Photographs of Children in Public

Tasden

Poncke wrote: »

I fully understand that, the problem is, it is being exaggerated by the parents, to a point it is almost paranoia and causing them to get aggressive towards photographers.

If I was in a park and a parent asked me to stop taking photos, I probaly would, but not without telling them I am within my rights and have no bad intend at all.

But they're not always trying to police you or tell you your rights, or lack thereof, they're asking you to respect their wishes as human beings, not because its written in a rulebook and you have to do as they say, but because they personally consider it invasive/uncomfortable and expect that if they explain that then another person will be kind enough not to do it.

liamo

Poncke wrote: »

I fully understand that, the problem is, it is being exaggerated by the parents, to a point it is almost paranoia and causing them to get aggressive towards photographers.

I'm trying to understand the hostility that can spring up in situations involving a photographer, a parent and children.

I really don't think that parents believe that every photographer is out to take pics of kids for sexual reasons.

If I saw a photographer taking a picture of me I'd give a thumbs up or a smile. I really wouldn't mind. So it's not the photographer I have a problem with, nor is it the taking of the picture. The only element left is the child.

Part of the problem may very be that (as I confessed to in my earlier post) the parent doesn't understand his/her reaction to the photographer but it most definitely stems from the protective instinct towards the child.

If I was in a park and a parent asked me to stop taking photos, I probaly would, but not without telling them I am within my rights and have no bad intend at all.

I don't think that a reasonable parent could ask for more.

I do have to say that if I encountered a photographer taking photos of my child I would be civil and courteous but s/he would be left with no doubt that I was uncomfortable with him/her taking pics of my child.

What is needed most, I believe, is an understanding by each of the position of the other party and a little courtesy extended to each other.

Poncke

Tasden wrote: »

But they're not always trying to police you or tell you your rights, or lack thereof, they're asking you to respect their wishes as human beings, not because its written in a rulebook and you have to do as they say, but because they personally consider it invasive/uncomfortable and expect that if they explain that then another person will be kind enough not to do it.

Why are parents feelings more important than the photographer's?

Paulw

liamo wrote: »

Part of the problem may very be that (as I confessed to in my earlier post) the parent doesn't understand his/her reaction to the photographer but it most definitely stems from the protective instinct towards the child.

Protect how? Protect from what? It's a photo!!!!!

Your child may not even be the subject of the photo but may happen to be in the scene.

I don't understand this irrational attitude, and I'm a father. I have a lovely daughter who I cherish.

challengemaster

Poncke wrote: »

Why are parents feelings more important than the photographer's?

Because you need to have courtesy and empathy. Only towards the parents irrational point of view though. No empathy or courtesy towards the photographer and their legal rights.

Tasden

Poncke wrote: »

Why are parents feelings more important than the photographer's?

Where did I say they are?
It's not a photographer vs parent scenario. Its one person being uncomfortable and the other not respecting that they are causing that person discomfort when they could very easily just not.
If someobody is uncomfortable with something you are doing that actively involves them you usually respect their request to stop doing it. Well i would hope that most people are considerate enough to do so.

Poncke

Tasden wrote: »

Where did I say they are?
It's not a photographer vs parent scenario. Its one person being uncomfortable and the other not respecting that they are causing that person discomfort when they could very easily just not.
If someobody is uncomfortable with something you are doing that actively involves them you usually respect their request to stop doing it. Well i would hope that most people are considerate enough to do so.

You are missing the point. Let me phrase it like this; people asking me to stop taking photos cause ME discomfort.

So who's feelings are more important?

Paulw

Tasden wrote: »

But they're not always trying to police you or tell you your rights, or lack thereof, they're asking you to respect their wishes as human beings, not because its written in a rulebook and you have to do as they say, but because they personally consider it invasive/uncomfortable and expect that if they explain that then another person will be kind enough not to do it.

And why can you not respect their wishes, as human beings, to take photos?

Just because you may feel uncomfortable does not give you any more right.

Some people are uncomfortable around dogs. Does that mean dogs shouldn't be allowed in public, where these people might be? No, they simply go elsewhere, to where there are no dogs.

You go on about respect and wishes, but yet you totally seem to ignore the wishes of the photographer and you show no respect for what they are doing.

challengemaster

Tasden wrote: »

Where did I say they are?
It's not a photographer vs parent scenario. Its one person being uncomfortable and the other not respecting that they are causing that person discomfort when they could very easily just not.
If someobody is uncomfortable with something you are doing that actively involves them you usually respect their request to stop doing it. Well i would hope that most people are considerate enough to do so.

