Photographs of Children in Public

Cynortas

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

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:

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/259430/half-of-images-on-pedo-sites-stolen-from-social-me.html

Speaks for its self really.

NomadicGray

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

He may well have been a dirty Agalmatophile & had nefarious intentions for the photos

Pawwed Rig

Cynortas wrote: »

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/259430/half-of-images-on-pedo-sites-stolen-from-social-me.html

Speaks for its self really.

Does it? Your post is unrelated to that which you quoted so confused as to your point

maryfred

McGaggs wrote: »

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

I still fail to see your point.

Edit: At no stage did I ask for photos of any kind. And apparently my earlier post stating my failure to see the point was deemed to be ignorant. So just to we're all clear about my ignorance, let me reiterate that no, I still fail to see the point.

challengemaster

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?

Poncke wrote: »

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.

For arguments (discussion) sake - lets go one better. Even better than the real life example Cabansail already gave, despite somewhat away from the "in public" argument.

The school photographer. Everyone trusts the school photographer.

Every year there's a photographer that is authorised by the school(s) to come in and take photos of every single child in probably every school in a locality. Assuming they have to make a living, they're not just doing this for one school or one locality either. Unless they can live for a year off of one days earnings.

This photographer gets to spend all day taking photos of kids, even telling them how to pose. He's even got written permission from the parents of every kid, and as a gigantic bonus - he's being paid a handsome fee. He walks home at the end of the day with multiple memory cards full (easily 64+gb of photos in some schools & shooting raw). What's more is he likely gets the same gig every year as repeat business - so he's got a nice steady turnover of images from primary and secondary schools.

No parents ever see or meet this photographer, yet one slip of paper in the door from the school and he is trustworthy. All the school has done is garda vetting - which in no way means he's not a pedofile.

Just goes to point out how absurd the mentality is.

Silva360

I'm so glad my friends and I grew up in the 70s. We were free.

The only time we felt threatened was when we were forced, alone and vulnerable, to go to CBSchool and church. The irony.

Don't all the stats say that you're likely to know and trust the perpetrator?

Paulw

challengemaster wrote: »

The school photographer. Everyone trusts the school photographer.

No parents ever see or meet this photographer, yet one slip of paper in the door from the school and he is trustworthy. All the school has done is garda vetting - which in no way means he's not a pedofile.

Just goes to point out how absurd the mentality is.

Actually, most schools don't require Garda vetting for a photographer, since the photographer is not in charge of the children and a teacher must always be present. It would actually have to be the school that applies for Garda vetting for the photographer, which can take any number of months and would have to be done each year, since the photographer is not an employee of the school in the first place.

The whole Garda vetting process is a farce all in itself.

spurious

...and still the place most likely (by FAR) for a child to be abused by a pedo/paedo is the family home, by either a relative or a family friend - certainly not the Star Wars geek taking selfies.

Whispered

spurious wrote: »

certainly not the Star Wars geek taking selfies.

That was terrible, the poor man.

Personally I wouldn't have an issue with someone taking a pic at an open day, festival etc. Although I hate having my pic taken myself having someone take a pic at their door at halloween might throw me because I'm not expecting it, but I'd be ok with it if the photographer also took the time to tell me what they were doing. I wouldn't be ok with not know what was going to happen with those pics. Are they being used for marketing, could one end up a meme, is the picture potentially embarrassing. Now I'm not saying I can do anything about it, just how I feel about it. My discomfort has nothing what so ever to do with men or women who have sexual feelings towards kids.

I mentioned in a previous post about how maybe photographers see photographs differently from a lot of people. For many, a pic is capturing a memory of a person, or a moment. They may not understand that for a photographer the image is so much more than the person in it. That might cause some discomfort, simply not understanding why you want a pic of the child or indeed them.

Poncke

magicbastarder wrote: »

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?

Smartphone, yes. A DSLR would be different, but still no indicator that it is with malicious intend

Poncke

Cynortas wrote: »

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/259430/half-of-images-on-pedo-sites-stolen-from-social-me.html

Speaks for its self really.

