo shot as opposed to a crowd shot. If it were just down the park on the swings then I'd be wary of their excuses and annoyed they hadn't asked me.

5. Would being told that the image of your child would be publicly visible on the internet make you more or less likely to allow the photographer to take the images?

Neither. That wouldn't bother me so long as the child was fully clothed.

6. If the photographer did not mention the possibility of the image appearing online, would you inquire about this?

No

7. If you found, at any stage, an image of your child or a child you know on the internet, be it on a personal site or accompanying a news article, would you request it removed? If so, why? If not, why not?

Probably not so long as it was tasteful. The internet thing doesn't bother me. The child is no more at risk from danger by having their pic on the internet than being in the local shop.

Nevyn · 14-01-2010 2:31pm

You do not have the right o take anyones photo with out thier permission esp if it id them clearly and you do not have the right to photograph my child with out my permission or to reproduce or publish thier image.
Those would be the reason I would stop someone taking photos of my children.

I would think a hell of a lot less of a professional photographer who didn't check first and ask permission and I would approach anyone who started taking pictures of my child.

Khannie · 14-01-2010 4:32pm

1. If you saw a stranger taking photos of your child in a public setting, what would your initial reaction be?

Context is important....little story; We were in Thailand this time last year for a month and we had our little girl with us. Blonde hair, blue eyes, pale white skin. She was like a flippin' rock star over there. One day we noticed a lady taking photos of her at the place we were staying at. She was an amateur photographer, talked to us for a bit, took my email address and offered to send on the pictures. Now she was fully clothed and the photographer was female. Also the fact that she stood out a bit over there (we had to account for extra time when heading out to the shops with people stopping us on the street, no joke) meant I wasn't on my guard.

But...if it were a public beach in Ireland and she were in a swimsuit and the photographer were male....well....like others here I'd be very aggressive initially to be honest.

Kildrought · 14-01-2010 5:16pm

You do not have the right o take anyones photo with out thier permission esp if it id them clearly and you do not have the right to photograph my child with out my permission or to reproduce or publish thier image.

Do you know if there is legisation to this effect? Do you have a source?

smelltheglove · 14-01-2010 5:33pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

You do not have the right o take anyones photo with out thier permission esp if it id them clearly and you do not have the right to photograph my child with out my permission or to reproduce or publish thier image.
Those would be the reason I would stop someone taking photos of my children.

I would think a hell of a lot less of a professional photographer who didn't check first and ask permission and I would approach anyone who started taking pictures of my child.

I feel similar to many here already, even though I am a photographer myself, I would be wary of strangers taking pics of my girls.

I do have to say though, this above is incorrect! A photographer has the right to take pictures of anything or anyone in a public place, there are no restrictions, however there is something called model release so an image of an identifiable person in a public place cannot be sold commercially without sufficient attempts to receive model release.

You may correct me if I have errored here but this has come up on the photography forum and this is whati believe to be correct at the minute.

tricky D · 14-01-2010 5:46pm

di11on wrote: »

1. If you saw a stranger taking photos of your child in a public setting, what would your initial reaction be?

I would demand the SD card from the camera. If the person refused, I would take it by force. Why does someone need to take a picture of my child? I can't think of a scenario where this would be necessary of interesting for someone.

Assault and criminal damage. Pretty much open and shut case.

Thaedydal wrote: »

You do not have the right o take anyones photo with out thier permission esp if it id them clearly and you do not have the right to photograph my child with out my permission or to reproduce or publish thier image.

By law, a photographer does have the right in a public place with very very little grey area.

(Remember this is country where the gov will get tens of billions to wbankers within a few months but take years and years to enact a childrens legislation.)

A few months ago, a male and female were taking photos of kids in our local playground. Gardai were called and asked to act. They legally couldn't and couldn't even demand to look at the photos. There's very little they can do without a court order. What they did do was take the names which resulted in them cooperating with the Gardai and deleting the photos (easily recoverable though). Kinda helped that some angry mums were in attendence.

more:
http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

Nevyn · 14-01-2010 11:17pm

I own the rights to my own image and my children own the rights to their's and I am their legal guardian.

My children's school and other groups they are invovled with have to send home a request/permission form if there are to be photos of them taken, from end of year photos to sports day or even class projects.

It has nothing to do with scaremongering it is the right to privacy.

smelltheglove · 14-01-2010 11:20pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

I own the rights to my own image and my children own the rights to their's and I am their legal guardian.

My children's school and other groups they are invovled with have to send home a request/permission form if there are to be photos of them taken, from end of year photos to sports day or even class projects.