This is starting to draw very close parallels with people being offended about things and the idea that you cannot do anything that offends anyone. So I shall refer you to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS_jkKjIgo

fatherted1969

Haven't read through all the posts here so I'll throw this out. I'm the designated photographer in our club. On any weekend I could cover gaa and soccer matches for my local clubs. They are both fine as the pics are really for them anyway. It's just a hobby for me. Before a camera is clicked I approach both opposition managers to get permission to take pics. Have never been refused yet by anyone. Is permission like this enough

Tasden

Paulw wrote: »

And why can you not respect their wishes, as human beings, to take photos?

Just because you may feel uncomfortable does not give you any more right.

Some people are uncomfortable around dogs. Does that mean dogs shouldn't be allowed in public, where these people might be? No, they simply go elsewhere, to where there are no dogs.

You go on about respect and wishes, but yet you totally seem to ignore the wishes of the photographer and you show no respect for what they are doing.

If you genuinely can't see the distinction between your wish to take photos generally and your wish to take photos that include somebody who is obviously uncomfortable with it then I'm not gonna waste my time trying to explain any further. And i didnt say it gives the person any more "right". I said they are asking for you to stop and imo any decent person would stop when being explicitly asked to stop making someone feel uncomfortable. And no, i wouldn't have any respect for a photographer who didn't stop taking photos of someone when the person explained it made them uncomfortable and asked them to stop.

Poncke

Tasden wrote: »

If you genuinely can't see the distinction between your wish to take photos generally and your wish to take photos that include somebody who is obviously uncomfortable with it then I'm not gonna waste my time trying to explain any further. And i didnt say it gives the person any more "right". I said they are asking for you to stop and imo any decent person would stop when being explicitly asked to stop making someone feel uncomfortable. And no, i wouldn't have any respect for a photographer who didn't stop taking photos of someone when the person explained it made them uncomfortable and asked them to stop.

If you dont respect the photographer, why expect them to respect your feelings? It all seems one way traffic to me.

Tasden

Poncke wrote: »

If you dont respect the photographer, why expect them to respect your feelings? It all seems one way traffic to me.

I wouldn't respect anybody who continued doing something to somebody after they were told it made the person uncomfortable when they are perfectly able to find somebody who is willing. I'd only lose respect for them when they aren't being considerate of their subject who expressed that they want them to stop i.e. not respecting someone. We're going round in circles.
I personally think someone's feelings of discomfort at being photographed are more important than a photo/someone's right or want to take said photo. You obviously don't feel the same and I'm not saying you have to.

Whispered

I asked a guy to stop taking my pic in a club once. It made me feel very "on display" and impacted how I was enjoying my night. He seemed to have no problem with it. Well he stopped anyway.

As an aside, would none of the photographers here feel uncomfortable with someone taking their pic? Or is it a case of understanding that you're just a small part of a larger picture rather than it being a "picture of you"?

DivingDuck

Poncke wrote: »

If you dont respect the photographer, why expect them to respect your feelings? It all seems one way traffic to me.

The reason some people believe their comfort or right not to be photographed supersedes your right to photograph, or your comfort in doing so, is because there are an infinite number of potential subjects for you to take pictures of, whereas parents have a finite number of children.

People have many reasons for wanting themselves and their children to be excluded from photographs over which they have no control, including safety (the child and its parent may be hiding from an abuser), self-consciousness (on part of either child or parent), fear (that the photograph will cause the child to be the target of a predator), or even for religious reasons.

Legal isn't the same as right, or considerate. If you were eating a sandwich on a park bench, and someone sat down beside you and began rooting through their nose, would you think it inconsiderate? If you did not have the option to move, wouldn't you like them to stop if you asked? It's not against the law, but that doesn't make it right.

You not photographing that child in that moment costs you far less psychological harm than the harm caused to someone whose image, or whose child's image, is taken against their request and subsequently used for unknown purposes and seen by unknown people when they are plainly uncomfortable with that possibility. That has the potential to bother them indefinitely, and in fact, to crop up again in the future and cause them real harm. By contrast, the photographer can turn their lens slightly aside and find many consenting humans and an infinite array of non-sentient subjects who do not have any objection to being in a picture.

Doing something to a person (which is what happens when you take a photo; it's why we refer to the focus of the image as the subject) without their consent is wrong. Morally wrong. The law may not class it as legally wrong, but that does not change the morality of the issue.

OldGoat

Whispered wrote: »

I asked a guy to stop taking my pic in a club once. It made me feel very "on display" and impacted how I was enjoying my night. He seemed to have no problem with it. Well he stopped anyway.

