Photographs of Children in Public

OldGoat

What have we learnt from this thread?

On one hand we see that a polite and reasoned request to stop or delete images of your children will be met with a polite and reasoned response - in the majority the images will be removed deleted or in some cases parents receiving beautifully crafted photographs of their sprogs.

On the other hand an irrational rant and demand to delete pictures will be met with a stand off with hackles raised and the belligerence of the righteous photographer wronged.

A win for civility. Yay!

Rubberchikken

20 years ago i was walking around our street with my kids, then 4 and 1. a man, with camera, asked if he could take a photo of them. said he was from the local paper. turned out he was. and the photo duly appeared on the front page the following week. innocent times - no id. just took him at face value.
i didn't assume he was going to use it for nefarious purposes or steal their souls.
some parents will get all up about their precious kiddies being photographed. others are more reasonable. tbh if i was taking photos of kids i'd stick with those i know just for the ease of it. some people just aren't worth dealing with.

Paulw

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

If you read the context of my post you would understand that that the paranoia is there anyway.

So, there we have it.

It's all about the paranoid parents. Nothing to do with the children, nothing to do with any actual danger. It's just the paranoia.

Say no more.

irish_dave_83

Paulw wrote: »

So, there we have it.

It's all about the paranoid parents. Nothing to do with the children, nothing to do with any actual danger. It's just the paranoia.

Say no more.

Yet another person who can't understand context, and from a Mod no less. There is nothing wrong with questioning why someone is taking photographs of your kids.

What is the point in debating the issue, with responses like this. Unbelievable.

Paulw

But, you totally summed it up. It is simply about paranoia. There doesn't seem to be any other basis to it all. The statistics don't support anything other than that. Most abuse is by family or someone well known to the child/family. So, a photographer would be statistically not a safety concern for the child.

Context, context, context - no, it's about paranoia.

As I have said, many times, I am a parent and a photographer. I photograph hundreds or thousands of children each year. The most hassle I have ever had is a parent wanting to make sure that I get a photo of their child. Almost none of the children are known to me. I don't seek permission before taking the shot. I can show lots of images of children out having fun. That, to me, is one part of the job that I really love. The joy, the fun, the innocence.

But yet, on here, people rant about their dislike for people taking photos of their child. This is all pure paranoia in their head. Nothing more, nothing less.

Also, I may be a mod but I am not a mod in photography, so being a mod has absolutely no relevance to the discussion.

irish_dave_83

Paulw wrote: »

But, you totally summed it up. It is simply about paranoia. There doesn't seem to be any other basis to it all. The statistics don't support anything other than that. Most abuse is by family or someone well known to the child/family. So, a photographer would be statistically not a safety concern for the child.

Context, context, context - no, it's about paranoia.

As I have said, many times, I am a parent and a photographer. I photograph hundreds or thousands of children each year. The most hassle I have ever had is a parent wanting to make sure that I get a photo of their child. Almost none of the children are known to me. I don't seek permission before taking the shot. I can show lots of images of children out having fun. That, to me, is one part of the job that I really love. The joy, the fun, the innocence.

But yet, on here, people rant about their dislike for people taking photos of their child. This is all pure paranoia in their head. Nothing more, nothing less.

Also, I may be a mod but I am not a mod in photography, so being a mod has absolutely no relevance to the discussion.

I know you are not a mod in photography, that is obvious. The relevance is that you don't seem to be catching the point, maybe I just assumed that you may be able to see the bigger picture. So maybe I was wrong in this regard. All you seem to be saying is "paranoia, paranoia!!".

Paranoia certainly has a part to play, I certainly don't deny that. Also, some people just don't want photos of their kids taken by anyone they don't know and not for paranoid reasons.
I don't mind people taking photos of my children most of the time, but in the instances where I do question them about it, the photographer should be understanding and not start telling me about his/her legal rights.

You need to accept that some people may not understand or care what the photo means to you. I love my job, but I imagine some/most people would think that it is boring or too complicated etc, because they don't understand it. Just because you have a legitimate right to photograph in a public place is meaningless to some parents and unless they are violent towards you, what realistically can you do about it?