It has nothing to do with scaremongering it is the right to privacy.

Thats different though, a school is not a public place. I suggest you look up photography copyright. In Ireland the only person to own the rights without a predetermined contract is the photographer.

smelltheglove · 14-01-2010 11:54pm

I answered a similar one recently on the photography forum, probably a classmate of yours.

1. If you saw a stranger taking photos of your child in a public setting, what would your initial reaction be?

I am aware of laws of photographing in public places etc so I know it is allowed. I always thought it would annoy me but last time I was aware of someone doing it I was quite proud and happy that another photographer was seeing what I was seeing and captured it, just such a pity that I couldnt get to them before they disappeared into the crowd so I could see them.

2. More specifically, what would influence this reaction? (examples: age/sex of the photographer, location of the image) Why?

I would be a bit freaked out if my kids were in swimsuits by a pool and a man was standing specifically taking pictures of them.

3. If the photographer explained that he/she was just taking images to use in a portfolio, how would you feel? Why?

I would be happy enough and would most likely ask for them to email me copies if possible.

4. If the photographer explained that they were writing an article for a well known newspaper, would that be more or less acceptable (in your opinion) than someone taking the photos for a portfolio?

Neither here nor there.

5. Would being told that the image of your child would be publicly visible on the internet make you more or less likely to allow the photographer to take the images?

Neither here nor there I have images of them online, I am happy for their picture to be online if they are adequately dressed etc

6. If the photographer did not mention the possibility of the image appearing online, would you inquire about this?

Possibly so I could know where so I could show the kids

7. If you found, at any stage, an image of your child or a child you know on the internet, be it on a personal site or accompanying a news article, would you request it removed? If so, why? If not, why not?

No, the only time I have requested images to be removed is when there are people breaching my own copyright

Hope this helps Rob, I know my answers are different to most but that would be because of having a photography background.

I also used to have a child portrait studio for a bit and only ever encountered one person who requested their childs image not be put online.

Deliverance · 15-01-2010 12:17am

Captain Flaps wrote: »

Hi everybody,

I'm currently writing my undergraduate thesis for my BA degree in Photography in DIT. My paper deals with the issue of sexual imagery on the internet and whether the fear of this coupled with the potential for spreading a photograph throughout the internet has an effect on the way photographs are viewed. There is currently a trend, especially in the UK, of parents viewing photographers with increasing mistrust, even in situations where the photographer is taking images of his or her own child, with other children ignored or included in the shot by necessity.

I'm posting this in parenting because, as parents, the people in this forum will have certain views of different people taking photos of their children. I'm hoping that a few of you will take the time to answer the below questions as honestly as possible, it'd really help me to get a parent's perspective and I feel that this forum will allow people to answer more openly than they would if I were to approach them on the street, at a playground etc.

1. If you saw a stranger taking photos of your child in a public setting, what would your initial reaction be?

2. More specifically, what would influence this reaction? (examples: age/sex of the photographer, location of the image) Why?

3. If the photographer explained that he/she was just taking images to use in a portfolio, how would you feel? Why?

4. If the photographer explained that they were writing an article for a well known newspaper, would that be more or less acceptable (in your opinion) than someone taking the photos for a portfolio?

5. Would being told that the image of your child would be publicly visible on the internet make you more or less likely to allow the photographer to take the images?

6. If the photographer did not mention the possibility of the image appearing online, would you inquire about this?

7. If you found, at any stage, an image of your child or a child you know on the internet, be it on a personal site or accompanying a news article, would you request it removed? If so, why? If not, why not?

Any responses to the above questions would be greatly appreciated, I'm really interested in getting your take on the subject.

Rob

Personally I think you should try to take a more original concept grown out of the concept you have given as a kind of brief. The responses are obvious based on the concept that you gave up. It is a given that parents will be objective and it is an early start for feedback.

Your idea at the moment is pretty generic because it is simply at the research stage. Be prepared to change your idea and go down another path sooner rather than later.

Your concept at the moment is about how photography can be invasive, Correct?. You shouldn't limit your research to this.

Maybe you should be looking at how it can be less invasive as an art. Or indeed can it be an art without being invasive? Or is it simply the fact that photography due to the fact that almost everyone has a cam these days... a dilution of the art form?

Point a cam at anyone at any given situation on the street and see their reaction being aware of the cam. Catch them without them seeing the cam and capture a different person i.e. more real. This in my view will show (if you can pull it off) a view from the lens that is a view from the cam from both points of view. I.e. the aware as opposed to the unaware.

