Photographs of Children in Public

Paulw

Ok, here is one.

This is a photo I took, many years ago now, in public.



The child here, is clearly the subject of the photo. I like it because she is just so different. Her red hair, the way she is looking in the opposite direction to the rest of the crowd.

I have this photo printed and mounted on a wall in my home. I have no idea who the child is. I never asked permission.

Is this photo wrong? How was the child harmed?

I can go in to a lot more detail about the photo and circumstances later.

liamo

Dr.Internet wrote: »

So no problem with taking a picture now, once the child is not the main subject.

What's stopping me from cropping the picture of your child and making it the focus of the picture if they are in the background?

As you well know, the answer to that is "Nothing at all".

There's Either a real concern or there's not.

Or maybe it's not as black and white as "there is or there isn't".



Maybe you should back off a little from nit-picking at the minor details and try to get a "sense" of what I and others have been trying to get across.

As I said before, re-engaging with explanations is likely to lead to more of the flaming that went on earlier in this thread. It's unhelpful and unproductive and I'm simply not going there.

liamo

That's a beautiful photo, Paul.

Is this photo wrong?

A photo can't be either right or wrong.

How was the child harmed?

In no way, I'm sure.

Paulw wrote: »

Ok, here is one.

This is a photo I took, many years ago now, in public.



The child here, is clearly the subject of the photo. I like it because she is just so different. Her red hair, the way she is looking in the opposite direction to the rest of the crowd.

I have this photo printed and mounted on a wall in my home. I have no idea who the child is. I never asked permission.

Is this photo wrong? How was the child harmed?

I can go in to a lot more detail about the photo and circumstances later.

irish_dave_83

Dr.Internet wrote: »

So no problem with taking a picture now, once the child is not the main subject.


What's stopping me from cropping the picture of your child and making it the focus of the picture if they are in the background? There's Either a real concern or there's not.

I'd love to live in your world, where everything is black and white. Unfortunately I live in a world with colour and plenty of grey areas too.

All that is being said on both sides, is give a little courtesy. No one needs to be aggressive.

No one is saying that photos of kids cannot be taken, the main point is people should have the cop on to stop taking pictures of someone's child if they are asked not to. I mean if a photographer refuses, do you expect the parent to back down? Really? If you do you are living in dreamland.
I realise the law is on the side of the photographer in that they can take photos in a public place, but in truth it is not a great piece of legislation and is full of holes.

It should be noted that in general I have no problem with people taking pictures of my kids at events etc., and I don't fear CCTV or anything like that. My issue would be more with playgrounds or public parks, when a lens is focused on my child as I have explained in previous posts. And even then, I would be curious first, and chat with the photographer first. Its up to them if they want to engage.

Tasden

Paulw wrote: »

Ok, here is one.


I have this photo printed and mounted on a wall in my home. I have no idea who the child is. I never asked permission.

Is this photo wrong? How was the child harmed?

I can go in to a lot more detail about the photo and circumstances later.

No she wasn't harmed and theres no malice etc but it does illustrate how once the photo is taken it could end up posted online in any context for everybody and anybody to see/share/do as they please with the image. And as has been stated on the thread, that is the concern of some people re photos of their child or themselves, that where it ends up/how it is used is then out of their control.

irish_dave_83

Paulw wrote: »

Ok, here is one.

This is a photo I took, many years ago now, in public.



The child here, is clearly the subject of the photo. I like it because she is just so different. Her red hair, the way she is looking in the opposite direction to the rest of the crowd.

I have this photo printed and mounted on a wall in my home. I have no idea who the child is. I never asked permission.

Is this photo wrong? How was the child harmed?

I can go in to a lot more detail about the photo and circumstances later.

This is obviously at an event. I have no issue with this to be honest. But Tasden has point above

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Tasden wrote: »

No she wasn't harmed and theres no malice etc but it does illustrate how once the photo is taken it could end up posted online in any context for everybody and anybody to see/share/do as they please with the image. And as has been stated on the thread, that is the concern of some people re photos of their child or themselves, that where it ends up/how it is used is then out of their control.

True, but not every aspect of a person's life - or their children's life - is under their control.