CelticRambler

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

Yet another person who can't understand context ...

The only context you've described is parents exhibiting irrational fears. Should playgrounds be cleared of all spiders because some children are scared of them? I think you'd find it hard to get support for that, but statistically, a child is more likely to suffer harm because of a spider, or panicky reaction to seeing one, than any photographer.

Sticking with the playground context, those spongy surfaces that are supposed to prevent injury have been demonstrated to have a net negative effect on child safety. While they do minimise the injuries suffered by toddlers and younger children, they also limit the learning process, i.e. that falling off a climbing frame hurts. As result, A&E departments see more older children with more severe injuries, suffered when they start doing what children do away from the supervision of their parents.

Then you've got those parents who smoke, the ones who aren't paying the least bit of attention to their playground bully (that'll be the one whacking your child with a stick), or the dog that's "really good with children" snapping at their heels, and then you've got those who are still on the 'phone as they drive out of the car-park not noticing the toddler on a scooter ...

And somehow a guy taking photos is the big bogey man in this context?

Paulw

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

The relevance is that you don't seem to be catching the point, maybe I just assumed that you may be able to see the bigger picture. All you seem to be saying is "paranoia, paranoia!!".

But, what more is there than simply paranoia? What is the bigger picture? The bigger picture is that a photographer is not a threat to the child. The bigger picture is that a child is much much more likely to be abused by a family member or someone well known to the child/family.

So, please, if it is not paranoia - what is it? What is the actual threat to the child?

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

I don't mind people taking photos of my children most of the time, but in the instances where I do question them about it, the photographer should be understanding and not start telling me about his/her legal rights.

But why should you ignore his rights? Should you not simply remove yourself and your child from the scene/area, if you are unhappy to be photographed? Why should the photographer have to justify his art/work to you, or anyone else?

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

You need to accept that some people may not understand or care what the photo means to you. Just because you have a legitimate right to photograph in a public place is meaningless to some parents and unless they are violent towards you, what realistically can you do about it?

What should the photographer have to do? The parent should be the one who has to do something - accept the situation and the right of the photographer, or make the decision to leave the area.

Again, why are people, so commonly online, threatening violence?

There are far far more dangerous things to children out there than a photographer taking photos. Each time I am out with my daughter I do my best to protect her - watching for traffic when crossing the road, watching for broken glass on the path, watching for things she may trip on when walking, etc. I certainly don't feel there is any threat from a photographer. I photographer her many times and she has been at a few events where there are photographers (both professional and hobby). Has she been photographed and her image being put online (facebook, flickr, etc) ... yes.

Has she been harmed by someone taking her photo - absolutely not.

So, again, if it's not paranoia, what is the threat to the child?

irish_dave_83

CelticRambler wrote: »

The only context you've described is parents exhibiting irrational fears. Should playgrounds be cleared of all spiders because some children are scared of them? I think you'd find it hard to get support for that, but statistically, a child is more likely to suffer harm because of a spider, or panicky reaction to seeing one, than any photographer.

Sticking with the playground context, those spongy surfaces that are supposed to prevent injury have been demonstrated to have a net negative effect on child safety. While they do minimise the injuries suffered by toddlers and younger children, they also limit the learning process, i.e. that falling off a climbing frame hurts. As result, A&E departments see more older children with more severe injuries, suffered when they start doing what children do away from the supervision of their parents.

Then you've got those parents who smoke, the ones who aren't paying the least bit of attention to their playground bully (that'll be the one whacking your child with a stick), or the dog that's "really good with children" snapping at their heels, and then you've got those who are still on the 'phone as they drive out of the car-park not noticing the toddler on a scooter ...

And somehow a guy taking photos is the big bogey man in this context?

The difference in the things you have described is that the parent makes a conscious decision to let their children take part in these things or put their children in the situation. Right or wrong, these decisions are made.

When a stranger starts taking photos of your child they have imposed themselves into the life of the parent, knowingly or not. Can you see the context now?

