photographing your children

Penny Tration

Was reading a thread in another forum which sparked my interest, so thought I'd throw it out here.

A guy (photographer) was planning to set up a camera so that when kids on Halloween had the door opened to them, the camera would catch their image of fright/shock from the camera flash.

He then was going to offer to give a copy of the photo to parents, along with his business card.

Legally, he can take as many photos as he likes on his property.

But would you parents be comfortable with the man taking photos of your kids without prior permission? I don't have kids but it strikes me as a situation I wouldn't be happy with, were I a parent.

Nate--IRL--

Penny Tration wrote: »

........it strikes me as a situation I wouldn't be happy with, were I a parent.

Why?

Nate

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Exactly what do you think he;s going to be doing with the photos?

Penny Tration

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Why?

Nate

Because I think a parent should be given the option of saying yes or no to another person involving their child in their project before the fact.

Penny Tration

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Exactly what do you think he;s going to be doing with the photos?

Nothing. Using them for marketing I assume, with the whole giving the parents a business card thing.

Jeez. I'm not saying the guy is doing anything nefarious with them. he's clearly not. The thread seemed to garner a lot of differing opinions and I was wondering what the posters of this forum thought, that's all.

Chocolate fiend

You are letting the child onto the persons property, that's one of the risks you take. I have 3 children and the scenario you outlined would not bother me at all.

Shannon757

I think it's a really good and original idea which would get great photos and memories. I can't see why not.

Nate--IRL--

Penny Tration wrote: »

Because I think a parent should be given the option of saying yes or no to another person involving their child in their project before the fact.

On what basis? I'm not being glib I just want to understand your viewpoint.

To take another aspect - what if it was captured on an existing CCTV camera?

Nate

Penny Tration

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

On what basis? I'm not being glib I just want to understand your viewpoint.

To take another aspect - what if it was captured on an existing CCTV camera?

Nate

Out of respect for the parents, who are the people who should be making the decisions on behalf of the child.

One is generally aware if cctv is around, no?

SteM

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

On what basis? I'm not being glib I just want to understand your viewpoint.

To take another aspect - what if it was captured on an existing CCTV camera?

Nate

Indeed. We have a Ring video doorbell. Every kid that came to our door had 40 seconds of video taken if them tonight. If the parents have a problem with this then they shouldn't let their kids come into other peoples gardens.

SteM

Penny Tration wrote: »

One is generally aware if cctv is around, no?

Not always, no.

John_Rambo

Penny Tration wrote: »

But would you parents be comfortable with the man taking photos of your kids without prior permission? I don't have kids but it strikes me as a situation I wouldn't be happy with, were I a parent.

A man, a male man?? Taking photos of kids? At his front door!! Without your permission!! Shocking stuff... If you were a parent you should immediately call people that could be "were be" cops, then you could sue them with a "were we" solicitor.

You could probably get Elliot Erwitt arrested for past crimes.

Result- no.

Grow up. Stop picking holes and problems where there are none.

Penny Tration

John_Rambo wrote: »

A man, a male man?? Taking photos of kids? At his front door!! Without your permission!! Shocking stuff... If you were a parent you should immediately call people that could be "were be" cops, then you could sue them with a were we solicitor.

You could probably get Elliot Erwitt arrested for past crimes.

Result.

Grow up.

over reaction much? I'd ask if the person was female too.

Grow up? Because I asked opinions?

Relax with the hysteria, buddy.

tempnam

If you send your kids on to someone else's property you don't really have the right to complain if their image is captured.

If you don't want their photos potentially taken then keep them at home

SteM

We had our 3 year old out this evening, it was his first time trick or treating. If this happened to us it wouldn't bother me to be honest but I can see how it would bother some people. Just asked my wife and she says the opposite .

Mountainsandh

The photographer had a great idea, hope he got good business out of it ! He's not out to recruit potential customers, parents are making the choice to bring their children to his door. Also, very importantly, he's not ruining the occasion for the kids, but possibly making it more fun by having a funny pic to remember the night by. A pic in costume, probably with a nice setting, probably with friends/cousins, and a surprised expression to boot !
By law he won't be allowed to use images for commercial purposes without your consent as a parent.
I don't see anything there that's not to like.