From the article:
"Predictably, most of the images were uploaded innocently enough by parents or family friends [to social media]"


"One site containing 45 million stolen photos include folders with titles like “My daughter's Instagram friends.”"



Still dont read anywhere it was the photographer with bad intend, who is supposedly the problem.

orthsquel

Whispered wrote: »

They may not understand that for a photographer the image is so much more than the person in it. That might cause some discomfort, simply not understanding why you want a pic of the child or indeed them.

I'd be of the assumption that in such a case like the original thread the motivation might be to add to their photo portfolio (in store and online via their own facebook or website) or to generate leads for business (giving out the business cards) to be thought of for special occasions or coming up to Christmas... the bonus is giving away the photos while being perceived as doing something for free, while having a laugh on Halloween.

tbh I think the discussion in general on here would be different if the original thread was a female... because I think men do get stick for taking photos. Sure even my dad who is in his 70s doesn't feel comfortable at the idea of using his camera or his camera phone anywhere near a child, with the fear someone might be thinking he is doing something dodgy, even if it is to photograph his own grandchildren while in the presence of their parents, aunts and uncles.

Locally to me there would be a lot of organised community events for small children in the community park and in the shopping centres. Family of the kids would be taking pictures as well as a local newspaper or community magazine photographer. For those in my local shopping centre, I'd have to pass the area that they are in (which isn't sectioned off specially or anything), I might look while passing, think how it's cute smallies in their Halloween gear as part of a Halloween parade (such was the case yesterday) but wouldn't stop to take a photo because there's no personal interest in it for me, such as a child involved. I don't think it would look that weird if I took a photo in passing of kids in costume, but then again, I am also female, tbh nobody would really notice, assume I'm just a relative or have a child participating. I think people generally would think the worst of a male in the same situation if they stopped to make a photo, or asked to take a posed photo of children. If someone saw me as a female approaching two children to take their photo, anyone might assume I'm just their parent or aunt, not a stranger.

I think intention is very much an issue - photos I would have taken in the days of film processing would have gone into photo albums that friends (who featured) may have seen when visiting; photos I can take now of anything, anyone without limits I can upload immediately and share with others and has a wider reach, even unintentionally, to a wider audience e.g. if I took a picture stuck it on facebook/twitter, it can reproduced by the media, the same as an expressed opinion/tweet on twitter can be, of which others can also do a screen grab of, just in case I should delete it. My intention might have been to share a picture between friends, other people's intention has been to capitalise on it in some way, for their own reasons and means.

Re photos on social media - who can you blame though - parents and others who upload it with one intention (sharing with family and people they know) never thinking they are actually violating their child's privacy in the future (because of the data collection by social media companies and its sharing data with companies incl those who a user might engage with) and are oblivious to the concept of over sharing in posting thousands of pictures of the child regardless of taste of photo or an individual known or unknown to them who might download them for purposes other than originally intended e.g. downloading images of someone's child to sell on for the purposes of fake profiles to be created anywhere online for paedos or as material for them that get altered to get off on?

tbh the intent I stated at the start of my post of the assumption that perhaps the photographer would just want to expand their portfolio, drum up business and give a free picture and have a laugh is less sinister than what others could potentially do in exploitation of those same pictures and their motivation and intention in getting access to them. I think it is the intention that makes the difference.

CabanSail

maryfred wrote: »

I still fail to see your point.

Edit: At no stage did I ask for photos of any kind. And apparently my earlier post stating my failure to see the point was deemed to be ignorant. So just to we're all clear about my ignorance, let me reiterate that no, I still fail to see the point.

Let me explain. in an earlier thread you posed a question, which I quoted and do so again below.

maryfred wrote: »

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

The reply I made was a quick selection of images that I have taken at various times where children in public were the subject. This was to try to show why these images can be fascinating for some. I should point out that I do not in any way specialise in photographing children, and not even street photography, but in my back catalogue some appear. I thought that this would be the best way to answer your question.