The point is that, some photographers don't have the capacity to see this. As you have proved.

irish_dave_83

Paulw wrote: »

But, what more is there than simply paranoia? What is the bigger picture? The bigger picture is that a photographer is not a threat to the child. The bigger picture is that a child is much much more likely to be abused by a family member or someone well known to the child/family.

So, please, if it is not paranoia - what is it? What is the actual threat to the child?



But why should you ignore his rights? Should you not simply remove yourself and your child from the scene/area, if you are unhappy to be photographed? Why should the photographer have to justify his art/work to you, or anyone else?



What should the photographer have to do? The parent should be the one who has to do something - accept the situation and the right of the photographer, or make the decision to leave the area.

Again, why are people, so commonly online, threatening violence?

There are far far more dangerous things to children out there than a photographer taking photos. Each time I am out with my daughter I do my best to protect her - watching for traffic when crossing the road, watching for broken glass on the path, watching for things she may trip on when walking, etc. I certainly don't feel there is any threat from a photographer. I photographer her many times and she has been at a few events where there are photographers (both professional and hobby). Has she been photographed and her image being put online (facebook, flickr, etc) ... yes.

Has she been harmed by someone taking her photo - absolutely not.

So, again, if it's not paranoia, what is the threat to the child?

You keep going on about paedophilia, I haven't once said that photographers are paedophiles. Nor have I threatened or condoned violence.

You ask why the photographer needs to leave? But why should the family.
Neither should, maybe the parent should just stand in front of the lens or have a game of football near the camera. All within their rights within a public place. But of course that is ridiculous carry on, and I am not suggesting that because it is childish.
But surely, so is recognising that someone is uncomfortable with you taking photos of them or their children and you not caring about it and being stubborn?

The fact that you are a parent makes no difference, maybe you don't understand the discomfort of being photographed, because you are a photographer. Maybe you don't mind people watching you play foolishly with your children, but some people don't like the "watching" feeling. Its not always a threatening feeling that is the cause.

amdublin

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

Maybe you don't mind people watching you play foolishly with your children, but some people don't like the "watching" feeling. Its not always a threatening feeling that is the cause.

What's next?? "Stop using your eyes to look at my child"

:eek:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

The difference in the things you have described is that the parent makes a conscious decision to let their children take part in these things or put their children in the situation. Right or wrong, these decisions are made.

When a stranger starts taking photos of your child they have imposed themselves into the life of the parent, knowingly or not. Can you see the context now?

The point is that, some photographers don't have the capacity to see this. As you have proved.

By taking the child into a public space in the first place, a parent is making a conscious decision to let their children take part in said situation. They have no more consent with the photographers than do with the spiders.

Unless said stranger is neing intrusive - as in stickign the camera in someone's face - he is not imposing anything on anyone. How could they be?

Paulw

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

You keep going on about paedophilia, I haven't once said that photographers are paedophiles. Nor have I threatened or condoned violence.

Correct, you haven't mentioned paedophilia, but others have.

You may not have threatened nor condoned violence, but you have mentioned it at least twice in the thread.

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

The fact that you are a parent makes no difference, maybe you don't understand the discomfort of being photographed, because you are a photographer. Maybe you don't mind people watching you play foolishly with your children, but some people don't like the "watching" feeling. Its not always a threatening feeling that is the cause.

I personally hate being photographed. It's a self image thing. But, I know there are cameras out there, I know people take photos, and I know I am in many photos/videos, and many that are posted online. My discomfort at being photographed/videoed doesn't give me any right to confront the photographer/videographer. I simply get on with life.

As for being watched playing foolishly with my child ... I honestly don't consider anything other than myself and my child. As long is she is having fun, I don't care. Do I look like a fool? Yeah, probably, but such is life.

If people don't like the "watching" feeling - how do they deal with walking down the street? Getting public transport? Going to a big sporting event? Going to any event in public. Almost all those have CCTV and/or photographers.

So, again - if it's not paranoia - what is it?

magicbastarder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLb9CJXO7s4#t=0m54s

irish_dave_83

Paulw wrote: »

Correct, you haven't mentioned paedophilia, but others have.