In a way this would expose the cam view as opposed to the unaware of the cam view and provide an interesting thesis as such.

I.e. photograph someone unawares, then capture them aware of the photo and see the difference. This would show something towards how photography and cameras affect folks.

Ludo · 15-01-2010 7:17am

Thaedydal wrote: »

I own the rights to my own image and my children own the rights to their's and I am their legal guardian.

My children's school and other groups they are invovled with have to send home a request/permission form if there are to be photos of them taken, from end of year photos to sports day or even class projects.

It has nothing to do with scaremongering it is the right to privacy.

Sources for this?

3DataModem · 15-01-2010 7:30am

1. I would be wary. It would depend very much on the situation.

2. Factors;
- Does it look like a pro photographer?
- What are the children doing? (playing on beach = bad, playing in park = good, etc)
- Is there any info identifying the children?

3. If the photographer gave this information prior to taking photos, great. It would depend greatly on attitude of photographer.

4. More

5. See 2 above.

6. Yes

7. See 2 above.

On reflection the main factor influencing my level of concern is the nature of the photos.

Wantobe · 15-01-2010 1:23pm

1. If you saw a stranger taking photos of your child in a public setting, what would your initial reaction be?

I would immediately approach them, ask them their name and why they were taking pictures. If they didn't have a reasonable explanation I would telephone gardai/ask them to stop and leave with my child.

2. More specifically, what would influence this reaction? (examples: age/sex of the photographer, location of the image) Why?

Wouldn't matter- the fact that they are a stranger is enough.

3. If the photographer explained that he/she was just taking images to use in a portfolio, how would you feel? Why?

I would not consider this a reasonable explanation.

4. If the photographer explained that they were writing an article for a well known newspaper, would that be more or less acceptable (in your opinion) than someone taking the photos for a portfolio?

Only if I believed them- I would think there would have to be a good reason for an article and why would normal children playing be a good reason?

5. Would being told that the image of your child would be publicly visible on the internet make you more or less likely to allow the photographer to take the images?

I would assume if a newspaper took a photo that they would be on the net.

6. If the photographer did not mention the possibility of the image appearing online, would you inquire about this?

No.

7. If you found, at any stage, an image of your child or a child you know on the internet, be it on a personal site or accompanying a news article, would you request it removed? If so, why? If not, why not?

If it was taken without my knowledge and consent I would ask questions about that but as to removing it- it depends on the context.

Cabaal · 15-01-2010 2:40pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

You do not have the right o take anyones photo with out thier permission

err actually if your on public property somebody can take your photo without asking you, its actually perfectly legal

smelltheglove wrote: »

Thats different though, a school is not a public place. I suggest you look up photography copyright. In Ireland the only person to own the rights without a predetermined contract is the photographer.

Couldn't agree more,

Thaedydal you really should look up the laws instead of assuming what you believe to be the law as this is only spreading misinformation which isn't very helpful to people including yourself imho.

I'm not trying to attack you and I honestly can see where your coming from but assuming such things could actually cause more problems for people then if they actually knew the facts.

Its no different to assume you'd have some sort of twisted right to take the persons memory card by force, such actions could actually land the parent in more trouble with the Gardai.

3DataModem wrote: »

1. I would be wary. It would depend very much on the situation.

2. Factors;
- Does it look like a pro photographer?

and what does a pro look like?
Somebody with a expensive looking DSLR and a big white lens?

Ickle Magoo · 15-01-2010 2:58pm

Overall, I have no issue with pictures of my children being taken or put up on-line with my permission. I know where my kids are at all times and I know they are are safe. Although what someone can do with a photograph is unsavoury and unpleasant, it isn't actually physically harming my child.

In saying that, if I saw someone specifically taking pictures of my kids without even asking if they could, I would confront them and ask them to stop - because it's just rude and more than a bit creepy, especially if the kids were in swim-suits or something.

Photography can easily be used as a way to interact with a child or get them to speak or look at an adult, which would make me wary too. I suppose it all comes down to situation and motivation.

CrazyRabbit · 15-01-2010 7:45pm

If the child is happy having their photograph taken, then I don't see the harm. As was mentioned above, it's not about risk, but about personal privacy.

There is a lot of paranoia in the above replies regarding sexual predators.
Paedophiles don't walk around taking pictures of random kids. Paedophiles are in fact very likely to be someone you know and trust. Friends, relatives etc actually pose a greater chance of harming your child.