As an aside, would none of the photographers here feel uncomfortable with someone taking their pic? Or is it a case of understanding that you're just a small part of a larger picture rather than it being a "picture of you"?

I'm a camera whore and will play up for anyone pointing a camera anywhere near me. :cool:

challengemaster

Tasden wrote: »

I wouldn't respect anybody who continued doing something to somebody after they were told it made the person uncomfortable when they are perfectly able to find somebody who is willing. I'd only lose respect for them when they aren't being considerate of their subject who expressed that they want them to stop i.e. not respecting someone. We're going round in circles.
I personally think someone's feelings of discomfort at being photographed are more important than a photo/someone's right or want to take said photo. You obviously don't feel the same and I'm not saying you have to.

You may need to re-evaluate that one.

The child is the subject, and it seems that in none of the cases described so far that the child being photographed displayed any discomfort at being photographed, expressed they didn't want their photo taken, or was treated badly or inconsiderately by a photographer.

The way you've just phrased it, it sounds like you're transposing your own discomfort of having your photo taken onto your child.

DivingDuck

challengemaster wrote: »

The child is the subject, and it seems that in none of the cases described so far that the child being photographed displayed any discomfort at being photographed, expressed they didn't want their photo taken, or was treated badly or inconsiderately by a photographer.

Parents make hundreds of judgment calls on behalf of their children on a daily basis. Don't touch the stove. Don't pet the stray cat. Don't cross the street without holding my hand. Don't take sweets from strangers.

This is in no way different. When a child is not intellectually mature enough to recognize the dangers of a situation, the parent must step in to impose rules to protect them. It's the most basic tenet of parenting, and applies to this situation as much as any other.

Tasden

challengemaster wrote: »

You may need to re-evaluate that one.

The child is the subject, and it seems that in none of the cases described so far that the child being photographed displayed any discomfort at being photographed, expressed they didn't want their photo taken, or was treated badly or inconsiderately by a photographer.

The way you've just phrased it, it sounds like you're transposing your own discomfort of having your photo taken onto your child.

I was just generally speaking about someone being uncomfortable and asking someone to stop. But the point still stands, the guardian makes the decision for the child and if the guardian feels discomfort the same applies.

challengemaster

I'll re-iterate what Paulw said earlier - What exactly is this "danger" people keep talking about.

It's a camera - it takes photos. All of the examples you've given have actual legitimate danger associated with them eg. being burned or attacked by a stray animal. Unless I have a polaroid camera and after taking the photo use the drying print give the child paper cuts - I cannot fathom what danger taking a photo poses.

If anything I'd wager that the mentality you're instilling of being afraid of everyone is much more harmful.

Pawwed Rig

Can I remind those speaking on behalf of parents that parents are not of one mind. You speak for yourself not all of us. Personally I have no interest in photography as a hobby but have no problem with anyone taking photos of whatever they want in the public sphere. If it makes you uncomfortable then how do you tolerate the constant monitoring from cctv (which incidentally is not secure and often finds it's way onto YouTube and similar sites).
These freedoms are extremely important particularly if you extend to other sections of society - for example some Police forces in the US are attempting to make photographing them an offence.

DivingDuck

challengemaster wrote: »

I'll re-iterate what Paulw said earlier - What exactly is this "danger" people keep talking about.

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or not here, but giving you the benefit of the doubt:

An image today can be taken for nothing, processed for nothing, reproduced for nothing, and distributed for nothing. Whereas twenty years ago it cost money to shoot, develop, copy, and distribute photos, it's now completely free, instantaneous, and irreversible to take an image and send it worldwide to a potential audience of billions within seconds. Do you honestly not see how that's threatening to some people?

Some hypotheticals where this could cause danger:

1. The parent/child has been removed from an unsafe environment, and the posted image (to Flickr, FB, Tumblr, etc.) could give clues to its whereabouts.

2. The image is picked up by predators (who do make use of perfectly innocent photographs) who can easily obtain information about the child by, for example, the team the child is playing for, the park they visit, the street they live on, etc.

3. The child is with someone, or was somewhere, they shouldn't be (i.e., the nanny took the child to the park instead of the museum, or the aunt allowed the child to see his father despite the court ruling, etc.).

4. The photographs are later used in a context that, while legitimate, may be embarrassing or distressing for the child (used as a file photo in a newspaper story, or the photo itself was embarrassing and someone of eighteen is embarrassed by the photo of himself covered in ice cream or looking up another little kid's skirt, whatever).

Different people have different ideas of what is and isn't dangerous for their child. You may not agree any of the examples present a legitimate danger, but you don't have to. You have no right to decide for somebody else's child what is and isn't dangerous when they haven't granted you the right to do so.

