Photographs of Children in Public

Whispered

There are reasons other than fear of paedophilia to not be happy about someone taking pics of your children. It appears hysteria works both ways and makes conversation quite difficult.

maryfred

CabanSail wrote: »

All above were candid street shots. Just a few quick examples.

I'm assuming you're attempting to make a point. I fail to see it.

maryfred

ShaShaBear wrote: »

I'm going to make the assumption that you seem to be trying to poke fun and rub in that I am apparently some sort of liar. That's fine - I'm on this thread to discuss the issue of the public photography of children. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm sure if the parents involved wish for it to become public knowledge, then it will. Not interested in derailing the whole thread because you have a bee in your bonnet, so that's it from me.

amdublin I find your attitude to be beyond belief and totally immature. It's something I've noticed about you in other threads as well. You really seem to try to belittle anyone who offers an opinion contrary to your own. As a mod, I'm sure you'll exact your revenge for my speaking out. Have at it.

Dr.Internet

We loved the misery porn of the dead boy on the beach, I suppose his right to privacy is non-existant.

The J Stands for Jay

maryfred wrote: »

I'm assuming you're attempting to make a point. I fail to see it.

These are the interesting pictures of other people's kids you asked for.

Tasden

Dr.Internet wrote: »

We loved the misery porn of the dead boy on the beach, I suppose his right to privacy is non-existant.

Plenty of people I know were just as disgusted as i was at people and the media circulating the image so no, "we" didn't love that misery porn.

byhookorbycrook

I am always intrigued by some people getting in a knot about photos online. The same people who send letters to Santa to the local papers with the child's name, address,photo and age.

amdublin

maryfred wrote: »

amdublin I find your attitude to be beyond belief and totally immature. It's something I've noticed about you in other threads as well. You really seem to try to belittle anyone who offers an opinion contrary to your own. As a mod, I'm sure you'll exact your revenge for my speaking out. Have at it.

I'm not a mod on this forum. I'm just a regular poster like yourself. Feel free to report any of my posts you have an issue with. I've reported this on the basis of you attacking me rather than attacking the post.

Tiriel

No need to make this personal. The thread is for discussion, please respect others opinions.

Poncke

Tasden wrote: »

Plenty of people I know were just as disgusted as i was at people and the media circulating the image so no, "we" didn't love that misery porn.

Why would you be disgusted about the circulation of that image?

First of all it was news, people have the right to know and the image caused people in power to take action. Hence Europe commited to increase the intake of refugees.

I get more disgusted at the vulture paparazzi hunting down Britney Spears than at media reporting important events.

Tasden

Poncke wrote: »

Why would you be disgusted about the circulation of that image?

First of all it was news, people have the right to know and the image caused people in power to take action. Hence Europe commited to increase the intake of refugees.

I get more disgusted at the vulture paparazzi hunting down Britney Spears than at media reporting important events.

I'm not going to go into why, imo, it was in bad taste to publish that photo. I'm fairly sure you can understand why I would, even if you don't necessarily agree with me. He was a person not just "news". It's getting way off topic and is completely different to what the thread is discussing.

Poncke

Tasden wrote: »

I'm not going to go into why, imo, it was in bad taste to publish that photo. I'm fairly sure you can understand why I would, even if you don't necessarily agree with me. He was a person not just "news". It's getting way off topic and is completely different to what the thread is discussing.

Sorry but If publishing that photo is bad taste than we might as well stop publishing news photos all together. If that photo hadn't been published hundreds more refugees would probably have lost their lives.

Paulw

Tasden wrote: »

He was a person not just "news". It's getting way off topic and is completely different to what the thread is discussing.

No, the topic is photographing children in public. That photo was of a child in public. So, it is an example of what the topic is about.

Yes, he was a person. And sadly he and his brother and their mother lost their lives in the sea crossing. His father was gutted, but was glad that the image provoked action to help those fleeing Syria.

Poncke

Paulw wrote: »

No, the topic is photographing children in public. That photo was of a child in public. So, it is an example of what the topic is about.

Yes, he was a person. And sadly he and his brother and their mother lost their lives in the sea crossing. His father was gutted, but was glad that the image provoked action to help those fleeing Syria.

