Photographs of Children in Public

Tasden

Paulw wrote: »

Brilliant. Thanks.

From that exact article -
The photographs were those that the girls had taken of themselves and their friends.

So, we should now ban everyone from taking photos of themselves and their friends. No? Am I reading it wrong?

No but it illustrates exactly why people have reservations about kids' (or their own) photos being put up online- you don't have control over where they may end up.
Adults are (mostly) aware that what goes online is up for everybody and anybody to see and they make an informed decision to upload them. Kids don't fully comprehend this, which is why we don't usually allow them to have things like facebook etc.
Some parents prefer to wait until the child is old enough themselves to make their own informed decision as to what website their face is posted onto. Imo its up to them if they want their photo put online or not and they can decide that when they're old enough to.

Poncke

Ok next example then. Since there needs to be control and consent. And if we ask first before taking a photo it wouldn't be a problem because then you have established the photographer is legit.

Here comes the pedo photographer, looks normal, very friendly, courteous, well dressed, hands you a professional business card (fake details), is articulated and has a chat with you and asks if you mind him taking a photo.

Would you be inclined to say yes?

Because obviously all pedos are creepy looking.

Poncke

Diamond Doll wrote: »

Yes and I do get that. Personally I think it would be great if you could ask the parent in advance - but I totally understand that this mightn't always happen, and the opportunity might be lost in doing so.

However as a parent, if a random stranger photographer were to capture a moment like that on camera, I'd really very much appreciate if they were to at least approach me afterwards, show me the photo, offer me a copy. I'd actually be delighted in that situation, to get a better photo of my son that I'd ever be able to take myself. And I can't imagine I'd be in any way suspicious of ulterior motives or weird intentions.

Of course then there's the risk that you'll encounter a mental parent who'll demand that you delete a brilliant photo. So I can understand, too, why photographers would be reluctant to engage with the parents at all!

How do you determine the person in your example is not a pedo? Because he asked first?

sportloto86

Poncke wrote:

Here comes the pedo photographer, looks normal, very friendly, courteous, well dressed, hands you a professional business card (fake details), is articulated and has a chat with you and asks if you mind him taking a photo.

Why fake details? He could be legit photographer too. Are there no pedophiles amongst them? Do pedophiles have only particular professions and hobbies?

RustyNut

Jesus, sometimes I just want to stand up and scream at the top of my voice IM A MAN NOT A ****IN PAEDO

Diamond Doll

Poncke wrote: »

How do you determine the person in your example is not a pedo? Because he asked first?

I tend to assume anyone I encounter isn't a paedo, unless there is any evidence to suggest otherwise.

Taking a photo of my child certainly wouldn't be enough to suggest to me that a person is in any way sexually interested in him!

Poncke

sportloto86 wrote: »

Why fake details? He could be legit photographer too. Are there no pedophiles amongst them? Do pedophiles have only particular professions and hobbies?

Even better, a legit photographer pedo. Going home with photos of your kid and no one had clue.

It just shows the whole you could be a pedo argument is silly. Or we should ban photography as a whole.

Fact is the law is on the photographer side but I agree asking consent is the least we can do.

Paulw

Tasden wrote: »

No but it illustrates exactly why people have reservations about kids' (or their own) photos being put up online- you don't have control over where they may end up.

But, should you now then ban your kid from having a camera or even a camera phone, so that they can't post photos to places where you have no control of the image?

How far do you take it? Should society ban all cameras? Should all photos of all children require written/certified approval before the images can be used? Should social media ban the uploading of photos of children, until it can be proven that the child gives consent (which is what you stated previously)?

This whole thread just goes to show the hype, misinformation and paranoia of some people, who tend to be a minority.

I spent yesterday evening out taking photos. Children and adults dressed up for Halloween. I didn't have a single negative experience, far from it, people were coming over and posing for their photos to be taken.

me0w

sportloto86 wrote: »

Do pedophiles have only particular professions and hobbies?