If someone handed your child a knife and told them to go for a gentle jog, you'd probably be unhappy about it. It is the same thing. While you may not accept or believe these things to be dangers, the parent considers that they are.

Not respecting their wishes is clearly disrespectful. Why be disrespectful to someone when you don't have to be? It might not be illegal to let the door slam in someone's face behind me, but that doesn't mean I don't always hold it open for the person following to pass though as a matter of respect and consideration. It might cost me a few seconds, but it would cost them far worse to get a door in the face, so why wouldn't I do that? Why wouldn't everyone?

Paulw

DivingDuck wrote: »

Parents make hundreds of judgment calls on behalf of their children on a daily basis. Don't touch the stove. Don't pet the stray cat. Don't cross the street without holding my hand. Don't take sweets from strangers..

You forgot "don't allow yourself to be photographed@. :eek: Because that will definitely hurt the child, in so many ways that photographers just can never know.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

and have every right to ask, and there is nothing that can be done about it.

The photographer could also say no. I know if I took the time to set up my camera, took some shots of a beautiful landscape and a child wandered into it, they would be cropped out. Now if a parent asked me to stop, I would ask them to remove their child from the scene :P

Tasden wrote: »

Where did I say they are?
It's not a photographer vs parent scenario. Its one person being uncomfortable and the other not respecting that they are causing that person discomfort when they could very easily just not.
If someobody is uncomfortable with something you are doing that actively involves them you usually respect their request to stop doing it. Well i would hope that most people are considerate enough to do so.

Being uncomfortable is not a valid argument and does not trump the legal rights of anybody.

Whispered wrote: »

I asked a guy to stop taking my pic in a club once. It made me feel very "on display" and impacted how I was enjoying my night. He seemed to have no problem with it. Well he stopped anyway.

As an aside, would none of the photographers here feel uncomfortable with someone taking their pic? Or is it a case of understanding that you're just a small part of a larger picture rather than it being a "picture of you"?

Depends on the nature of the photograph really. In general it's fine, but there are some scenarios where it may not be.

DivingDuck

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

how do you tolerate the constant monitoring from cctv (which incidentally is not secure and often finds it's way onto YouTube and similar sites).

CCTV images are usually of such ludicrously poor quality that, even when given the original files, and with the best equipment available, even the police are mostly unable to successfully identify individuals on them.

A DSLR photograph in full daylight from a couple of feet away is an entirely different animal.

DivingDuck

Paulw wrote: »

You forgot "don't allow yourself to be photographed@. :eek: Because that will definitely hurt the child, in so many ways that photographers just can never know.

I outlined the reasons why people might consider this unsafe in the post above yours.

Also, it was very much implied by the tone of the post you quoted.

Tasden

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Can I remind those speaking on behalf of parents that parents are not of one mind. You speak for yourself not all of us. Personally I have no interest in photography as a hobby but have no problem with anyone taking photos of whatever they want in the public sphere. If it makes you uncomfortable then how do you tolerate the constant monitoring from cctv (which incidentally is not secure and often finds it's way onto YouTube and similar sites).
These freedoms are extremely important particularly if you extend to other sections of society - for example some Police forces in the US are attempting to make photographing them an offence.

I didn't think anybody was speaking on behalf of all parents (or all photographers), only for themselves and giving their own opinion.
Maybe its a case of not being able to have a say when it comes to other forms (or not caring) but when faced directly with the person taking a photo specifically of them/their child then they can ask them to stop.

Zara Massive Verdigris wrote: »

Being uncomfortable is not a valid argument and does not trump the legal rights of anybody.

.

I didn't say it trumps anybody's legal rights. I said i personally believe it's more important.

Paulw

DivingDuck wrote: »

An image today can be taken for nothing, processed for nothing, reproduced for nothing, and distributed for nothing. Whereas twenty years ago it cost money to shoot, develop, copy, and distribute photos, it's now completely free, instantaneous, and irreversible to take an image and send it worldwide to a potential audience of billions within seconds. Do you honestly not see how that's threatening to some people?

Please tell me where I can get a camera for nothing, memory cards for nothing, a computer to process photos for nothing, software to process the photos for nothing, internet connection for nothing? Please!!!!!!

DivingDuck wrote: »

Some hypotheticals where this could cause danger:

1. The parent/child has been removed from an unsafe environment, and the posted image (to Flickr, FB, Tumblr, etc.) could give clues to its whereabouts.

A person at a location that may or may not be recognisable, at a point in time, where the child/parent may never return.

