People taking pictures of your kids
 

For example, someone's taking photos in a park and your kids happen to be in the shot. How do you all feel about this? I'm not talking posed photos here. I'm talking about people taking general photography, like a playground setting.

In the last week or so, I've heard of several stories of people who are talking photos of picturesque settings, only to have parents freak out because their kids were potentially in the shot. For example, a guy wanted a picture of some pretty elaborate playground equipment in San Francisco and was accosted by some overprotective parents whose kids were playing in the area.

In my mind, these parents are overreacting. I recognize the potential for perverts but aren't we just feeding paranoia here? I certainly don't get worked up when people are taking pictures around my nieces and nephews. Do people really fear this that much?

I can see their point of view and any photographer should be sensitive to this issue.

All a photographer should have to do is show the shots they took and/or explain what they are doing.

At worst ask for the kids to be taken out of the shot until you are done.

I don't know if this is realistic. As an amateur photographer, I have been in exactly this situation and I get really pissed off at these overprotective parents. I don't even understand their paranoia and I think they are nothing short of absolutely stupid. I can't very well ask the entire park to clear out because I want to photograph it, not to mention it's the people in the park that make the park interesting.

Personally, I don't think photographers need to be sensitive to the issue, I think parents should grow a brain if they are to raise children...

First of all, if people want candid pics of kids (yours or others'), they'll get them in a non-chalant way if that's what it takes. If I'm out there with an SLR camera and your kid gets in my shot... well, get over it! I have two boys, (11y and 6m) and I think this is terribly over-protective. How about being a good parent and teaching them about strangers and how to defend themselves and call for help and things that will protect them when you are NOT there, and stop worrying about every camera, phone, playground equipment piece, and all the other ridiculous shit parents worry about these days instead of being parents?!

Like anyone, they have the right to their image. If someone doesn't want you to take their picture. You can't. They have every right to stop you from taking their picture.

I don't think you need to worry about *every* camera out there but as a parent, I don't like the idea of some people taking pictures of my kids. It's a gut feeling.

I don't worry so much about my kids' images being captured on film. I think it's largely situational. I mean, some creepy dude in the back of a beat-up white van with a telephoto lens pointed in their direction might prompt a call to the police department... :lol: Otherwise it really doesn't bother me. I have inadvertantly gotten pictures of strangers (children included) when shooting my own family or pretty scenery. No one has ever said anything to me about it, but then I'm pretty obviously harmless. (I usually have at least six kids with me and one in a snuggly on my chest. It's obvious I'm taking pictures of MY kids and don't really care overly about theirs.) I don't mind posting my kids on the internet, either, as evidenced by my wonderful website. :D My kids are 1500 miles away from their grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins, so the internet makes a handy way to keep updated. I can't control who sees those pictures and I can't prevent their misuse - and believe me, that really does bother me in a very primal, "mama-bear" type of way. But my actual kids, themselves, are not being harmed and it's just a fact of life that I have to deal with as a Mom with a website... I think the pluses outweigh the minuses. And as long as my kids aren't getting into cars with strangers or walking off into the bushes with camera toting tourists then I'll get by. :icare: The vast majority of children who suffer through abuse, neglect, molestation, or kidnapping are victimized by someone they KNOW and TRUST - a family member, friend, or authority figure. SO I take a deep breath and tell myself that I'm being paranoid and weird, then move on with my life. :)

Fair enough. At the same time, for a person to have "rights" to their image, they must be identifiable in the image. If their back is turned, no rights. If their face is blurry, no rights. It it's only the bottom half of them, no rights. Even then rights only, to the best of knowledge, extend to commercial use. Otherwise, in our litigious society, I'm sure more lawsuits over this would've taken place. Pictures at the beach, lawsuit! Pictures at the zoo, lawsuit! Pictures at a restaurant, lawsuit! It's virtually impossible in public settings to NOT get somebody else in one picture or another. If someone keeps taking picturs of YOUR kid only, or is there regularly, or looks particularly shady, then go over and say something. If the guy is there with photogrpahic equipment, a nice camera, takes a few pictures of something specific (playground equipment, the sports field, the tennis courts), then it's probably nothing... insurance photographer? News photographer? Who knows. Also, how do you stop perverts from taking pictures of your kids with camera phones at the bus stop? School playground during the day? I mean, the truly sick fucks will be much less obvious in most cases.

Charlatan, I think you posted before checking into the legal issues involving photography and public view (at least so far as US law is concerned).