I did not included any from a studio setting or where I have been requested to take images. The examples I showed are photo's that may well have caused problems if I had been taking them In Ireland or the UK because of the sort of paranoia that now exists. I tend not to take them there as it can be just too much hassle.

If I am taking these sort of images I do it well out in the open so it is obvious what I am doing. Having said all of that if I was taking images just for my own use and was approached by someone to cease doing so I would most probably comply. I have done so in the past. I would definitely listen to what they have to say and while I would know I have the legal right I realise it can be good manners not to push those rights. As Paulw has said before, the most common question is where will the images be posted.

maryfred

CabanSail wrote: »

Let me explain. in an earlier thread you posed a question, which I quoted and do so again below.





The reply I made was a quick selection of images that I have taken at various times where children in public were the subject. This was to try to show why these images can be fascinating for some. I should point out that I do not in any way specialise in photographing children, and not even street photography, but in my back catalogue some appear. I thought that this would be the best way to answer your question.

I did not included any from a studio setting or where I have been requested to take images. The examples I showed are photo's that may well have caused problems if I had been taking them In Ireland or the UK because of the sort of paranoia that now exists. I tend not to take them there as it can be just too much hassle.

If I am taking these sort of images I do it well out in the open so it is obvious what I am doing. Having said all of that if I was taking images just for my own use and was approached by someone to cease doing so I would most probably comply. I have done so in the past. I would definitely listen to what they have to say and while I would know I have the legal right I realise it can be good manners not to push those rights. As Paulw has said before, the most common question is where will the images be posted.

No,still not seeing the point.

amdublin

maryfred wrote: »

No,still not seeing the point.

You asked what is the fascination was with taking photos of unknown children. Cabal could have described why it appealed to him/her e.g. the emotions expressed by a child (the joy being shown by the child in the fountain or the child on the slide). But instead (s)he decided to show you this by showing you pictures which to me evoke the emotion the child is showing.


Someone else made the point that children make better subjects than older people - and I guess that is because there is no filter to them showing the emotion they are feeling right at that moment. And the photographer captures that in the photograph. Some of PaulW's photos show this also.

CabanSail

I answered your question with images that I hope would illustrate the point. I actually do not differentiate between adults and children, I simply shoot people or things I find interesting and hope that by showing what I see others may also get something out of it. It's about sharing the world in which we live using the language of art.

maryfred

Whilst anyone can justify their own fascination with taking pictures of children that they don't know, the fact remains that I fail to see the point. Perhaps it's an artistic mentality that I don't possess. I don't know nor do I care. I'm entitled to my opinion surely. It's a discussion forum, created for differing opinions. It's the defensiveness and sense of entitlement that amazes me. Someone suggested that a photographer might be insulted and taken aback if they were asked to delete an unrequested photograph of a child. I would suggest that a parent's wishes trump an unknown adults feelings. Anyway, as the dragons would say, I'm out.

CabanSail

maryfred wrote: »

Whilst anyone can justify their own fascination with taking pictures of children that they don't know, the fact remains that I fail to see the point. Perhaps it's an artistic mentality that I don't possess. I don't know nor do I care. I'm entitled to my opinion surely. It's a discussion forum, created for differing opinions. It's the defensiveness and sense of entitlement that amazes me. Someone suggested that a photographer might be insulted and taken aback if they were asked to delete an unrequested photograph of a child. I would suggest that a parent's wishes trump an unknown adults feelings. Anyway, as the dragons would say, I'm out.

I would like to point out that it was not me who accused you of being ignorant. Yes it is a discussion forum and that is what we are doing.