You may not have threatened nor condoned violence, but you have mentioned it at least twice in the thread.




I personally hate being photographed. It's a self image thing. But, I know there are cameras out there, I know people take photos, and I know I am in many photos/videos, and many that are posted online. My discomfort at being photographed/videoed doesn't give me any right to confront the photographer/videographer. I simply get on with life.

As for being watched playing foolishly with my child ... I honestly don't consider anything other than myself and my child. As long is she is having fun, I don't care. Do I look like a fool? Yeah, probably, but such is life.

If people don't like the "watching" feeling - how do they deal with walking down the street? Getting public transport? Going to a big sporting event? Going to any event in public. Almost all those have CCTV and/or photographers.

So, again - if it's not paranoia - what is it?

I have mentioned violence as a negative thing, however you implied that I threatened it online in response to one of my comments which is not the case. If I misunderstood that, I apologise.

Do you watch people when walking down the street, or while on public transport in the same way as when you are watching them for the right photograph? And CCTV has a purpose, security. They are different situations, think about it.

The photographers purpose in line with this thread is to capture an image of your child, albeit for artistic reasons. All I am saying is that the parents do not understand those reasons, much like you may not understand the reasoning of another professional doing their job and you may question it regardless of there legitimate reason for doing so.

I said in my previous post that paranoia plays a part did I not? But it is not the only reason. People are self-conscious which is not paranoia. People don't know what is going to happen with the photos which is paranoia, i.e. will it end up on a gallery wall, a magazine, Facebook. Personally I wouldn't immediately think anything else, but other parents might.

Of course there are circumstances such as public events, parties etc, where reasonable people don't mind and expect photos to be taken and are ok with that. Its when people go somewhere, such as a park or a playground where you don't expect the photographer to appear that causes the issue. Its not the fault of the photographer, but its not unreasonable to ask someone to stop taking photos of their kids.

Don't get me wrong if my kids are getting in the way of a photographer taking their photo of something else, I will move them, no problem at all. Its when the photographer chooses to turn the camera to my kids in the scenario I described previously, I would be curious to know why. It doesn't have to be a confrontation, I would be curious that's all, then I can decide to let it go on, or ask him/her to not take anymore, or remove my kids from the area in question.
The photographers can explain or he can have the "you can't stop me attitude". The latter is will in most cases escalate the matter.

liamo

Dave, you're wasting your time.

You and I and others have tried to explain that some parents would simply prefer if their children were not the subject of a stranger's photography.

The reasonable and human thing to do is to try to understand where the parent is coming from and think that perhaps acceding to a parent's request to desist from behaviour where his child is concerned is not such a hard thing to do.

Instead, these attempts to explain the parent's point of view have been subject to mockery and ridicule, accusations of paranoia, of thinking all photographers are paedophiles, and so on and so on. Anything but address the simple, basic point - "I'd rather you didn't take pictures of my child. Would you please mind not doing that?"

The answer to that question is usually more questions such as "where is the threat?", "are people known to the family not more likely to be paedophiles?", "why should the feelings of the parent trump my legal rights?"

You can expect your latest post (and, doubtless, this one) to be subject to more of the same from the usual suspects.

Frankly, I suspect that a lot of the bluster and posturing by some posters in this thread bears little resemblance to what would happen in real life.

That is, if a photographer is taking photos of my child I will approach him and ask him nicely to stop. I rather suspect that very few, if any, of the oh-so-concerned-about-their-rights posters here will actually refuse to accede to my request when facing a real-life parent.

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

I have mentioned violence as a negative thing, however you implied that I threatened it online in response to one of my comments which is not the case. If I misunderstood that, I apologise.

Do you watch people when walking down the street, or while on public transport in the same way as when you are watching them for the right photograph? And CCTV has a purpose, security. They are different situations, think about it.

The photographers purpose in line with this thread is to capture an image of your child, albeit for artistic reasons. All I am saying is that the parents do not understand those reasons, much like you may not understand the reasoning of another professional doing their job and you may question it regardless of there legitimate reason for doing so.