People do not have a right to thier image, and can not stop you from taking thier picture when they are in the "public view." However, there are restrictions on what you can do with such pictures.

From the ""Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images" by Bert Krages. The short answer is you can take anyone's photo in a public place where they are also in public view, and you can publish their photo in a book of street photography without their permission (or post it on your web site). You can't use it to sell something, however."

Also:Link to source.

So, now we've gotten our facts straight for the purposes of discussion.

I think there is a situation where a parent may feel compelled to stop a picture from being taken of thier child.

For example, a photog with a 500mm tele lens, hanging from a tree in your yard, shooting into your child's room. Yeah, that's a beating.

Guy with his pants down, running around the playground, trying to get pics with his camera phone of kids on swings. Yeah, that's a beating.

Guy with a camera follwing your kids around shooting pics of them while offering candy. Yeah, that's a beating.

Guy with camera bag, camera, clothes on and in place, shooting the playground your kids happen to be on...yeah, that's a beating for you if you freak out.

When the person taking pictures has given no reasonable sign that it's...shall we call it..."photography with an ulterior motive" then they should be presumed to be doing just that: taking pictures.

Taking pictures is not a negative act in and of itself. Any motives put upon the photographer, with no reasonable cause, are just that: put on the photographer.
To rephrase that:
With no cause to presume ugly motives, they exist only in the head of the person that put them there.

IE: The parent's mind is so preoccupied with child crimes that they're seeing things that aren't there.

Not everyone is out to molest your kids. In fact, the vast majority are not. It's likely the guy with the camera is doing just what it looks like he's doing, and it's not a crime.

Like was mentioned earlier, the vast majority of abuse is perpatrated by people in positions of trust. Teach your kids to deal with real issues in effective ways. Don't run off guys taking pictures of kids.

It's a sad world when someone can't say somthing like "All children are beautiful" without being suspect.

Looks like you all did it for me, but yea-- if you're in public you can be be video taped and have pictures taken of you as much as someone wants -- as long as its not demonstrable harassment.

The thing is, if someone doesn't want you to do it, don't be an ass and keep doing it.

There is no need to be beligerent about it.

If you want to take a picture of some structure and the kid is in the shot and they don't want you to take the picture, ask them politely to move the kid while you get the shot.

I don't care what your rights are. If I don't want you to take my picture, I am damn well going to let you know about it and if you persist I'm going to ask for your film or for you to erase the picture. You see, I don't know what you are going to do with that film. For all I know you *are* going to sell it.

I don't think we should be too concerned about someone taking pictures in a public setting. From what I understand about the statistics of child abuse, your family, friends and neighbors are the ones to watch out for.

The notion that people have a right to their image is nonesense.

You are in a public area and, thus, have no expectation of privacy. I don't care what your gut feels, I have every right to document land that I have paid for, regardless of whether you're in it or not. Perhaps you need to examine yourself and see, really, why you fear people so much...

As an aside, I think people need to be careful about teaching their children to fear strangers because, not only does it breed a culture of fear (as demonstrated by this thread), it can also prevent your child from seeking the valuable help of strangers...

You have missed my point...

"If I don't want you to take my picture."

99% of the time I don't give a damn. But if I don't want you snapping shots? Have some common courtesy. This isn't a fear of others it is plea for politeness. If I ask you to not take my picture... don't do it.

If you are going to be obstinant, so will I.


As for teaching our kids how to fear strangers... I agree, it is a fine line.

As for "being demonstrated by this thread"... I am the only one here raising this as an issue. I think this is hardly a big issue statistically speaking. And when you actually boil down what I am saying, it has everything to do with courtesy and little to do with fear.

...And perhaps this is the problem. You don't care what my rights are? I find this attitude quite disturbing and, again, I think this warrants some introspection on your part...

I'm not sure I have. When you say things like "If someone doesn't want you to take their picture. You can't," and "I don't care what your rights are," it really doesn't sound like a "plea for politeness." It sounds like you want what you want, you don't care what...

The TV and newspapers have given every parent a thousand reasons to project suspect motives onto other people. They don't need a reason, they don't need a cause, they just need a bullshit "feeling"- driven by irrational fear created by the media.

Oh- and if people talk about "just don't be a dick and stop taking pictures", that's a two-way street. You could just stop being an irrational asshole and let the person continue taking pictures which have nothing to do with you or your kid, and stop letting your fears run everyone else's lives, too.

