Photographs of Children in Public

Silva360

This went viral, as you can see from the hit count. An example of the mob at work, perhaps. I think the lecturer was forced to resign over it:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRlRAyulN4o&feature=youtu.be

magicbastarder

what's the back story?

Dawn Rider

Silva360 wrote: »

This went viral, as you can see from the hit count. An example of the mob at work, perhaps. I think the lecturer was forced to resign over it:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRlRAyulN4o&feature=youtu.be

Link doesn't seem to work

magicbastarder

works fine for me.

Silva360

magicbastarder wrote: »

what's the back story?

I think it's demo/occupation to promote racial diversity within the University.

But to seek to deny people their lawful right to be both on the premises and to take photos makes them look a little petty. I thought it represented some of the points made in this thread, though off topic slightly.

Dawn Rider, the link seems to work fine....

cowboyBuilder

Silva360 wrote: »

I think it's demo/occupation to promote racial diversity within the University.

But to seek to deny people their lawful right to be both on the premises and to take photos makes them look a little petty. I thought it represented some of the points made in this thread, though off topic slightly.

Dawn Rider, the link seems to work fine....

It's the loony left again, they think they are promoting free speech and liberty while they are doing the exact opposite.

Liamario

As a parent, I would take exception if someone took a picture of my child without permission. Not because it's creepy or any other similarly over sensitive reasons, but because it would make me feel uncomfortable. I wouldn't like a stranger taking pictures of me either.
It's probably because people feel their privacy is being infringed more than anything, so please ask the permission of the person your shooting before taking liberties- if only as a courtesy. Of course if it's a shot of a public place with people around, who aren't the focus of the picture, I wouldn't have any problem with it.

challengemaster

Liamario wrote: »

It's probably because people feel their privacy is being infringed more than anything.

You'd have to wonder where people get the deluded view that they have privacy while in public spaces.

magicbastarder

i find statements like the above troubling, because they seem to pander to an 'anything goes' mentality. as in, you've no rights or expectations, and no cause to object, once you're in a public space. you have the right to expect (hope?) everyone else is behaving reasonably, so if someone followed you with a camera equipped quadrucopter, yes, you have valid reason to be creeped out.

Liamario

challengemaster wrote: »

You'd have to wonder where people get the deluded view that they have privacy while in public spaces.

Legally right doesn't make it morally right.

stronglikebull

Liamario wrote: »

Of course if it's a shot of a public place with people around, who aren't the focus of the picture, I wouldn't have any problem with it.

I don't get this at all. How is being in a photo, where you're not the intended subject, any different from being in a photo where you are the intended subject? Are they not both photos of you? What defines the subject of a photo? If you have a picture of a play park with a child in it, is the subject the child, or the park itself? Who decides this?

For all those that seem to have an issue with being caught on camera, do you hide from CCTV? Do you cover your face in shops, parks, the high street, businesses, and do you keep your children away from all of these places too, since it seems that no one should take pictures of them? We are on camera everywhere we go, and we have no idea who is on the other end of those pictures/video streams, and no idea what's being done with them. Yet if I stand in full view of you, taking your photo or that of a child, I'm somehow morally and ethically wrong? If I was and anonymous stranger in a CCTV monitoring station, that would be OK for some reason.

It's absolute madness. The perception that someone taking your picture is somehow morally wrong is one that has been perpetrated in society by people that are so eager not to make the mistakes of the past, where children were abused and those that new turned a blind eye, that we have swung to the opposite extreme and now anyone that looks in the direction of a child is immediately branded a pervert.

There is absolutely nothing wrong, morally, ethically or legally, with taking photos of people in public spaces. What a person does with those photos may be wrong, but the act of taking the picture in the first place is just that, taking a picture.

irish_dave_83

stronglikebull wrote: »

I don't get this at all. How is being in a photo, where you're not the intended subject, any different from being in a photo where you are the intended subject? Are they not both photos of you? What defines the subject of a photo? If you have a picture of a play park with a child in it, is the subject the child, or the park itself? Who decides this?

For all those that seem to have an issue with being caught on camera, do you hide from CCTV? Do you cover your face in shops, parks, the high street, businesses, and do you keep your children away from all of these places too, since it seems that no one should take pictures of them? We are on camera everywhere we go, and we have no idea who is on the other end of those pictures/video streams, and no idea what's being done with them. Yet if I stand in full view of you, taking your photo or that of a child, I'm somehow morally and ethically wrong? If I was and anonymous stranger in a CCTV monitoring station, that would be OK for some reason.

It's absolute madness. The perception that someone taking your picture is somehow morally wrong is one that has been perpetrated in society by people that are so eager not to make the mistakes of the past, where children were abused and those that new turned a blind eye, that we have swung to the opposite extreme and now anyone that looks in the direction of a child is immediately branded a pervert.

There is absolutely nothing wrong, morally, ethically or legally, with taking photos of people in public spaces. What a person does with those photos may be wrong, but the act of taking the picture in the first place is just that, taking a picture.

This has been covered in the thread already, to summarise it went something like this -
- Some people are camera whores some people are camera shy
- Everyone knows its legal to take photos in a public place.
- Parents are protective of their children, most likely too protective('better safe than sorry' is the general theme).
- If a parent notices or believes their child is the subject of the photo they would most likely query it with the photographer(most times).
- Most times(not all) permission is not asked for(or needed).
- If a parents child is getting in the way of a shot the parent will remove them.
- If a parent requests the photographer to stop, they will.
- If either party is disrespectful to each other, things will escalate, ruining everyone's day.
- No one on the board condones violence or aggressiveness.
- CCTV argument is not the same at all, people have an idea what happens with CCTV, maybe you do not, but I would like to think that most people do.

I think that's about everything covered, hopefully I have summarised it descriptively enough, but they are the points being made.

RustyNut

Liamario wrote: »

Legally right doesn't make it morally right.

Morals are individual, the law is universal.

CabanSail

RustyNut wrote: »

Morals are individual, the law is universal.

Both can, and do, change over time.

Loki98

How far would you go?
http://www.sundayworld.com/news/crime-world/no-jail-for-dad-who-beat-paedo-to-death-for-taking-pictures-of-his-kid

beyondbelief67

Loki98 wrote: »

How far would you go?
http://www.sundayworld.com/news/crime-world/no-jail-for-dad-who-beat-paedo-to-death-for-taking-pictures-of-his-kid

If as in that case they were a convicted paedophile awaiting sentencing for having child porn then I'd of done the same thing, only not as fast !

magicbastarder

if you're not out punching paedophiles, you obviously don't love your children.

OldGoat

magicbastarder wrote: »

if you're not out punching paedophiles, you obviously don't love your children.

A paedophobe?