Now, back to the photographs. Lets take an example where a predator is for some reason walking around with a camera. Do you really think that he/she is going to be interested in taking pictures of your clothed child? If they want to see pictures of boys/girls, they can just do a quick Google image search and get a few million results. By their very nature, they are really only going to be interested in the non-innocent picture types. And they are not going to get them walking around a park/street with a camera. Even if they take a pic of your child and upload it to some website, does it in any way harm your child?

Paranoia has led us to a society where children are being raised to be terrified of every adult male, primary school teachers are 80%+ female, and men can't even walk around a public area with a camera for fear of being labeled a paedophile.

So in summary, a person taking a pic of your child in a public area cannot in any way harm your child so long as they are happy having their photo taken. Leave them be, and don't make any unfair presumptions about their intent. Put an end to this insane paranoia.

Ickle Magoo · 15-01-2010 9:51pm

If someone was taking random photos of me, I'd ask them to stop, too. A camera doesn't give you the right to impede on peoples privacy and start snapping while they are trying to have a day out or whatever. I don't want to have random strangers interacting with me or my children, camera or no - I certainly wouldn't just leave them be.

Payton · 15-01-2010 9:58pm

My son plays soccer, and on numerous occassions Ive asked people from the away team to stop takiing photos and the reply i get back most of the time is "Im taking pictures of my chlid" Horse**** I dont know what this guy is going to do with these pictures even if my son is not in them.
As far as Im aware he has no right to photograph my son. I have posted this in the Legal Discussions Forum but didnt get a full answer.

CrazyRabbit · 15-01-2010 10:25pm

on the verge wrote: »

My son plays soccer, and on numerous occassions Ive asked people from the away team to stop takiing photos and the reply i get back most of the time is "Im taking pictures of my chlid" Horse**** I dont know what this guy is going to do with these pictures even if my son is not in them.
As far as Im aware he has no right to photograph my son. I have posted this in the Legal Discussions Forum but didnt get a full answer.

So every adult out there is a bad person? You seem to have serious trust issues.
That's not meant as an insult but as an expression of concern for you.

And what exactly could this guy do with pictures of your son that could possibly harm him?

Oh, and anyone can legally take pictures of you in a public place. If it were illegal, you wouldn't have paparazzi snapping hundreds of pics of celebs.

Ickle Magoo · 15-01-2010 10:34pm

There's nothing illegal about random people walking up to kids in the playground and trying to chat with them either but, unsurprisingly, parents take a rather dim view of it.

amdublin · 16-01-2010 9:39am

1. If you saw a stranger taking photos of your child in a public setting, what would your initial reaction be?

I would question the photographer why they were taking the photos etc.

2. More specifically, what would influence this reaction? (examples: age/sex of the photographer, location of the image) Why?

Purely for me to get a feel for the reason for the photo

3. If the photographer explained that he/she was just taking images to use in a portfolio, how would you feel? Why?

I would be fine with this. I would ask to see some of the photos and if they were innocent shots of my child or group shots of children playing (for example) I would be fine. It is the "style" of the photo that I would be looking at.

4. If the photographer explained that they were writing an article for a well known newspaper, would that be more or less acceptable (in your opinion) than someone taking the photos for a portfolio?

Probably even more acceptable.

5. Would being told that the image of your child would be publicly visible on the internet make you more or less likely to allow the photographer to take the images?

Again, dependent on the style of the photo, I would not have a problem with this.

6. If the photographer did not mention the possibility of the image appearing online, would you inquire about this?

No, it would not have even occured to me to think of this. But now after reading this, I will!

7. If you found, at any stage, an image of your child or a child you know on the internet, be it on a personal site or accompanying a news article, would you request it removed? If so, why? If not, why not?

Again, depending on the "style" - if it did not make sense to have the photo on a personal site I would ask for it to be removed. If it was accompanying an article and the photo and the article made sense I would be fine with this.

I think a bit of logic and common sense (and no hysteria!) will guide you in the above circumstances.

Like think logically! A paedophile can access a million photos of children - clothed/semi-clothed/naked/being sexually abused (God forbid) - at the tap of a button. Why would they want a photograph of your/my child?

Equally, I would not be complacent. Ask to see the photos, if they are innocent shots fine. If you are concerned about them, ask for them to be deleted. If the person will not delete, take action, call gards if neccessary - on basis of the content of the photo ie. not with a hysterical rant about a person taking photos of your child which they don't have a right to do (which they do) and god forbid do not go about assaulting the photographer and stealing his property (memory card).

amdublin · 16-01-2010 9:50am

Thaedydal wrote: »

I own the rights to my own image and my children own the rights to their's and I am their legal guardian.
.