That's one major part of what's fucked up about this country- people think that their own fears are justification for running other people's lives. STOP LETTING THE FEAR GET TO YOU. These things have ALWAYS happened- there have always been perverts and child molesters, but there weren't always a thousand news vans parked outside every home in america to cover it. Calm the fuck down already.

If you are in public, and if the picture is not for commercial use, taking photographs are fair game. No release required, photographer can take all the pictures he wants.

Parent has no right to stop photographer from taking pictures, has no right to harass photographer, nor assualt him or confiscate his equipment.

Parent doesn't like it. Parent should leave.

Funny thing about being in public, things happen that are beyond your control.

1) I said, "can't" because I misunderstood the law. It should be clear that I was wrong to state that.

2) As for not caring what your rights are... you know exactly what I mean. There are rights and then there is being polite. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should.


I take pictures. I take a lot of pictures. I take them in public. If someone asked me to not take there picture I would respect that.

This has nothing to do with fear. This just respect.

actually here in NYC we have a way to combat this... If you don't have a child in the park, then you don't belong in the park. Helps to keep the park visitors manageable and keep the miscreants away.

Just for clarification (i.e. I'm not from NYC), do you mean the whole park or the playground?

<FONT color=#0000ff>Woman Ticketed for Sitting on a Playground Bench with No Kids<!--mstheme--></FONT>
<P align=center><FONT color=#0000ff><IMG height=480 src="http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/education/assets/sandra_catena.jpg" width=640 border=0></FONT></P>
<P>New York - It's an only in New York story.&nbsp; A woman was given a ticket for sitting on a park bench because she doesn't have children.</P>
<P>The Rivington Playground on Manhattan's East Side has a small sign at the entrance that says adults are prohibited unless they are accompanied by a child.&nbsp; Forty-seven-year-old Sandra Catena says she didn't see the sign when she sat down to wait for an arts festival to start.&nbsp; Two New York City police officers asked her if she was with a child.&nbsp; When she said no, they gave her a ticket that could bring a $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail.</P>
<P>The city parks department says the rule is designed to keep pedophiles out of city parks, but a parks spokesman told the Daily News that the department hoped police would use some common sense when enforcing the rule. The spokesman told the paper that ticketing a woman in the park in the middle of the day is not the way you want to enforce the rule.</P>
<P align=center><IMG height=480 src="http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/education/assets/park_rules.jpg" width=640 border=0></P>
<P align=center><IMG height=10 src="http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/assets/orange_wavy_line.gif" width=600 border=0></P>
<P>It happened to a woman from Jersey City.&nbsp; The ticket was given under city law designed to keep pedophiles out of city parks, but the woman says the city went too far.&nbsp; The Rivington Playground is a lovely place for parents to take their young children.&nbsp; It is even protected by a rule that prevents adults from sitting there without a child - and apparently they mean it.&nbsp; Ask Sandra Catena, a dance instructor from Jersey City who walked into the park on Saturday while she was waiting for an arts festival to begin, when she was approached by two police officers.</P>
<P>Sandra Catena, Dance Instructor: "They said it's against the law, you have to be accompanied by a child to sit in a kiddie park and they were giving me a summons.&nbsp; I said 'you're kidding right?' and he said 'no.'"</P>
<P align=center><IMG height=240 src="http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/education/assets/wabc_092705_bench4.jpg" width=320 border=0></P>
<P>Already guarded by two officers, one of whom had his hand on his gun, according to Catena, two more police officers soon arrived and stood nearby with their hands on their guns in case there was trouble - from the dance instructor.&nbsp; But there was no trouble.&nbsp; They wrote the summons and now the dance instructor has to face the bar of justice for her ... crime.</P>
<P>Source: <A href="http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&amp;id=3480711">abclocal.go.com</A> WABC 27 September 2005 © Associated Press all rights reserved</P>

I think one of the ideas that should be brought up is how we'd hope the conversation would go.

In this example, let's say I'm a "normal looking" white male with a camera bag, big digital SLR, and I'm taking pictures in a public park. You come up to me and ask why/what I'm taking pictures of.
You start:

"Hey buddy, what are you doing with that camera?"

"Hi there. I'm an amatur photographer, and I'm taking pictures of the kids at play for a "City Life" series I'm posting on my blog."

"You selling those pictures?"

"No, I just post the best ones on my blog."

"Oh, okay. I was wondering what was up."

"That's cool."

"I'd prefer you don't take pictures of my kids."

"I suppose I can handle that. Can you ask them to stay on the opposite side from the swing set, I'm shooting that right now."