Pedophiles usually have an unusual interest in children,it could also be that OP had ulterior motives and wanted to make some money out of selling the photos.

When I was a kid my parents would take photos of me and my friends before going out trick or treating that was enough for her. None of this weird behavior of taking surprise photos of kids at strangers door.

Poncke

What if the photographer is female?

amdublin

If we start saying to people with cameras "don't you take a photo of my child", what is next: People with eyes "don't you dare look at my child".


Seriously folks, think about it, do you really really think that a pedophile is interested in a photo of your your fully clothed child playing on the monkey bars.


Have you read the court reports of pedophiles caught with photos of children on their pcs? You don't get arrested and put in jail for having photos of "children". You get arrested and locked away for having photos of babies being abused by adults, naked children just being naked, naked children being made pose sexually with or without other children, fully clothed children being abused by adults. And more awful stuff. This list is not exhaustive sadly.


I'm sorry that I had to type all of the above in the 3rd paragraph. I feel a bit sick. But that is what a bad person does. Taking pictures of your little darling is Not a bad thing.


The only time I would be concerned with a randomer taking pictures of my kids would be if they were running naked in the garden through the paddling pool. But this does not even happen any more...the times we live in.

amdublin

Diamond Doll wrote: »

I tend to assume anyone I encounter isn't a paedo, unless there is any evidence to suggest otherwise.

Taking a photo of my child certainly wouldn't be enough to suggest to me that a person is in any way sexually interested in him!

How incredibly sensible of you. But am sure there will be parents out there there "OMG HOW IRRESPONSIBLE OF YOU. THE PEDOPHILES ARE GOING TO GET PHOTOS OF YOUR CHILD AND SELL THEM!!!!!"

Tasden

Paulw wrote: »

But, should you now then ban your kid from having a camera or even a camera phone, so that they can't post photos to places where you have no control of the image?

Well shes a child so I don't allow her to post photos anywhere, no. She has a camera and she can take photos all she likes, as do I. I just don't put them online.

Paulw wrote: »

How far do you take it? Should society ban all cameras? Should all photos of all children require written/certified approval before the images can be used? Should social media ban the uploading of photos of children, until it can be proven that the child gives consent (which is what you stated previously)?

I'm not asking society to ban anything???? And how far do i take what? I personally have my own opinion on respecting people's privacy, I'm not saying others have to do the same. I'm well aware that they don't.

Paulw wrote: »

This whole thread just goes to show the hype, misinformation and paranoia of some people, who tend to be a minority.

I spent yesterday evening out taking photos. Children and adults dressed up for Halloween. I didn't have a single negative experience, far from it, people were coming over and posing for their photos to be taken.

Not everybody is afraid of paedophiles in trench coats driving a white van. My first concern is not that some pervert will see my child's photo, it is respect for her privacy plain and simple. If she wants her face all over the internet when she's old enough to decide that for herself she can knock herself out but it'll be her decision, not mine or anybody else's. I don't see how thats paranoia.

Poncke

me0w wrote: »

Pedophiles usually have an unusual interest in children,it could also be that OP had ulterior motives and wanted to make some money out of selling the photos.

When I was a kid my parents would take photos of me and my friends before going out trick or treating that was enough for her. None of this weird behavior of taking surprise photos of kids at strangers door.

If you want to play it that way, what goes through a parents head to allow their child to go to a stranger's house and accept candy from a strange man and let their child eat that candy?

And for your information, I can take a photo of your kid, and I can post on all stock agencies on the internet and sell thousands of it. Without your consent, and there will be no way you can sue me to take the photo down nor to claim any monies from my profits.

None of these images have a model release nor consent from the parents, yet they are all for sale, legally, to everyone in the world



Furthermore if any pedo wanted photos of kids in parks, all he need to is just buy them off the internet for 20 cent per image.

CabanSail

Last year I was asked to photograph an event where there would be lots of primary school children. When I agreed to taking the photo's I checked all the angles.