No, once a photographer takes a photo they own the rights to it (ie. "your image").

Cabaal · 16-01-2010 10:14am

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

If the child is happy having their photograph taken, then I don't see the harm. As was mentioned above, it's not about risk, but about personal privacy.

There is a lot of paranoia in the above replies regarding sexual predators.
Paedophiles don't walk around taking pictures of random kids. Paedophiles are in fact very likely to be someone you know and trust. Friends, relatives etc actually pose a greater chance of harming your child.

Now, back to the photographs. Lets take an example where a predator is for some reason walking around with a camera. Do you really think that he/she is going to be interested in taking pictures of your clothed child? If they want to see pictures of boys/girls, they can just do a quick Google image search and get a few million results. By their very nature, they are really only going to be interested in the non-innocent picture types. And they are not going to get them walking around a park/street with a camera. Even if they take a pic of your child and upload it to some website, does it in any warm harm your child?

Some very valid points, I always find it funny that the same people that are complaining about a person taking a picture and putting it up on the net have taken pictures and put them up on the net themselfs....

The whole world including google to see.....irconic really

Cabaal · 16-01-2010 10:15am

on the verge wrote: »

My son plays soccer, and on numerous occassions Ive asked people from the away team to stop takiing photos and the reply i get back most of the time is "Im taking pictures of my chlid" Horse**** I dont know what this guy is going to do with these pictures even if my son is not in them.
As far as Im aware he has no right to photograph my son. I have posted this in the Legal Discussions Forum but didnt get a full answer.

What if you wanted a picture of your child and somebody kept shouting over at you to stop...they don't know what you might do with the pictures.

It works both ways

If the pitch is on private property then the owner of the property could ask him to stop...that doesn't mean you have an automatic right though, if however its public then he has ever right in the world to take the photo of his kid or anyone else at the match.

Ickle Magoo · 16-01-2010 10:26am

Cabaal wrote: »

Some very valid points, I always find it funny that the same people that are complaining about a person taking a picture and putting it up on the net have taken pictures and put them up on the net themselfs....

The whole world including google to see.....irconic really

So if I followed you around and took pictures of you or your kids without asking you if you minded and then posted them on the internet for whatever reason I wanted, that is no different to someone posting their own image for their own reasons?

Cabaal · 16-01-2010 10:59am

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So if I followed you around and took pictures of you or your kids without asking you if you minded and then posted them on the internet for whatever reason I wanted, that is no different to someone posting their own image for their own reasons?

now both you and me know thats not what I said,

It is ironic that the same people that bitch and moan about a third party posting pictures up on the internet will willing do so themselfs on sites such as facebook or there own blog, they don't seem to realise that the whole world can often see these photos.

My response was in-line with what CrazyRabbit said so please don't try and take it out of context.

Ickle Magoo · 16-01-2010 11:08am

Cabaal wrote: »

now both you and me know thats not what I said,

It is ironic that the same people that bitch and moan about a third party posting pictures up on the internet will willing do so themselfs on sites such as facebook or there own blog, they don't seem to realise that the whole world can often see these photos.

My response was in-line with what CrazyRabbit said so please don't try and take it out of context.

That's the point though, if there is a clear difference then why is it ironic?

The Big Red Button · 16-01-2010 11:24am

on the verge wrote: »

My son plays soccer, and on numerous occassions Ive asked people from the away team to stop takiing photos and the reply i get back most of the time is "Im taking pictures of my chlid" Horse**** I dont know what this guy is going to do with these pictures even if my son is not in them.
As far as Im aware he has no right to photograph my son. I have posted this in the Legal Discussions Forum but didnt get a full answer.

Can I ask you, honestly, what is your fear here?

What harm do you think might possibly come to you or your son because of him appearing fully-clothed in the background of a photo taken by another parent of their own kid?

I'm aware that this issue involves some grey areas, e.g. children being photographed by complete strangers at the beach etc., but I cannot imagine a more innocent scenario than another parent wanting to take photos of their own kid playing a football match.

And as far as I'm aware, you're wrong, he has every right to take those photos and he owns full copyright to them. If you want to avoid these situations, maybe you should just stop your son from playing soccer and keep him wrapped up in cotton wool at home altogether! :rolleyes:

In relation to the general topic, I think that when kids are involved it would be good manners to ask the parents first (that's if the kids are the subject of the photos, and not just part of the background!) And I certainly think it would be bad form to start talking to and interacting with the kids without talking to the parents first - no matter how wholesome your intentions are as a photographer, you shouldn't be encouraging the kids to talk to random strangers, and it probably won't do you any favours with the parents.