"Sure, thanks!"

"You got it."

Now, that's one way it could go. Or, it could go like this:


"I'd prefer you don't take pictures of my kids."

"I suppose I can handle that. Can you ask them to stay on the opposite side from the swing set, I'm shooting that right now."

"FU buddy, they can play where they want."

"Well, then they might be in a shot."

"FU buddy, stop taking pictures."

"No, FU, take your kids out of the public space if you don't want them in it."

etc.

All things considered, there's two ways to the "respect" street. If you ask me to not take pics of your kids and I try to respect your request, you should pay some respect back. That's how things work.

Honestly, I'd be suprised if a parent questioned a photog, recieved a legit answer, and decided to be an ass about it. Then again, with people today...

There is a third way that could happen as well, but I agree that the first way is the best way...

"I'd prefer you don't take pictures of my kids."

"Too bad. The law says I am entitled to take pictures where I want..."

"OK, but I'd really prefer you didn't take them of my kids."

"FU buddy, I'll take pictures where I want" As he continues to snap away.

"I SAID, don't take any pictures of my kids..." Parent scoops up kids as the photographer continues to snap away. "You're really being an asshole, you know?"

"FU buddy!"


What should be clear is that either side of the equation can be an ass.

L0L

That's a funny convo Charlatan. You're absolutely right too! Either side is responsible for a little mutual respect and undertanding.

lol, again. For some reason that really tickeled me. Kick ass, dude.

Charlatan, I disagree with you in that the main issue is still fear, as can be demonstrated by Cyntheiq's story. For instance, let's take the start of your conversation:Why would she give a flying fuck if you were taking pictures of public property? Because she's afraid of you for no reason other than she doesn't know you and she wants to impede your life because of it. There's nothing about this scenario that deserves any respect, whatsoever.

Seriously, where's the respect for me? Assuming I'm the scum of the Earth for no reason is not giving me respect. You might as well cross the street because a black man is walking down it. A fourth and ideal conversation would be none because taking pictures in public is a non-issue and anything less is succumbing to rabid paranoia...


How's this for a conversation:

"Nice day!"

"Yes, it is! Few photographers enjoy taking pictures in bad weather... Sometimes, they can make dramatic photos, though!"

"It looks like you really like photography."

"Yeah, there's just something about capturing a slice of life and sharing it with the world. I love the city!"

This kind of conversation won't make breaking news but it's far more representative of real life than your worst fears...

What about seeing if the photographer can give you their phone number or exchange e-mail addresses or something so that you can get in touch with them later and maybe get copies of the pics?? That's kindof how I'd be looking at it.

Besides - if you get their number then you can look up their name possible. Then you can check the local sexual offender registry.

Either way the parent wins. Get some decent pics of the kids at play. OR find out who's scoping out your kids and if they're a real risk.

No matter what - if both parties can be polite there shouldn't need to be an issue. Both parties can compromise to keep the peace.

I don't mean to be obstinate about the issue but consider this. If the police don't have the authority to ask for my identity, what makes you think you do?

Honestly, I really think you have to ask the fundamental question, "what are you afraid of?"

If I were to use your own paranoia against you, I would say that I'm afraid to give you my name and/or number because you can do a lot more with a name than you can with just a face. Just ask any investigator with a picture of an unknown suspect...

I don't understand what the big deal is you seem to be having with charlatan's responses.
it just seems to be basic common courtesy, in the states at least, to respect others' wishes.

people don't like their pictures taken for a whole variety of reasons, not just fear of strangers.
I'm very lucky to get candid shots of my wife and her girlfriends...unless they happen to turn out really good. but it's almost always a reluctant peek at the LCD before acquiescense.


btw, in the states, the police do have the authority to ask for (and obtain) ID.

I wouldn't be ASKING for the identity. I'd be offering to purchase a copy of the picture of my kid from the photographer. I'd attempt to make some way of making contact after the picture was printed or at least get it e-mailed to myself. If the photographer thought past sharing the photo of the parents child with the parent then perhaps his motives ARE negative. If he has nothing to hide then why would he refuse ANY form of contact at the expense of loosing money?

No, what you suggested was trying to get personal information for the purpose of your own amatuer background check, not to "buy pictures".

That sounds like a great idea, but i'll do you one better- let's install cameras in everyone's homes so we can find the criminals... because if you've got nothing to hide, why not find the criminals easier?

This is a classic example of the extremely horrible and ridiculous invasion of privacy known as "if you have nothing to hide, why do you need privacy?"