• The event was being held in a public place.
• The children would all be accompanied by Teachers at all times.
• The schools had been informed that there would be photography at the event.
• The parents had been informed about photography in the form giving permission for their child to attend.

I spent the day and got some good images. I submitted a selection of images to those who asked me to take them. About ten images were printed in the organisations newsletter, which is distributed by email and I was given credit. I thought I has dotted all the i's and crossed the t's.

No .... Someone in admin objected to the images of children being published. She rang the principal of her child's school who, she said, was also outraged. I rang her to try to smooth the waters and she accused me of taking photo's illegally. I explained the checks I had made, even though legally I did not have to do any of it. She then said that if I was taking photo's in the park of her child she would call the police. I explained that if they knew the law they would do nothing unless I had broken the law. It was then she slammed the phone down in my ear.

She did again ring the people who asked me to take the images with her raft of objections. They rang me soon after to tell me that none of the images published had her daughter in them, but one of them had her daughter's friend.

So even doing everything right and the paranoid brigade will still kick off.

me0w

Poncke wrote: »

If you want to play it that way, what goes through a parents head to allow their child to go to a stranger's house and accept candy from a strange man and let their child eat that candy?

Most (responsible!) parents (esp of young children) will accompany them while trick or treating, and only let the kids go to the houses of people they know. They also inspect the candy to see if it's safe for them to eat.

Paulw

CabanSail wrote: »

So even doing everything right and the paranoid brigade will still kick off.

Yep. That's the crazy world we live in.

Each year I am involved in a number of events where I take photos of children. I would say, in any given year, I take about 6,000+ photos of random children. These would be at public events, such as St Patrick's Day Parades, Halloween events, sporting tournaments, etc.

I don't have time to go up to everyone individually and ask permission. I also know that I don't need to. So, I take the photos and then they are posted online - Facebook, Flickr, event websites, my website, newspapers, etc.

I have never had a bad experience. No over-paranoid parents. I do sometimes get asked who I am taking for, but more often than not the question is - "what paper can I see these photos in?", or "where can I see the photos?"

I find these threads comical and absurd. But, people are entitled to their views, and as long as I am not breaking any laws, they must respect my right as a photographer.

CabanSail

Why is it just photographers who get this grief?

How about a sketch artist who sees your child and then draws them, maybe in a more provocative way than in reality. You have no control over that at all, unless you want to bring in the thought police.

Poncke

Tasden wrote: »

Well shes a child so I don't allow her to post photos anywhere, no. She has a camera and she can take photos all she likes, as do I. I just don't put them online.

What if she goes to a friends house and posts all those photos on twitter or instagram? How do you control that?

May I ask if your child has a Facebook account and possibly is younger than 13? Or any other social media account?

Dont reply if you dont want to.

Because I am just wondering, The minimum age to open an account on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Tumblr, Kik, and Snapchat is 13 years.

Any parent who has a child under 13 and is making a fuss about photos being taken needs to consider that having an account on social media could be far more dangerous than me taking a photo of your kid at Halloween, when the parents are even present.

Whispered

There's a stupid post going around Facebook about a mother accepting a friend request and her child being abducted as a result of pictures or something. It's pure hysteria.

However (ha you knew it was coming). The pics I put up on Facebook for example, of my baby boy, are ones that shouldn't cause embarrassment in future. Ones that I have chosen to share. I have none of him crying, looking scared, being upset etc. They're also not for commercial purposes. So I think I would rather someone respect that. If you take a picture of my son and I feel it might cause embarrassment to him in future or if I think it's not an accurate representation of who he is then I should be able to express that without being considered hysterical or paranoid.

Clearly there is the difference between how a photographer thinks and sees images and how others do. I'm not a photographer, I take snaps to capture a personal memory. I have no interest in looking at photographs of people I don't know. Photographers see much more than people's memories in pictures. I'm sure each one has a depth to it beyond the person. It's an artistic way of looking at it. You're not seeing what I see and vice versa. Some people might find that hard to understand.