You seem to imply I have "fascination with taking pictures of children that they don't know" which is not really accurate. I am not being defensive and you are entitled to your opinion. Yes, some would be insulted if there were demands made to delete photographs which they own. I have seen where these demands have been quite rude and aggressive. Your assertion that a parents wishes trump an adults feelings may also be your opinion but it is just that as, generally, the photographer is within their rights. If they decide to comply with the request it's due to grace rather than obligation.

challengemaster

maryfred wrote: »

I would suggest that a parent's wishes trump an unknown adults feelings.

Is the parent in this case not also an unknown adult to the photographer?

Or to phrase that differently, you would suggest that an unknown adults feelings should trump a photographers legal right to take a photo.

You're entitled to your opinion, just remember it has absolutely no bearing on real life.

sportloto86

maryfred wrote:

Whilst anyone can justify their own fascination with taking pictures of children that they don't know, the fact remains that I fail to see the point. Perhaps it's an artistic mentality that I don't possess. I don't know nor do I care. I'm entitled to my opinion surely. It's a discussion forum, created for differing opinions. It's the defensiveness and sense of entitlement that amazes me. Someone suggested that a photographer might be insulted and taken aback if they were asked to delete an unrequested photograph of a child. I would suggest that a parent's wishes trump an unknown adults feelings. Anyway, as the dragons would say, I'm out.

I fail to see the point.
...mentality...
I don't know nor do I care.
I'm entitled...
It's the defensiveness and sense of entitlement that amazes me.
... unrequested...
I would suggest...
...trump...
...as the dragons would say...

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

maryfred wrote: »

It's the defensiveness and sense of entitlement that amazes me. Someone suggested that a photographer might be insulted and taken aback if they were asked to delete an unrequested photograph of a child. I would suggest that a parent's wishes trump an unknown adults feelings.

This statement is really ironic.

Paulw

maryfred wrote: »

It's the defensiveness and sense of entitlement that amazes me. Someone suggested that a photographer might be insulted and taken aback if they were asked to delete an unrequested photograph of a child. I would suggest that a parent's wishes trump an unknown adults feelings.

Actually, the legal right of the photographer would trump the "wishes" of the parent. It is an entitlement. There is no law prohibiting the general taking of photos of adults nor children in a public environment (some minor exceptions on both cases), so yeah, the photographer has an entitlement and it does trump the unknown adult feelings.

Hopefully the thread has educated you to these facts.

magicbastarder

Paulw wrote: »

It is an entitlement.

it's a right. a lot of people would balk at the use of the word entitlement.

Poncke

My neighbour said it was against the law to take photos of children, I said it wasnt, she said it was, etc etc, people are misinformed and now I come off looking like a difficult stubborn creepy neighbour.

Tasden

Poncke wrote: »

My neighbour said it was against the law to take photos of children, I said it wasnt, she said it was, etc etc, people are misinformed and now I come off looking like a difficult stubborn creepy neighbour.

In fairness, afaik its legal to wander round streets handing out sweets to random kids too but it might get you some weird/concerned looks. Not comparing the two or saying either of them should necessarily warrant concern or looks, im only saying that just because it's legal or you have a right to do something doesn't mean other people have to deem it appropriate/normal behaviour.

CabanSail

The problem is that many people, and some police, have the belief that there is a law which prohibits taking photographs of children in public. From my experience, due to the fact that they think they have the law on their side and that their children are involved, they can become very belligerent and aggressive. The irony is that they will often accuse you of being arrogant, or worse, just because you politely point out that you know the law and that they are mistaken. In that situation I have kept calm while giving the explanation but that seems to rile them even more. I think that is because they are all fired up expecting a fight and it's annoying when that does not eventuate.

amdublin

Poncke wrote: »

My neighbour said it was against the law to take photos of children, I said it wasnt, she said it was, etc etc, people are misinformed and now I come off looking like a difficult stubborn creepy neighbour.

Oh dear

EyeBlinks

I'm interested generally in this topic and would be grateful if some of the people against this would expand a bit on their thinking etc.

I understand and respect the reasonings already given but would like to expand a little especially as we all seem to be photographers around here.

Would context make any difference?
Is permission always a necessity?