DivingDuck wrote: »

2. The image is picked up by predators (who do make use of perfectly innocent photographs) who can easily obtain information about the child by, for example, the team the child is playing for, the park they visit, the street they live on, etc.

The same predators, who again, are usually family members or people well known to the child. Yep, those predators who may make use of innocent photos, which they can usually take themselves.

DivingDuck wrote: »

3. The child is with someone, or was somewhere, they shouldn't be (i.e., the nanny took the child to the park instead of the museum, or the aunt allowed the child to see his father despite the court ruling, etc.).

So, it's now the photographer's fault that the child is with someone or somewhere they shouldn't be??? WOW.

DivingDuck wrote: »

4. The photographs are later used in a context that, while legitimate, may be embarrassing or distressing for the child (used as a file photo in a newspaper story, or the photo itself was embarrassing and someone of eighteen is embarrassed by the photo of himself covered in ice cream or looking up another little kid's skirt, whatever).

So, now you are dictating what newspapers can/can't use??? That's a whole other ballgame there in itself.

DivingDuck wrote: »

If someone handed your child a knife and told them to go for a gentle jog, you'd probably be unhappy about it. It is the same thing. While you may not accept or believe these things to be dangers, the parent considers that they are.

I would hope that my child has enough sense not to take something from a stranger, and again, we are talking about a physical risk in your post, as opposed to a risk that is in the head of a parent, rather than an actual physical risk at that point in time.

Your post seems to make less sense to me each time I read it ... and I read it a few times before deciding to reply. :eek:

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

DivingDuck wrote: »

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or not here, but giving you the benefit of the doubt:

An image today can be taken for nothing, processed for nothing, reproduced for nothing, and distributed for nothing. Whereas twenty years ago it cost money to shoot, develop, copy, and distribute photos, it's now completely free, instantaneous, and irreversible to take an image and send it worldwide to a potential audience of billions within seconds. Do you honestly not see how that's threatening to some people?

Some hypotheticals where this could cause danger:

1. The parent/child has been removed from an unsafe environment, and the posted image (to Flickr, FB, Tumblr, etc.) could give clues to its whereabouts.

2. The image is picked up by predators (who do make use of perfectly innocent photographs) who can easily obtain information about the child by, for example, the team the child is playing for, the park they visit, the street they live on, etc.

3. The child is with someone, or was somewhere, they shouldn't be (i.e., the nanny took the child to the park instead of the museum, or the aunt allowed the child to see his father despite the court ruling, etc.).

4. The photographs are later used in a context that, while legitimate, may be embarrassing or distressing for the child (used as a file photo in a newspaper story, or the photo itself was embarrassing and someone of eighteen is embarrassed by the photo of himself covered in ice cream or looking up another little kid's skirt, whatever).

Different people have different ideas of what is and isn't dangerous for their child. You may not agree any of the examples present a legitimate danger, but you don't have to. You have no right to decide for somebody else's child what is and isn't dangerous when they haven't granted you the right to do so.

If someone handed your child a knife and told them to go for a gentle jog, you'd probably be unhappy about it. It is the same thing. While you may not accept or believe these things to be dangers, the parent considers that they are.

Not respecting their wishes is clearly disrespectful. Why be disrespectful to someone when you don't have to be? It might not be illegal to let the door slam in someone's face behind me, but that doesn't mean I don't always hold it open for the person following to pass though as a matter of respect and consideration. It might cost me a few seconds, but it would cost them far worse to get a door in the face, so why wouldn't I do that? Why wouldn't everyone?

While I agree with points 1 and 2, points 3 and 4 are invalid. Your analogies are also awful. Handing a child a knife and taking his/her pictures are not the same, in any regard.

Slamming a door in somebodies face and continuing to take pictures of the child are not the same thing either.

If you are uncomfortable in a situation, leave it, don't take it out on others. It all boils back down to the idea that being a parent gives you additional "rights" regarding the protection of your child, that everybody is out to endanger, kill, eat your child. Which is not the case.

Also, your idea of photography is completely incorrect. I don't think anything of the below is correct. It certainly doesn't apply to the majority of posters in the photography forum anyway.

An image today can be taken for nothing, processed for nothing, reproduced for nothing, and distributed for nothing. Whereas twenty years ago it cost money to shoot, develop, copy, and distribute photos, it's now completely free, instantaneous, and irreversible to take an image and send it worldwide to a potential audience of billions within seconds.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Tasden wrote: »

I didn't say it trumps anybody's legal rights. I said i personally believe it's more important.

I am not saying you are wrong, but you are not right...