I said in my previous post that paranoia plays a part did I not? But it is not the only reason. People are self-conscious which is not paranoia. People don't know what is going to happen with the photos which is paranoia, i.e. will it end up on a gallery wall, a magazine, Facebook. Personally I wouldn't immediately think anything else, but other parents might.

Of course there are circumstances such as public events, parties etc, where reasonable people don't mind and expect photos to be taken and are ok with that. Its when people go somewhere, such as a park or a playground where you don't expect the photographer to appear that causes the issue. Its not the fault of the photographer, but its not unreasonable to ask someone to stop taking photos of their kids.

Don't get me wrong if my kids are getting in the way of a photographer taking their photo of something else, I will move them, no problem at all. Its when the photographer chooses to turn the camera to my kids in the scenario I described previously, I would be curious to know why. It doesn't have to be a confrontation, I would be curious that's all, then I can decide to let it go on, or ask him/her to not take anymore, or remove my kids from the area in question.
The photographers can explain or he can have the "you can't stop me attitude". The latter is will in most cases escalate the matter.

Lyaiera

If someone doesn't want their picture taken, and it's not an important, newsworthy even I won't take their picture. I've often found a smile and a wave is enough for most people. Being honest and up front with people will get you a long way, but if someone doesn't want to be in a picture, or have their child in a picture there's the rest of the world to photograph. Why would I want to make someone uncomfortable?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

Don't get me wrong if my kids are getting in the way of a photographer taking their photo of something else, I will move them, no problem at all. Its when the photographer chooses to turn the camera to my kids in the scenario I described previously, I would be curious to know why. It doesn't have to be a confrontation, I would be curious that's all, then I can decide to let it go on, or ask him/her to not take anymore, or remove my kids from the area in question.
The photographers can explain or he can have the "you can't stop me attitude". The latter is will in most cases escalate the matter.

I believe that the photographer you describe is a very small minority. I imagine that if you asked politely, without even giving a reason, that a photographer will cease to take anymore pictures of your child. They may even delete the images and apologise for making you feel uncomfortable (which will probably make you feel more uncomfortable :P)

Parent: Hi.
Photographer: Hey.
Parent: I noticed you were taking pictures of my children playing. I feel a little uncomfortable, can I ask you kindly to please stop?
Photographer: Oh, i'm sorry about that. I didn't realise I was causing you discomfort. I have children of my own, I just think they make great subjects. This is my favourite hobby. Do you want to see the pictures I took of your child?


Now that's the polite way. I imagine it would go a different way if the parent approaches the photographer in an aggressive manner, like some parents suggested they would do (I understand it's easy to claim you will do something on a discussion board, but in fact you wouldn't do this in reality).

Parent: What do you think you are doing?
Photographer: Huh? Sorry, is there something wrong?
Parent: You are taking pictures of MY kids, it's illegal, you didn't ask for my permission. DELETE THEM NOW!
Photographer: Sorry, but we are in a public place and I don't require permission to take pictures of anybody.
Parent: I don't give a damn what you think, delete them pictures now or you and your camera and going to be in pieces...

Change the text as you see fit, the parent may be less aggressive, the photographer may be a smug twat, but you get the point.

liamo wrote: »

The reasonable and human thing to do is to try to understand where the parent is coming from and think that perhaps acceding to a parent's request to desist from behaviour where his child is concerned is not such a hard thing to do.

For me, the reasonable and humane thing to do would be to accept the decision of the photographer.

Instead, these attempts to explain the parent's point of view have been subject to mockery and ridicule, accusations of paranoia, of thinking all photographers are paedophiles, and so on and so on. Anything but address the simple, basic point - "I'd rather you didn't take pictures of my child. Would you please mind not doing that?"

It has been addressed in detail, this statement also indicates that the retorts from the photographers here (regarding the law) has been disregarded. Regarding the paranoia, it really is paranoia (unjustified suspicion and distrust of other people, irrational fear). That's where the discomfort comes from. It's far from unusual but that's an issue which you must learn to deal with and not impose on others.

The answer to that question is usually more questions such as "where is the threat?", "are people known to the family not more likely to be paedophiles?", "why should the feelings of the parent trump my legal rights?"