With no personal disrespect intended, it is precisely this horrible, backwards, illogical, and self-serving point of view regarding people's right to privacy that allows the U.S. to slip, bit by bit, into a further erosion of civil rights.

God damn, where the motherfucking hell are you guys when I'm defending privacy rights or attacking those with irrational fears in other threads? I'd gotten the idea that no one gave a fuck about things like freedom of speech or even individual privacy. I knew deep down that there had to be people out there who still believed... :)

When I was a kid, the local newspaper guy took a picture of me at a public event. It didn't seem to bother my parents, and my picture was in the newspaper.

But, now they would have asked to see ID that he in fact DID work for the newspaper and wasn't using that as some kind of cover story.

I wouldn't have a problem with someone just taking pictures, but zooming in or clearly identifing who they were might be a problem if they get posted on the Internet. Someone could look at who registered the site, get their address, look for parks in the area, find out what school the kids go to, watch for them in the parking lot at school, follow them home, find out from public records what the family name is, finding the first name won't be too hard at that point, then they could get the kids e-mail address or mySpace account. But that is how the dramatic fear mongoring media thinks, is it reality or not, I don't know...

I'm surprised by my own zeal over this issue and, if you look up my other posts, I think you will find this is atypical of me. Perhaps it's because, unlike most other discussions I participate in, I've actually had personal experience in this issue and the original poster struck a nerve...

To speak of respecting others' wishes, how about respecting my wish to photograph public property. If your argument is going to be so one-sided, it should at least be on the side of the one exercising their rights, rather than the one trying to infringe upon the rights of others...

Well, when the original poster uses words like "freak" and "overprotective" to describe people's reaction to their children being photographed, it really doesn't sound like they're being camera shy for their children. I think I made it clear that I was referring to parents who are afraid of "child predators," for lack of a better generic term. In my case, the woman felt I was a potential kidnapper. This is what most of us are talking about...

I had thought that the Fourth Amendment would protect you from this but I'm surprised to discover that requesting ID is not considered a search. However, it should be noted that this is the only right that the police have without probable cause.
Perhaps more importantly, this is not relevent to the topic of the thread...

So, it would be okay if I got the parent's name and phone number so I can contact them to sell them photos of their children?

Of course this isn't really what you're talking about. You're trying to say that I should reassure them that I'm not dangerous, as if they have a reason to think I am! All I am saying is how irrational this fear is and how much I wish people would just grow a brain and get over it.

You said, in an earlier post, "No matter what - if both parties can be polite there shouldn't need to be an issue." Let me ask you, how polite is it to assume that I'm a pedophile? I consider it to be quite rude and it may very well be why I'm so adamant over the issue. Please understand, they are the ones being rude, not me...

I don't know, my participation on this forum is somewhat sporadic. Where have you been posting these threads? If it's in Tilted Politics, I no longer browse there. I learned a long time ago that the people there don't actually consider what I post so I gave it up...

Also, as I mentioned to another poster, I am unusually passionate about this subject, probably because it actually affected me, once. I mean, really... I was just out of high school. What would a teenager want with a toddler? Fuck off!

I don't think that my or charlatan's stance is one sided. What he said, and I support, is the notion to respect other people in public places. we can hopefully discuss this without getting into a rights v. rights discussion--because all you will do is find that people have conflicting notions of their "rights". and given the hysteria of child abductions in our country right now, inconsiderate actions are likely to result in legislative or local bodies passing more restrictions on photography in public spaces.

the words used in the OP were interpretations by an observer. We don't actually know the motives of the parents. while you were accused of something unreasonably, none of us know whether those parents have actually had experience with molestors actuallly trying to snipe pictures of their children. if they have, or if there were reports of a lurker snapping lurid photos of kids upside down on the jungle gym, would you still argue that they were acting irrationally?