The J Stands for Jay

toe_knee wrote: »

Parents don't know if you are a paedophile or not. Some parents don't even want to have photos of their own kids online. That's up to them. Why is this such an issue?

I don't understand what people think paedos would do with the pictures.

Poncke

me0w wrote: »

Most (responsible!) parents (esp of young children) will accompany them while trick or treating, and only let the kids go to the houses of people they know. They also inspect the candy to see if it's safe for them to eat.

Whats the difference with a photo being taken? The parents are still there with the kid, arent they?? They can inspect the photo, and they will get a copy, for free. What is the difference??

Tasden

Poncke wrote: »

What if she goes to a friends house and posts all those photos on twitter or instagram? How do you control that?

May I ask if your child has a Facebook account and possibly is younger than 13? Or any other social media account?

Dont reply if you dont want to.

Because I am just wondering, The minimum age to open an account on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Tumblr, Kik, and Snapchat is 13 years.

Any parent who has a child under 13 and is making a fuss about photos being taken needs to consider that having an account on social media could be far more dangerous than me taking a photo of your kid at Halloween, when the parents are even present.

She's only 8 and won't have any social media accounts for many years yet.

Pawwed Rig

Poncke wrote: »

Any parent who has a child under 13 and is making a fuss about photos being taken needs to consider that having an account on social media could be far more dangerous than me taking a photo of your kid at Halloween, when the parents are even present.

Or the photographs that their friends post etc etc. It is unreasonable in this day and age to think any child isn't somewhere on the internet where the pictures are uncontrolled.

amdublin

McGaggs wrote: »

I don't understand what people think paedos would do with the pictures.

I really don't understand this either. Well you think of the length and breadth of the internet and all the awful things that are there for a pedophile why would someone who gets their sexual kicks from children (oh jesus) want a photo of a child innocently playing on the swings. The whole point of pedophilia is want they want is Not Innocent.

Poncke

Whispered wrote: »

The pics I put up on Facebook for example, of my baby boy, are ones that shouldn't cause embarrassment in future. Ones that I have chosen to share. I have none of him crying, looking scared, being upset etc. They're also not for commercial purposes. .

Think again

from the Facebook TOS:

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

Poncke

me0w wrote: »

Most (responsible!) parents (esp of young children) will accompany them while trick or treating, and only let the kids go to the houses of people they know. They also inspect the candy to see if it's safe for them to eat.

How do you tell they're not laced with poison?

amdublin

me0w wrote: »

Most (responsible!) parents (esp of young children) will accompany them while trick or treating, and only let the kids go to the houses of people they know. They also inspect the candy to see if it's safe for them to eat.

Who the heck inspects their kids Halloween sweets??????????????


Next you are going to tell me its because bad people give kids drugs instead of sweets. What kind of drug dealer is going to waste their stash on kids instead of selling it or taking it themselves?????


Seriously!!!!!!


Ps. Are you American? (Calling sweets "candy")

ShaShaBear

Personally for me it has absolutely nothing to do with the "paedo" aspect of it, but rather how that image is going to be used. Will I see a photo of my child accompanying some ridiculous message on the internet? Will her image be used for promotion of a product or way of life that I am not aware of? Will it be stolen online and used by some stupid Facebook group fishing for likes to pretend the child has gone missing somewhere only for me to be accosted on the streets (this has happened locally to me already, not parental paranoia).

Perhaps a photographer has taken a picture of my child and shown it to me. Perhaps I don't like it, or I believe it could be taken negatively out of context. How do I know that the person has deleted it at my demands? If I have a complaint as to the use of the photo when I somehow spot it somewhere, how do I get it removed from all sources? How do I complain to the original photographer?

Poncke

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Or the photographs that their friends post etc etc. It is unreasonable in this day and age to think any child isn't somewhere on the internet where the pictures are uncontrolled.

Exactly, queue the examples found on Shutterstock