These are legitimate questions. I don't think they have been answered in most posts. One poster made 4 points in relation to "Where is the threat" which I found to be a great retort (even if I didn't agree with them all).

Frankly, I suspect that a lot of the bluster and posturing by some posters in this thread bears little resemblance to what would happen in real life.

I don't believe anybody has said "if you asked me to stop taking pictures, I wouldn't do it, lol" or something to that effect. I may have missed some of the posts so apologies if that's the case.

That is, if a photographer is taking photos of my child I will approach him and ask him nicely to stop. I rather suspect that very few, if any, of the oh-so-concerned-about-their-rights posters here will actually refuse to accede to my request when facing a real-life parent.

I think this view point has been explained numerous times too. The majority of photographers, here at least, will respond to your request. I just wouldn't go about it with an attitude of entitlement. I think that's where most people have an issue.

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

You ask why the photographer needs to leave? But why should the family.
Neither should, maybe the parent should just stand in front of the lens or have a game of football near the camera. All within their rights within a public place. But of course that is ridiculous carry on, and I am not suggesting that because it is childish.

Well that could be deemed as harassment. Likewise when a photographer is right up in your face continuously taking pictures, but nobody is suggesting they have the right to do that

liamo

Zara Massive Verdigris wrote: »

Parent: Hi.
Photographer: Hey.
Parent: I noticed you were taking pictures of my children playing. I feel a little uncomfortable, can I ask you kindly to please stop?
Photographer: Oh, i'm sorry about that. I didn't realise I was causing you discomfort. I have children of my own, I just think they make great subjects. This is my favourite hobby. Do you want to see the pictures I took of your child?

A nice example of how to make reasonable request and respond in a similar fashion.

magicbastarder

one argument which is regularly mentioned which i find bemusing is the one of 'how do you cope with pervasive CCTV if you don't like having your photo taken?'; apart from the fact that CCTV is very generally a passive recording of your image (so it's not a fair comparison with more 'active' photography), it's also using what most people would regard as a negative thing, to justify your hobby, and as such, i don't think serves the purpose those using that argument intend.

it's setting a poor baseline for the debate if you're arguing 'well, what i'm doing is comparable to something society already has a not-too-fond relationship with already'.

CelticRambler

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's setting a poor baseline for the debate if you're arguing 'well, what i'm doing is comparable to something society already has a not-too-fond relationship with already'.

The CCTV defence is relevant in the context of (paranoid) parents using the argument that a picture of their child may be re-distributed without their consent. Extending that argument logically (which obviously does not apply in case of paranoia) means that these parents should never walk their child down any street or through any store/shopping centre where CCTV is in use.

CCTV and hidden cameras are well known to be used by paedophiles, stalkers and other miscreants (there's a story in the French news today about a head teacher being caught with hundreds of secret "locker room" photos on his computer) - so making reference to it highlights the nonsense of the parental argument.

liamo

CelticRambler wrote: »

The CCTV defence is relevant in the context of (paranoid) parents using the argument that a picture of their child may be re-distributed without their consent. Extending that argument logically (which obviously does not apply in case of paranoia) means that these parents should never walk their child down any street or through any store/shopping centre where CCTV is in use.

CCTV and hidden cameras are well known to be used by paedophiles, stalkers and other miscreants (there's a story in the French news today about a head teacher being caught with hundreds of secret "locker room" photos on his computer) - so making reference to it highlights the nonsense of the parental argument.

Forget any context of parents (paranoid or not) making any argument of the sort. You're missing the point that's been made again and again.

"Strangers photographing my child makes me uneasy. I would appreciate your understanding and co-operation in this matter. Please stop."

Simples.

CelticRambler

No, that's precisely the point - do you, and every other "uneasy" parent make a point of asking every CCTV owner and every school photographer and every one else taking pictures unsupervised of your child to stop? If not, why not?

amdublin

liamo wrote: »

Forget any context of parents (paranoid or not) making any argument of the sort. You're missing the point that's been made again and again.

"Strangers photographing my child makes me uneasy. I would appreciate your understanding and co-operation in this matter. Please stop."