But, I don't know, there are enough real dangers out there, without imagining more! I just don't see how a random one-off photo of a fully dressed kid is ever going to lead to anyone getting hurt, so it's not something I'd lose any sleep over.

amdublin · 16-01-2010 11:38am

chatterpillar wrote: »

But, I don't know, there are enough real dangers out there, without imagining more! I just don't see how a random one-off photo of a fully dressed kid is ever going to lead to anyone getting hurt, so it's not something I'd lose any sleep over.

Good point!

Let's not lose the run of ourselves here folks.

Nevyn · 16-01-2010 11:38am

Cabaal wrote: »

now both you and me know thats not what I said,

It is ironic that the same people that bitch and moan about a third party posting pictures up on the internet will willing do so themselfs on sites such as facebook or there own blog, they don't seem to realise that the whole world can often see these photos.

My response was in-line with what CrazyRabbit said so please don't try and take it out of context.

Last time I went looking and reading up on his was 5 years ago.
If I am wrong the please point me in the direct of the legislation on this,
I don't know everything about everything and have never claimed to.

Yes a lot of people do put pics of their kids up for all to see but they choose to do that, some of us respect our kids rights to privacy and only do so in a very limited or restricted way but again it's our choice, they are out children and we choose how much to expose and what is published and in what context.

While I have published photos of my children on the internet in restricted ways I am careful that they can not be clearly identified. I have had threats against me and my kids just for being a notable person on this site.

I have had someone say they would make it their business to wait outside the primary schools in D15 until they saw me collecting my kids and would photograph them and photoshop them and put them on the internet.

When a stranger has a photo of your child you have no idea what they may do with it, I and my children do not need clearly identifiable shots of their faces photoshoped on to hard core porn or worse but up on the internet.

amdublin · 16-01-2010 11:44am

Thaedydal wrote: »

While I have published photos of my children on the internet in restricted ways I am careful that they can not be clearly identified. I have had threats against me and my kids just for being a notable person on this site.

I have had someone say they would make it their business to wait outside the primary schools in D15 until they saw me collecting my kids and would photograph them and photoshop them and put them on the internet.

When a stranger has a photo of your child you have no idea what they may do with it, I and my children do not need clearly identifiable shots of their faces photoshoped on to hard core porn or worse but up on the internet.

:eek:

Your first two paragraphs in this quote are clearly shocking and obviously you have a very personal reason to be concerned about photos of your children.

But seriously folks, let's not be paranoid about everyone/everything. Control the controllables - you do not have the right to stop someone taking photos etc - but as long as you are comfortable with the actual photo let's not turn every situation into something it is not.

smelltheglove · 16-01-2010 11:59am

Thaedydal wrote: »

While I have published photos of my children on the internet in restricted ways I am careful that they can not be clearly identified. I have had threats against me and my kids just for being a notable person on this site.

I have had someone say they would make it their business to wait outside the primary schools in D15 until they saw me collecting my kids and would photograph them and photoshop them and put them on the internet..

I'm quite shocked to hear that, terrible behaviour. I hope you have reported those pms.

Ickle Magoo · 16-01-2010 12:13pm

amdublin wrote: »

But seriously folks, let's not be paranoid about everyone/everything. Control the controllables - you do not have the right to stop someone taking photos etc - but as long as you are comfortable with the actual photo let's not turn every situation into something it is not.

How do you know what's a situation that it is not & when it is a situation?

I don't understand why you think people don't have the right to stop people taking photos of them or their children. The right to privacy is still recognised here even if it hasn't been directly legislated for yet with regards to public photography. Something which is on it's way, if the media reports are to be believed.

amdublin · 16-01-2010 12:54pm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

How do you know what's a situation that it is not & when it is a situation?

Using common sense and logic. Imo it is patently obvious when something is innocent and something is not.

Photos of Football match: I am not worried
Kids playing in playground: Depending on the style of photos, I'm not worried
My child in swimwear at the beach: I'm very worried!

By their nature paedophiles are looking for more than photos of your/my child playing football. Which they can access at a push of a button. Let's be realistic why would they want a photo your/my child playing football?????

amdublin · 16-01-2010 12:55pm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't understand why you think people don't have the right to stop people taking photos of them or their children. The right to privacy is still recognised here even if it hasn't been directly legislated for yet with regards to public photography. Something which is on it's way, if the media reports are to be believed.