I always wonder, if the father is not disgusted and is actually happy it provoked action, why would others (still) be disgusted?

Tasden

Paulw wrote: »

No, the topic is photographing children in public. That photo was of a child in public. So, it is an example of what the topic is about.

Yes, he was a person. And sadly he and his brother and their mother lost their lives in the sea crossing. His father was gutted, but was glad that the image provoked action to help those fleeing Syria.

You know very well that the photo is in a very different context.

Edit to add: Just because it is their child and they feel ok doesn't mean other people find it ok. Difference of opinion. Why would people suddenly be ok with something just because another person is? I get that you're obviously referring to the fact that it was his child and if anybody should have an issue then it should be him, but his opinion doesn't mean others aren't entitled to a differing one.

Paulw

Poncke wrote: »

I always wonder, if the father is not disgusted and is actually happy it provoked action, why would others (still) be disgusted?

Ok, as a parent, I was disgusted to see the image, but as a photographer (and sometimes photojournalist), I can understand why the image was needed.

Tasden wrote: »

You know very well that the photo is in a very different context.

But, it is you who is making the context. The discussion started as an open discussion on photography of children in public. - The opening post -

CabanSail wrote: »

This is a thread to discuss issues surrounding photographs of children in public places. It is a more general than a more specific thread which was closed.

CelticRambler

ShaShaBear wrote: »

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).

The same applies to pictures of any person, child or adult, so what you're really saying is that you don't want anyone taking any photos in public. Good Plan. :rolleyes: The world will be a better place.

maryfred wrote: »

What's the fascination with taking pictures of kids that you don't know anyway?

Perhaps because a lot of the time, children in public places feel free to express their happiness, in a way that adults cannot, being either paranoid about all the paedos, rapists and druggies hiding in the bushes, or plugged into their iThingy and zoned out of this world. Quite simply, an awful lot of adults make boring photographic subjects, whereas photos of children can really capture the spirit of an outdoor/public event.

Back in July, I was in charge of feeding a festival facebook page throughout the event. On the third day, I put up a montage of pictures (all taken by professional photographers, including some images of their own offspring) that showed different children enjoying the music, dancing, puppet-shows, fresh air, etc. Within 60 seconds (and I do mean 60 seconds), I had a call from our Communications Director screaming "take it down, take it down!!!! :eek: " because "we can see the children's faces."

So I put up a montage of (just) feet next. :P

Paulw

Here's just one event I covered - loads of images of random kids - having fun!!! No parents objected at any stage.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/eventsandsports/albums/72157657559191430

But, I'm sure some in here object.

Poncke

Paulw wrote: »

Here's just one event I covered - loads of images of random kids - having fun!!! No parents objected at any stage.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/eventsandsports/albums/72157657559191430

But, I'm sure some in here object.

Nice photos. Completely off topic, watch your highlights. You have blown out spots. The images look a tad hot (pushing saturation). Apologies for my critique, photographer habits die hard.

magicbastarder

Paulw wrote: »

No parents objected at any stage.

it's quite the contrast in context though between this and the idea which sparked the thread; you were taking photos at a public event, where local press might be present, and parents taking photos certainly will be.
the main difference is expectations; the parents expect lots of photos will be taken at this sort of event, but will not expect that their kids will be photographed as they go trick or treating, especially with the idea that the intention is to suprise/frighten them for the photo.

an aside; i was in debenhams once with the missus, and she was wandering around the lingerie section. there was a guy taking photos of some of the displays of bras, and i casually mentioned it to one of the staff a few minutes later, assuming he was an employee or was taking the photos on behalf of debenhams. cue some confusion, and the manager being called...

Dr.Internet

magicbastarder wrote: »

.......... especially with the idea that the intention is to suprise/frighten them for the photo.........

What? it's halloween, the whole idea of the festival is based around frightening and surprising people for laughs.

Pawwed Rig

magicbastarder wrote: »

an aside; i was in debenhams once with the missus, and she was wandering around the lingerie section. there was a guy taking photos of some of the displays of bras, and i casually mentioned it to one of the staff a few minutes later, assuming he was an employee or was taking the photos on behalf of debenhams. cue some confusion, and the manager being called...