Simples.

"Uneasy? Uneasy?? What are you on about? I'm taking general landscape shots which happen to have some children in it, I've no clue which one is your child, the light is going down, I will be finished in 20 minutes, but in the meantime feel free to move your child out of my shot to settle your CARAZY unease"

amdublin

Hey I am just thinking something, my last post got me thinking. When your child is in dangerous situation you tend to remove the child from the danger rather than the other way round. E.g. if there was a person with a knife in the playground you wouldn't walk up and say "hey there person with a knife that's making me uneasy would you mind putting that away", no you'd remove your child asap. Why if a photographer is so dangerous to your child do you not just take the child away asap.

CabanSail

Below are some good examples of real life encounters. Not exactly but the tone is correct.

Zara Massive Verdigris wrote: »

Parent: Hi.
Photographer: Hey.
Parent: I noticed you were taking pictures of my children playing. I feel a little uncomfortable, can I ask you kindly to please stop?
Photographer: Oh, i'm sorry about that. I didn't realise I was causing you discomfort. I have children of my own, I just think they make great subjects. This is my favourite hobby. Do you want to see the pictures I took of your child?


Now that's the polite way. I imagine it would go a different way if the parent approaches the photographer in an aggressive manner, like some parents suggested they would do (I understand it's easy to claim you will do something on a discussion board, but in fact you wouldn't do this in reality).

Parent: What do you think you are doing?
Photographer: Huh? Sorry, is there something wrong?
Parent: You are taking pictures of MY kids, it's illegal, you didn't ask for my permission. DELETE THEM NOW!
Photographer: Sorry, but we are in a public place and I don't require permission to take pictures of anybody.
Parent: I don't give a damn what you think, delete them pictures now or you and your camera and going to be in pieces...

I have been in these situations and the first definitely outnumbers the second. The most common encounter, in my experience, would be along the lines;

Parent: Hello.
Photographer: Hi.
Parent: Are you taking photo's for the paper?
Photographer: No, I am taking photo's for myself.
Parent: Why?
Photographer:Just for my own use. If any are good maybe a competition somewhere. Are they your kids?
Parent: Yeah, the little boy in blue is mine.
Photographer: Would you like me to send you a copy of some of the photo's?
Parent:Yeah, that would be nice, do you have a card?
Photographer:Yes. Send me an email and remind me of where we were and I will forward some.
Parent: Cheers, thanks
Photographer:Bye.

The the reason I do not usually ask permission first is that when you do so the behaviour changes and people pose for the camera. The essence of what was trying to be captured evaporates. The moment is lost. Likewise taking photo's of people who are not comfortable with being in them is generally not going to make good images either. I would cease for that reason alone.

I will admit that sometimes I have continued taking photo's when someone is not comfortable just for that reason, but it has never involved children. The most recent example was when I was shooting and found myself feeling unwell due to tobacco smoke (I am allergic) when in an area where smoking is illegal. I politely pointed out the law and asked them to stop. They refused saying it was none of my business. Quite incorrect, it is my business as I was in a safe area and their smoking was impacting on me. They still refused, so I took some photo's of them. They then told me I could not do that as I did not have their permission, which is again false. I knew that if they tried to damage gear that they were on the dreaded CCTV and the gear was insured. They wanted to know why I was taking them. I said as evidence. They went away muttering. However I would not make a child feel uncomfortable even if their parent is a twat.

liamo

CelticRambler wrote: »

No, that's precisely the point - do you, and every other "uneasy" parent make a point of asking every CCTV owner and every school photographer and every one else taking pictures unsupervised of your child to stop? If not, why not?