Tasden

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

True, but not every aspect of a person's life - or their children's life - is under their control.

But nobody is saying they always try to control it. People can ask the other person not to take it (or not) and explain their concern. What the photographer does is their own choice. Everybody is entitled to an opinion and expectation in a situation, doesn't mean it will be realised. Nobody on here is saying they are able to control who takes photos of them or their kids. They are trying to explain to those asking why they might have an issue with it or why they would request that the person stops. People aren't saying that photographers don't have a right to take photos or that the world should be as they see fit, they are giving their own opinion/likes and expectations on the topic, as is done on a discussion forum.

I feel like it has to be pointed out that having a certain viewpoint on a discussion topic doesn't necessarily mean you actually give it all that much consideration in your day to day life or that you have hard and fast rules about it generally that you try to enforce on other people. Some people (not directed at you) in this thread seem to think that this may be the case they way they are going on.

Paulw

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

This is obviously at an event. I have no issue with this to be honest. But Tasden has point above

There was an event going on. It was in a public park. I was there like everyone else, not as a photographer. I just noticed the scene and shaped 3 frames.

I will post another example, that I also have printed that was not at an event at all.

Poncke

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

I'd love to live in your world, where everything is black and white. Unfortunately I live in a world with colour and plenty of grey areas too.

All that is being said on both sides, is give a little courtesy. No one needs to be aggressive.

No one is saying that photos of kids cannot be taken, the main point is people should have the cop on to stop taking pictures of someone's child if they are asked not to. I mean if a photographer refuses, do you expect the parent to back down? Really? If you do you are living in dreamland.
I realise the law is on the side of the photographer in that they can take photos in a public place, but in truth it is not a great piece of legislation and is full of holes.

It should be noted that in general I have no problem with people taking pictures of my kids at events etc., and I don't fear CCTV or anything like that. My issue would be more with playgrounds or public parks, when a lens is focused on my child as I have explained in previous posts. And even then, I would be curious first, and chat with the photographer first. Its up to them if they want to engage.

I wonder what the problem is with a photo? It is just a frozen copy of a moment in time. We can capture it in several ways, and a photo is just one of them. So why is the law concerning photography full of holes? A photo is just that, a photo, nothing more, nothing less.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Tasden wrote: »

But nobody is saying they always try to control it. People can ask the other person not to take it (or not) and explain their concern. What the photographer does is their own choice. Everybody is entitled to an opinion and expectation in a situation, doesn't mean it will be realised. Nobody on here is saying they are able to control who takes photos of them or their kids. They are trying to explain to those asking why they might have an issue with it or why they would request that the person stops. People aren't saying that photographers don't have a right to take photos or that the world should be as they see fit, they are giving their own opinion/likes and expectations on the topic, as is done on a discussion forum.

I feel like it has to be pointed out that having a certain viewpoint on a discussion topic doesn't necessarily mean you actually give it all that much consideration in your day to day life or that you have hard and fast rules about it generally that you try to enforce on other people. Some people (not directed at you) in this thread seem to think that this may be the case they way they are going on.

The poster I was responding to implied that they wanted control over that aspect of their children's life. Its not posisble to control certain elements of public life.

Tasden

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The poster I was responding to implied that they wanted control over that aspect of their children's life. Its not posisble to control certain elements of public life.

You quoted me. And I didn't imply that. I said that for some that would be a concern when a photo is taken of their child. And the fact they can't control it is exactly why it would concern them. I feel concern that my child will pick up bad behaviour from other kids- absolutely nothing I can do about that when shes in the school yard playing. If i happen to witness a friend of hers behaving badly in my house I can explain why i deem that behaviour unacceptable. Plenty scenarios where you can't have control over something but it doesn't stop you having concerns/wanting it not to happen and trying to limit it where possible.

Paulw

Another I have. A random photo, no event, of a random child, dancing. The child was in full public view. I stitched a few frames together, and have it printed on my wall. (the version I have was properly stitched, not like the one I am sharing here. I don't have the old file).