Historically, there has been a huge body of magnificent work produced on children. I'm referring specifically to the likes of Helen Levitt, Bill Brandt, our own Fr. Browne , more recently Martin Parr, Rene Dijkstra etc. Aside from Dijkstra possibly, it would appear none of those got permission.

Would you be upset if your child appeared in any of those photos or type of photos and why? From looking generally it would appear, at least some people are happy to put these type of images into competitions etc, but not accept these type of images taken by others.

Why is that?

What level of "exposure" would be acceptable. print, book, online, exhibition, none etc?

For me one of the best "body of works" in the last while produced in Ireland is Doug DuBois' "My Last Day At Seventeen" just released in book form. Ok' it straddles "Child Photography", probably had permission etc, but I wonder would any of those images if taken without permission have been acceptable to those on here?

Lastly, the objection to child photography appears to me at least to be region based. Certainly, in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, you're more likely to have children foisted on you for photographs than anything else. I'm not sure why that is different, anyone? Even Spain and Italy for example appear more relaxed about it.

Of course I respect everyones's opinion and would be grateful for honest answers to my rambling questions.

T.

liamo

I think it mostly boils down to the context of the situation, courtesy and consideration for others and a certain amount of empathy.

If I was on a public march with my child I would have no expectation of privacy as it is a public event, with perhaps a certain level of public interest where media representatives may be present to record some of the event. I believe there is an implicit waiving of expectations of privacy by attending such an event.

On the other hand, if I was in a playground with my child my expectation of privacy would be completely different. I would view us as being "outside" as opposed to being "in public". Some will doubtless argue that there is no difference. This is where context, empathy and courtesy come into play. A playground is different to a public march.

I believe that if someone doesn't want their child's photo taken (or if you have reason to think that they wouldn't want that) then, regardless of your right to do so, the courteous thing to do is not take that photo.

As a parent, I would (strongly) prefer if strangers did not take my child's photo. Regardless of anyone's right to take a photo of my child, I would consider it extremely discourteous if someone did so without my permission.

Someone who is not a parent may not understand just how protective a parent is of his/her child. Regardless of the right to take a photo of someone in public; regardless of any discussion about how that photo may be used; if a parent feels their child is under threat - no matter how vague or unrealistic that threat is - human nature being what it is, don't be surprised if the parent reacts to protect the child.

Bottom line - common sense and courtesy will take you a long way.

Dr.Internet

liamo wrote: »

I think it mostly boils down to the context of the situation, courtesy and consideration for others and a certain amount of empathy.

If I was on a public march with my child I would have no expectation of privacy as it is a public event, with perhaps a certain level of public interest where media representatives may be present to record some of the event. I believe there is an implicit waiving of expectations of privacy by attending such an event.

On the other hand, if I was in a playground with my child my expectation of privacy would be completely different. I would view us as being "outside" as opposed to being "in public". Some will doubtless argue that there is no difference. This is where context, empathy and courtesy come into play. A playground is different to a public march.

I believe that if someone doesn't want their child's photo taken (or if you have reason to think that they wouldn't want that) then, regardless of your right to do so, the courteous thing to do is not take that photo.

As a parent, I would (strongly) prefer if strangers did not take my child's photo. Regardless of anyone's right to take a photo of my child, I would consider it extremely discourteous if someone did so without my permission.

Someone who is not a parent may not understand just how protective a parent is of his/her child. Regardless of the right to take a photo of someone in public; regardless of any discussion about how that photo may be used; if a parent feels their child is under threat - no matter how vague or unrealistic that threat is - human nature being what it is, don't be surprised if the parent reacts to protect the child.

Bottom line - common sense and courtesy will take you a long way.

why is the playground so different. Is your child naked in the playground?

don't be surprised if the parent reacts to protect the child.

What do you mean here? What reaction to protect your child would you take? Assault?

common sense and courtesy will take you a long way

Yes it will, although it appears many parents are lacking in both