Mountainsandh

Penny Tration wrote: »

over reaction much? I'd ask if the person was female too.

Grow up? Because I asked opinions?

Relax with the hysteria, buddy.

Actually, this is a very relevant point. I do believe that reactions from reluctant parents would be very different if it was a lady photographer.

drunkmonkey

I can't see any harm at all in this, I know you can't tell what lurks underneath but if some kid was to go missing and end up under a stairs it wouldn't be to hard to figure out who suspect number 1 is. I think you'd have a fair idea what someones intentions are though.
With Trick or Treat it's mainly around neighbours houses even though you might not know all of them.
The photo of the kids would be great if done right...

cbyrd

If you put your kids on a ride in disneyland, they get an unauthorised image taken too. If you don't want this to happen, you don't put them on the ride.
Your choice

John_Rambo

Penny Tration wrote: »

over reaction much? I'd ask if the person was female too

My post was a piss take of your over reaction to a photographer taking photos of your imaginary children.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Penny Tration wrote: »

Nothing. Using them for marketing I assume, with the whole giving the parents a business card thing.

Jeez. I'm not saying the guy is doing anything nefarious with them. he's clearly not. The thread seemed to garner a lot of differing opinions and I was wondering what the posters of this forum thought, that's all.

He'd probbaly be wise gettign permission to publish then, but that would be the same regardless of who's in the photograph.

If he's not doing anything "nefaarious" then why would it make you ne unhappy or uncomfortable with the situation?

zeffabelli

Part of me would respect him for spotting a business opportunity.

The other part of me would want to shove the camera up their ass.

Another part of me would want the photo.

Yet another part of me would wish I thought of it.

ANd another part of me would want commission for using my child's image.

eviltwin

I said it on that thread and I will say it here. I wouldn't mind the photo but I would mind the scare. My little fella would be terrified because he's very sensitive. I'd like a heads up so I'd be able to judge if it's best to avoid the house.

skallywag

As a parent of a young child myself I would have no problem at all with the scenario being described.

I understand that there is a greater sense of awareness these days about the exploitation or abuse of children, but the sense of mindless hysteria which one can encounter on the topic can be soul destroying, e.g. being asked not to photograph my own child in certain situation, etc :-|

pwurple

I don't think it's much of a business opportunity, because it would be a piss-poor photo. Half the children have masks or makeup on so you wouldn't recognise them. They will also have a bag in front of them, hiding most of whatever outfit they have on. Loads of them will be standing behind other children so you can't see anything except the top of their heads. They will more than likely be half-way through saying something, so their gobs will be open. The flash is going to give you a ton of red-eye, overexpose parts of it, and generally make it look like weird un-atmospheric daylight halloween, and you're going to be standing somewhere to open the door which is going to interfere with the whole shot. As a parent, a photo of my child at a random door isn't going in the photo album, and I doubt I'd buy it.

But he can take as many photos on his own property as he likes and it wouldn't bother me. ya know, as a parent.

Public photos in general would be ok with me... with a caveat that stuff like up-skirt playground slide photos are obviously creepy as f.

SteM

pwurple wrote: »

As a parent, a photo of my child at a random door isn't going in the photo album, and I doubt I'd buy it.

He wasn't selling those photos as far as I can tell from the OP.

pwurple

SteM wrote: »

He wasn't selling those photos as far as I can tell from the OP.

Is it a photography business he's hawking? Because no matter what he's trying to sell, I can't see how a shoddy photo will help.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Penny Tration wrote: »

Out of respect for the parents, who are the people who should be making the decisions on behalf of the child.

One is generally aware if cctv is around, no?

I don't fully understand this. What decision is to be made?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

He'd probbaly be wise gettign permission to publish then, but that would be the same regardless of who's in the photograph.

If he's not doing anything "nefaarious" then why would it make you ne unhappy or uncomfortable with the situation?

I don't believe you need permission to publish pictures taken in public.

zeffabelli wrote: »

The other part of me would want to shove the camera up their ass.

ANd another part of me would want commission for using my child's image.

Why resort to violence? What would that do? Also, why would you receive any commission at all? Being the subject of a picture doesn't mean you will benefit from the sale of the picture.

I don't think the photographer wanted to sell the photographs, could be wrong on that though. I didn't get that from the post in question.