How do you intend to proceed to stop someone taking photos?

Ickle Magoo · 16-01-2010 1:10pm

amdublin wrote: »

Using common sense and logic. Imo it is patently obvious when something is innocent and something is not.

Photos of Football match: I am not worried
Kids playing in playground: Depending on the style of photos, I'm not worried
My child in swimwear at the beach: I'm very worried!

Ah, I get you, parties and football games I can understand though. If I saw someone approaching my kids in the park I wouldn't know what they were up to & even with camera in hand, what there intentions are but yes, some contexts are obviously more worrying than others.

I think for me, it's more about the intrusion than the fear factor, I shouldn't have to be worrying when I'm out trying to have a nice day because photographers should have more cop on than to start showing an interest, professional I mean, in strangers and especially those strangers children.

amdublin wrote: »

How do you intend to proceed to stop someone taking photos?

Chase them away or leave ourselves while vocally berating them for ruining the nice family day we were having, I guess. I wouldn't just stand and pose and tell the kids to do likewise, the nice cameraman has every right to invade our privacy and make us feel awkward and spied on - because I don't think he does. At a kids party or a public football game when other kids are present and their parents may want to take pictures of them, I accept that's the situation we are in - if it's someone honing in on my kid then the red flags go up. :cool:

Nevyn · 16-01-2010 1:12pm

Shouting at them and interposing yourself between thier camera and the children tends to work.

amdublin · 16-01-2010 1:17pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Shouting at them and interposing yourself between thier camera and the children tends to work.

I appreciate your personal situation/reason that you would want to do this.

But if everyone was to do this is it not an extreme kneejerk reaction and OTT - again making a situation out of something it is not. To quote another poster: there are enough real dangers out there, without imagining more.

Nevyn · 16-01-2010 1:25pm

Even before that I had a dim view of anyone taking pics of my kids, my parents were the same. We live in an age were privacy is important to use and if parents do not want pictures taken of thier children then they should not be. Nothing to do with scaremongering or the law but respecting people.

We have CLICK noises on cameras on mobile phones to alert people photos are being taking, in this day and age where photos can be so widely distributed so fast people's wishes and esp parents wishes in terms of thier children should be respected.

CrazyRabbit · 16-01-2010 3:26pm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So if I followed you around and took pictures of you or your kids without asking you if you minded and then posted them on the internet for whatever reason I wanted, that is no different to someone posting their own image for their own reasons?

Thaedydal wrote: »

Last time I went looking and reading up on his was 5 years ago.
If I am wrong the please point me in the direct of the legislation on this,
I don't know everything about everything and have never claimed to.

Yes a lot of people do put pics of their kids up for all to see but they choose to do that, some of us respect our kids rights to privacy and only do so in a very limited or restricted way but again it's our choice, they are out children and we choose how much to expose and what is published and in what context.

While I have published photos of my children on the internet in restricted ways I am careful that they can not be clearly identified. I have had threats against me and my kids just for being a notable person on this site.

I have had someone say they would make it their business to wait outside the primary schools in D15 until they saw me collecting my kids and would photograph them and photoshop them and put them on the internet.

When a stranger has a photo of your child you have no idea what they may do with it, I and my children do not need clearly identifiable shots of their faces photoshoped on to hard core porn or worse but up on the internet.

There is a huge difference between somebody taking the odd picture and someone stalking you/your kids.

Nevyn · 16-01-2010 4:08pm

Again its a stranger taking a picture and a parent not knowing them or what they are going to use it for or if it goes on the internet given some of the creative commons free usage what it may get used as. While parents can sue after the fact that doesn't undo some of the damage that may get done.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/virgin-sued-over-photo/2007/09/21/1189881735928.html#

Virgin sued for using teen's photo

The photo of Alison Chang (left) from Justin Ho-Wee Wong's Flickr photo-sharing web page. The photo was�used by Virgin Mobile in an advertising campaign.
Photo: Justin Ho-Wee Wong

September 21, 2007 - 11:09AM

A Texas family has sued Australia's Virgin Mobile phone company, claiming it caused their teenage daughter grief and humiliation by plastering her photo on billboards and website advertisements without consent.

The family of Alison Chang says Virgin Mobile grabbed the picture from Flickr, Yahoo Inc's popular photo-sharing website, and failed to credit the photographer by name.

Chang's photo was part of a Virgin Mobile Australia campaign called "Are You With Us Or What?" It features pictures downloaded from Flickr superimposed with the company's ad slogans.