I would imagine he was sending them to someone asking their opinion as to whether to buy or not. If you wanted to see Debenhams underwear it is all pictured online. I would hope you did not embarrass the poor guy?? Confused as to why they thought calling the manager was required

Poncke

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I would imagine he was sending them to someone asking their opinion as to whether to buy or not. If you wanted to see Debenhams underwear it is all pictured online. I would hope you did not embarrass the poor guy?? Confused as to why they thought calling the manager was required

This.

I have taken photos of everything in a supermarket or clothes department to check with the missus if I am getting the right stuff.

Dr.Internet

There is no issue with a man physically walking in to a lingerie store, but god forbid he takes a picture of the clothing display.

Poncke

Dr.Internet wrote: »

There is no issue with a man physically walking in to a lingerie store, but god forbid he takes a picture of the clothing display.

I am getting called into the dressing room to check if the bra fits

But yeah, dont dare to take a photo of the bras on the rack

Pawwed Rig

There seems to be a perception amongst some that any man with a camera is a pervert How did we get to this stage as a society where one poster even threatens physical violence. Sad.
There are no laws against taking photographs in public for good reason as this is how free societies work.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

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?

The only solution to this is to lock up your kids for a good 18 years or so. Don't let them venture out because there's that minute chance that a pedo might take their picture.

_Brian wrote: »

...as parents protecting their children this is their right to protect their children as they see fit...

No, no they do not have that "right". Why do you think that is so? Does having children make you exempt from the law? I guess if you want to do as you see fit, avoid society completely.

_Brian wrote: »

So, why as some random stranger would a photographer think they have the right to photograph children..

It's not they think they have the right, they do have the right, when in a public place. It's the law. If a parent is not comfortable then they can approach the photographer and explain this. I would imagine the photographer would be taken aback and probably feel insulted, but still delete the images.

_Brian wrote: »

As a parent of two young girls myself I would not be happy about it at all. I wouldn't be resorting to violence but I wouldn't be letting it pass either.

You could ask the photographer nicely, I imagine they would delete the images. You should definitely understand the law though and be prepared. If the pictures are taken in public then the photographer is in the right and is not obliged to action your request.

toe_knee wrote: »

Not a clue. Never said I did. Not sure if they liked clothed kids or not but not taking f a chance

The best way to keeping the chances of something bad happening to an minimal is to not have children. Just saying.

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.

Is he wearing a trench coat, glasses and a beard? :pac:

maryfred wrote: »

I'm assuming you're attempting to make a point. I fail to see it.

I find this post to be quite ignorant. There are many different types of photography, some like landscape, food, macro, cars, kids, whatever. If you fail to see the point, then that's your issue really. People have different interests, deal with it.

Paulw wrote: »

Ok, as a parent, I was disgusted to see the image, but as a photographer (and sometimes photojournalist), I can understand why the image was needed.

Why were you disgusted? If it was a dead adult would you also be disgusted? I think it's very important to show the facts and not hide them.

Poncke

Been thinking about this.

It seems as if the innocent person, who has no bad intentions, taking a photograph of either lingerie or kids in his own garden, ends up reported to whoever in charge and ends up in a situation where he has to defend himself for doing nothing wrong. Just because some people are paranoid, prejudice or sick in their own mind, actually thinking that there is no other reason this person is taking that photograph other than perverted reasons.

Makes one wonder, who actually has the perverted mind?

Pawwed Rig

You end up with crap like this happening due to peoples irrational hysteria

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/outer-east/a-man-who-took-an-innocent-selfie-at-westfield-knox-has-his-image-splashed-all-over-facebook-by-a-mum-who-thought-he-took-photos-of-her-children/news-story/a2d5f10b6e69a6d8bae908b4f042d999?sv=5df99dd2afa510e238eadc82edc555ed

coz as we know all men are perverts :rolleyes:

magicbastarder

Poncke wrote: »

I have taken photos of everything in a supermarket or clothes department to check with the missus if I am getting the right stuff.

with a DSLR? or with a cameraphone so you can send the pics to your wife?

is it just me who can see debenham's concerns that a man walking around the lingerie section taking photos with a DSLR might be offputting for other shoppers?