That's called "Reductio ad absurdum" and doesn't warrant a further response.

amdublin wrote: »

"Uneasy? Uneasy?? What are you on about? I'm taking general landscape shots which happen to have some children in it, I've no clue which one is your child, the light is going down, I will be finished in 20 minutes, but in the meantime feel free to move your child out of my shot to settle your CARAZY unease"

The point has been made multiple times that this is not about a landscape shot in which a child happens to be (and I have no problem with that) but it is about a photographer making a child the subject of the shot.

amdublin wrote: »

Hey I am just thinking something, my last post got me thinking. When your child is in dangerous situation you tend to remove the child from the danger rather than the other way round. E.g. if there was a person with a knife in the playground you wouldn't walk up and say "hey there person with a knife that's making me uneasy would you mind putting that away", no you'd remove your child asap. Why if a photographer is so dangerous to your child do you not just take the child away asap.

Ridiculous point. Up there with the crazy talk of parent's thinking everyone's a paedo and family members being more dangerous than strangers.


Again, your're all missing the main point that I and others have tried to make. This is not about a photo in which my child happens to be. It's about a stranger taking shots of my child.

Time for another example encounter (with thanks to Iamxavier for the idea):

"Hi. That's a nice camera. I do a bit of photography myself, you know. Look, I know you're perfectly within your rights to photograph anyone in public but I'd really rather you didn't take photos of my child. Do you mind? Much appreciated."

GG66

I don't see why this has resorted to a conversation about paedophelia. While it's perfectly legal to take someones photo in public I simply prefer not to have my photo taken and used randomly, much less my childrens'.

I prefer to have some control over the use of photos of me and prefer to let my kids decide on their own privacy rather than assume they're going to me ok with me plastering their photo all over social media.

So why would I grant strangers the freedom to do so without questioning how they intend to use it.

Aside from in public, at wedding recently the photographer decided to go ahead and take photos without asking, same photographer who retains rights to their photos and rights to sell them. How is that cool?

It's polite to ask for permission. Don't be surprised if people object or say no. Violence is over the top.

CabanSail

GG66 wrote: »

I don't see why this has resorted to a conversation about paedophelia.

It's because parents bring that up as their concern.

GG66 wrote: »

While it's perfectly legal to take someones photo in public I simply prefer not to have my photo taken and used randomly, much less my childrens'.

I prefer to have some control over the use of photos of me and prefer to let my kids decide on their own privacy rather than assume they're going to me ok with me plastering their photo all over social media.

So why would I grant strangers the freedom to do so without questioning how they intend to use it.

In that case you will need to get the law changed or avoid public spaces where photography is taking place. There is no Privacy in Public.

GG66 wrote: »

Aside from in public, at wedding recently the photographer decided to go ahead and take photos without asking, same photographer who retains rights to their photos and rights to sell them. How is that cool?

It's polite to ask for permission. Don't be surprised if people object or say no. Violence is over the top.

At a wedding it would be a private space and as such the rules concerning photography are controlled by the venue and the host. A wedding photographer will be commissioned to take images of the event. That is their job. If you have an objection then raise it with the people who invited you prior to the event. They can then instruct the photographer not to include you in any images.
The rights to the images will be covered in the contract, so that can vary.

Poncke

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

If you read the context of my post you would understand that that the paranoia is there anyway, not just against photographers, but strangers in general, surely you can understand that. No one is saying that photographers or most strangers are paedophiles, but often reasoned thought doesn't come into it.

If my kids are playing in a park and I am watching them and I am going to notice someone taking pictures of them. I understand that the photographer might want to get the a shot of "happiness" or "pure joy" etc. or even the background shot and my kids might be in the way, either way I will then be curious.
If I can help them out I will. But answering a simple few questions from a parent shouldn't be a struggle, i.e. are my kids in the way? or what will the photos be used for?
Instead response like, "its my right", "its a public place you cant stop me", "its not against the law" are not helping anyone.

Again, as I have said in previous posts, giving attitude towards the parents will not get you the shot you need. They won't care what your rights are, this seems to be what some photographers cannot grasp. And even if you believe a parent is being unreasonable and they politely or otherwise ask you not to take photos of their children, they would expect you not to. Generally they don't care about your income to feed your kids with pictures of theirs. Therefore they will decide the outcome.

Bold part, no one is implying that that would be our response, in this thread it has been clarified it IS our right, however, I will not sum up the law if being asked nicely, I will sum up the law when a parent tells me that is illegal to take photos of their kids, or whatever. Context.