It was just a scene I spotted, and liked.

irish_dave_83

Paulw wrote: »

Another I have. A random photo, no event, of a random child, dancing. The child was in full public view. I stitched a few frames together, and have it printed on my wall. (the version I have was properly stitched, not like the one I am sharing here. I don't have the old file).



It was just a scene I spotted, and liked.

They are nice photos and I can see why you like them. And again I am not saying there is anything wrong with taking the photo. Its having the courtesy to stop when asked by a parent?

I'm not even saying you have to initiate contact and ask permission, but if you are approached and requested to stop, would you?

Paulw

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

I'm not even saying you have to initiate contact and ask permission, but if you are approached and requested to stop, would you?

What I said from the very very start - I have never been asked to stop. So, the "what if" would really depend on the approach and the nature of the request from the parent.

Whispered

Paul that is gorgeous. Really lovely.

cowboyBuilder

I'm always super careful taking photos of my kid(s) when we are in public, I make extra sure there are no other kids in the photos,
unfortunately that's the world we live in, a paranoid society that think paedophiles are everywhere, hiding in the bushes ... taking photos of children in the park - yeah cos that's what paedophiles do !!??

Too much Daily Mail / Sky News scare mongering .

CabanSail

Was shooting some cricket today and saw these two playing.

How could you resist?

Poncke

Not in Ireland I presume

CabanSail

No ... it was in my village in Australia. The interaction between those two was really nice and when the older girl started to spin the young one around I just had to grab that moment. No time to search out a parent and seek permission etc. Actually wish I knew who they were to give them a copy.

cowboyBuilder

Just reading through the other thread there and my God ... what a shame that Poncke couldn't do it, because it was a great idea - I say couldn't because its the paranoia of people in todays world that prevents it ..
Someone said they would smash his camera up if he took a photo of his kids ? - really ??.
Someone else quoted "I'll be out tonight taking pictures of kids trick r treatin'" and just put "Creepy"
Yeah, posting that while knowing it was halloween night and the context of the picture taking completely in good nature and innocent - pathetic.

I'm glad I can take pics of my own kids and have 2 nephews to add as guinea pigs , but as mentioned before I'm always careful not to include other strange kids
if we are in a playground or park etc - I guess I was right to be paranoid reading that thread - and this in Photography !!! can you imagine if that was a facebook "discussion"

c u ya bleedin duty pedo, ill bleedin batter ya f ya cm ner me kds, righ .. jayssus durty bstrd fckin pedo wi yer bg cemera dere ... ill smsh er up to bits like ... bleerin prick ya

CelticRambler

Also not in Ireland, but the French have their own paranoia (e.g. you're not allowed photograph the Eiffel Tower at night, because the illuminations are a work of art in themselves and the intellectual property of the person who designed them :rolleyes: and if you ever watch news/current affairs on French TV, you'll see all the street signage is back-to-front. More copyright/right to privacy rules ... )

Anyway, this photo dates from 2008 (before the megapixel was invented! :pac: ). It's not that great as a photo, but illustrates one of the problems with getting permission before (or after) taking a photo. Same festival as previously mentionned, I'd been trying to get a nice shot of a children's dance workshop and had seen this one group of lads amongst all the girls. At a certain point in the music, they were all supposed to jump at the same time, but one fellow was out of synch. There was a bit of flare at the top of the image too, so as far as I was concerned then-and-there, the photo was useless. Even if I'd been "sensitive" enough to try and find the relevant parents, what would have been the point for a photo I thought I'd already rejected?

Paulw

CelticRambler wrote: »

Also not in Ireland, but the French have their own paranoia

Even if I'd been "sensitive" enough to try and find the relevant parents, what would have been the point for a photo I thought I'd already rejected?

Actually, the French have very strict privacy laws. So, you could actually get in a fair bit of trouble over there taking such a photo.

cowboyBuilder

CelticRambler wrote: »

Also not in Ireland, but the French have their own paranoia (e.g. you're not allowed photograph the Eiffel Tower at night, because the illuminations are a work of art in themselves and the intellectual property of the person who designed them :rolleyes: and if you ever watch news/current affairs on French TV, you'll see all the street signage is back-to-front. More copyright/right to privacy rules ... )

:O !!! Seriously ??