The picture of 16-year-old Chang flashing a peace sign was taken in April by Alison's youth counsellor, who posted it that day on his Flickr page, according to Alison's brother, Damon.

In the ad, Virgin Mobile printed one of its campaign slogans, "Dump your pen friend," over Alison's picture.

The ad also says "Free text virgin to virgin" at the bottom.

The experience damaged Alison's reputation and exposed her to ridicule from her peers and scrutiny from people who can now Google her, the family said in the lawsuit.

"It's the tag line; it's derogatory," said Damon Chang, 27. "A lot of her church friends saw it."

The lawsuit, filed in Dallas late yesterday, names Virgin Mobile USA LLC, its Australian counterpart, and Creative Commons Corp, a Massachusetts nonprofit that licenses sharing of Flickr photos, as defendants.

The family accused the companies of libel and invasion of Chang's privacy. The suit seeks unspecified damages for Chang and the photographer, Justin Ho-Wee Wong.

A spokeswoman for Virgin Mobile USA said the company had nothing to do with the ads and had asked to be removed from the lawsuit.

Virgin Mobile Australia said it was "unable to comment at this stage as we have not received or seen a copy of the lawsuit in question".

People who post photos on Flickr are asked how they want to license their attribution. The youth counsellor chose a sharing licence from Creative Commons that allows others to reuse work such as photos without violating copyright laws, if they credit the photographer and say where the photo was taken. His Flickr page appears at the bottom of the ad.

Flickr was a Canadian company that developed the photo-sharing website then sold it to Yahoo in 2005.

Cabaal · 16-01-2010 4:23pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Last time I went looking and reading up on his was 5 years ago.
If I am wrong the please point me in the direct of the legislation on this,
I don't know everything about everything and have never claimed to.

I never mentioned that you did know everything

I don't have the links to hand but I'm pretty sure there on the digital rights ireland website

While I have published photos of my children on the internet in restricted ways I am careful that they can not be clearly identified. I have had threats against me and my kids just for being a notable person on this site.

I have had someone say they would make it their business to wait outside the primary schools in D15 until they saw me collecting my kids and would photograph them and photoshop them and put them on the internet.

Ok in fairness given your circumstances and the people that you've dealt with on this site then I honestly can understand where your coming from and more importantly why.

When a stranger has a photo of your child you have no idea what they may do with it, I and my children do not need clearly identifiable shots of their faces photoshoped on to hard core porn or worse but up on the internet.

I'd agree you do not need that type of twisted stuff done, however these types of actions and very much an exception.

Cabaal · 16-01-2010 4:27pm

amdublin wrote: »

Using common sense and logic. Imo it is patently obvious when something is innocent and something is not.

Photos of Football match: I am not worried
Kids playing in playground: Depending on the style of photos, I'm not worried
My child in swimwear at the beach: I'm very worried!

By their nature paedophiles are looking for more than photos of your/my child playing football. Which they can access at a push of a button. Let's be realistic why would they want a photo your/my child playing football?????

Fully agree, a common sense approach is whats needed, flying off the handle and assuming the worst first thing is the last thing that should be done

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Ah, I get you, parties and football games I can understand though. If I saw someone approaching my kids in the park I wouldn't know what they were up to & even with camera in hand, what there intentions are but yes, some contexts are obviously more worrying than others.

Things def have to be put in context

the nice cameraman has every right to invade our privacy and make us feel awkward and spied on - because I don't think he does.

Thing is if your walking down the street and somebody takes your picture he hasn't invaded your privacy, your on public property

Again things must be put into context, if your in your back garden then thats another thing

Cabaal · 16-01-2010 4:36pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Again its a stranger taking a picture and a parent not knowing them or what they are going to use it for or if it goes on the internet given some of the creative commons free usage what it may get used as. While parents can sue after the fact that doesn't undo some of the damage that may get done.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/virgin-sued-over-photo/2007/09/21/1189881735928.html#

Ah yes I remember this case,
The person that took the picture placed it under a Creative Commons license and obviously failed to understand the implications of doing so (their fault), what Virgin did wasn't wrong as they credited the person under the license to my understanding.

Had the person kept the photo all rights reserved then Virgin wouldn't have simply used the photo in the manner in which they did.

If you take the photography forum you'll find the vast majority of photographers will not release there work under creative commons and instead will retain copyright.

In addition if they have photos of people and wish to use them for a commercial venture or profit then they will often seek model releases and permission from the person in the shot.

Its not fair to bundle all photographers into the one group of "dodgy" and "can't be trusted".

Taking Photographs of Children

Comments