Thanks ... Challenge ACCEPTED !!!!!!


*goes to check weekend flights to Paris ...

CelticRambler

They do, but they're also mismatched to the reality of the 21st Century, so taking photos of people in a public space is OK, but you can't (shouldn't) include copyrighted artwork such as brands/logos/banners/illuminations in published work. At events, permission to be photographed is considered granted on an opt-out basis, as long as someone's remembered to post the opt-out notice at the ticket office.

Then there's the question of whether or not you are "in a public space" if you're visible from a public space. This was debated at length when Kate Middleton was photographed on a private balcony from a nearby beach. IIRC the outcome then was that the photographer was cleared of any wrong-doing as anyone else (with 500mm eyeballs :pac: ) could have seen her from the same place.

The question came back into the news when someone flew a drone over the Elysée palace and photographed our dearly beloved Président having his morning coffee or something. The photographer's argument was the same - he/his camera was in a "public space" albeit several hundred metres up in the air. He was done for flying a drone over an historic monument, and the privacy question wasn't really answered.

So between historic monuments, royalty, adverts, light shows and children, photographers in France could be said to be justifiably paranoid!

CelticRambler

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

:O !!! Seriously ??

Thanks ... Challenge ACCEPTED !!!!!!

Seriously! Or more precisely, you're allowed photograph the tower, but not supposed to publish the photos (even in a Flikr) album without permission and appropriate copyright credits.
Good summary here: http://phototrend.fr/2014/11/la-tour-eiffel-photographiee-de-nuit-attention-a-la-violation-de-droits-dauteur/
(as he says, the owners have taken the reasonable stance that it's more in their interest to let such photos sell the tower & city instead of trying to track down and prosecute every malfaiteur )

To be in the clear, what you need to do is put a child in the foreground and claim the tower was just incidental scenery! :cool: (Seriously!)

Poncke

Here's a handy document you can use to check what is allowed and what not

http://wiki.gettyimages.com/

magicbastarder

CelticRambler wrote: »

Then there's the question of whether or not you are "in a public space" if you're visible from a public space. This was debated at length when Kate Middleton was photographed on a private balcony from a nearby beach. IIRC the outcome then was that the photographer was cleared of any wrong-doing as anyone else (with 500mm eyeballs :pac: ) could have seen her from the same place.

wasn't it taken from something like a quarter or a third of a mile away?

Adrian.Sadlier

I love taking photographs of young children. Especially when the child is unaware of my presence - because I get a more innocent shot. Its a pity but too many young children are self conscious and "pull a pose" when they see a camera.

Unfortunately, I rarely get to do it because of the paranoia of parents and people in general these days. On the rare occasions I do take a photo of a kid, I make sure the parents are aware that I am taking it, beforehand if possible. This are a couple I took in Malahide Park when out walking my dogs.

.

After I took the shots I went over to the dad, introduced myself (and my hobby/obsession) and showed him the photos. He loved them. So I asked for his email address and sent them on to him. Sorted.

If he had asked me to delete them (nicely) I would have. But I would have asked him did he want me to email them to him first. I'm a Dad too.

But if he had been aggressive or demanding then my approach would have been entirely different. It has nothing got to do with photography - it has to do with how we relate to each other.

I believe that a person's rights exist only in so far as they do not interfere with the rights of others. And that these rights are not determined by the individual but by the society that we live in. That notwithstanding, I see no problem in facilitating a polite request, even if the person making the request cannot articulate the reasoning behind the request - sometimes we just get a feeling. Even where it impinges on my rights to take photos in public places. Its a question of balance.

However, when someone demands I behave in a certain way which is contrary to my rights, then they are likely to be met with a blunt refusal.

Not because I need to take pictures of their children. But because they need to grow up and forget about their sense of entitlement. Life is full of compromises. We don't always get our own way. And we are not always right.

If they don't understand that then don't complain to me! Bulls in a china shop don't get treated well!

Poncke

Facebook 'will automatically warn parents if they share pictures of their children with the public by accident'

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/techandgadgets/facebook-will-automatically-warn-parents-if-they-share-pictures-of-their-children-with-the-public-by-a3112681.html