I know you were specifically referring to this particular fear or irrationality. but I was using another example to illustrate that people don't want their pictures taken for a number of reasons. I hope you agree with me that you can't decide what their motives are unless they tell you. and in the case where they say something that's unfounded, coming off like an ass (and I'm not saying you did or would) isn't going to alleviate their concerns.

neither you nor they know what others intend to do with pictures of their children, despite what your intentions are. look, you can't post pictures of children on this forum, regardless of if they are clothed. you can't control what molestors will do with your photos, but you can control the composition and the presentation. let's not get into a discussion of whether parents have a right to protect the image of their children, let's focus on a parent's obligation to protect his or her child because parents will react pragmatically, not legally. and since you are an amateur, I suspect you are unaware of journalist ethics. while not legally binding, they reflect the general consensus of the profession. and since you purport to be acting in that capacity, would you not agree that it's prudent to abide by the ethical considerations the body of professionals have agreed upon?

if the intent is to get the landscape, and people don't want to be in the picture, then wait until the shot is clear.
if the intent is to get a packed park for ambiance, then snap away. but why become irate when anyone, child or parent, desires to not be in your composition? the scene described in these instances is the exception, not the norm so there really isn't too much issue to get all worked up with one another in this thread.

why create a negative impression of photographers? I'm one, and I don't act insensative and haven't ever had a problem obtaining a composition I was seeking (outside the candids I described already).
what could you possibly hope to gain other than creating tension between the public and photographers?

charlatan's point was to be respectful of your "subjects'" wishes and the current social climate surrounding perceived danger to children, and not be an ass. that doesn't sound like a one-sided argument to me, so I chimed in. I think our position is for a balanced and respectful interaction between composer and composed.

Next time that happens, PM me and I'll see about jumping in. :) lol

Original Article

I believe this would be an example of fear trumping rationality.

In this case, enough people decided thier fear of someone doing somthing with a photograph was worth taking away other people's rights. A sincere case of: "I'm afraid of you because you might do somthing, so want all people to stop doing everything I'm afraid of." Even worse, it's not taking the picture they're afraid of, it's what might be done with the picture later. That logic also rules out donating your kids clothes to the Goodwill. Who knows what some could happen to your kid's old clothes after someone purchases them?

Score:
Culture of Fear: 332,124,231
Rational thought: 3

Actually, here's the original article from The Record:

Items of interest not reproduced in the reprint of the article indicate that there appears to be bad blood between a number of parents and this complainant, that the other parents seemingly support the actions of the city, and that she apparently relishes in exercising her rights to the extent of becoming burdensome to the sensabilities of others around her.

I'll just reiterate that attitudes like hers are more likely to result in legislation limiting her rights rather than "protecting" them in a classic example of winning the battle only to ulitmately lose the war.

How you move from my example of current limitations of digital reproductions and dissemination of photographs of minors (restrictions I'm presuming most members here understand and support the logic and necessity thereof) to claiming such logic prevents parents from donating discarded inanimate objects to charities is beyond me. The analogy is simply not there for myself.

So this train of thought is limited to someone outright taking a photo of your kid? If one is to be petrified of such things, I'd say you should be more worried about camera phones. You'd never even KNOW a picture was taken. Oh, and child molesters are just as happy to go to any random park and do their own stalking than to let someone else start them off... Don't you ever watch Law & Order: SVU?

In all seriousness, worrying about shit like this is what removes personal freedoms from our ever shrinking arsenal. It's like the thread about taking equipment out of playgrounds. I mean, your kid could get hit by a car crossing the street. Is the answer to never let them cross? Or pass laws that prevent cars from driving on your street? Or is the answer ot be a fucking parent, teach them to look both ways and pray for their safety... really THAT is the only answer. The same goes for playground equipment, the same goes for predators. Kids are kids, they'll find a way to scrape their knee or break a bone. Sick fucks are sick fucks, and they'll find a way to let loose their shit on society, pictures or no pictures, parents knowing or not.

Speaking of what you support, when you say things like "it just seems to be basic common courtesy, in the states at least, to respect others' wishes," why are you only thinking of the parent's wishes and not mine? That's what I mean by one sided. Why weren't you thinking about the parents respecting my wish? Obviously, it's because you don't care about my wishes. Again, one sided...

Now, you might think that I'm being one sided by only considering my wishes but, at least, I have a right to do my wishes. Since they don't have a right to do their wish, I think starting with my wish and then justifying theirs is simply common sense, something this worlds doesn't seem to have enough of. Now, I highly suspect that the parents only wish for their children to be safe, in which case, their wishes are granted! I present no danger, so I am respecting their wish, so why the hell won't they respect mine! Of course, we both know why they don't care about my rights... Which comes back to the ultimate question, "why are they afraid of me." A question that know one has been willing to address...

Just so you know, the discussion of legal rights only came up when Charlatan brought up the false notion that "like anyone, they have the right to their image," so don't talk to me about discussing rights v rights.

Well, the original post was rather sparse with details, so we don't know what the original poster knew or not. If the woman that accosted simply told me, in a calm manner, that there were reports of a sexual predator in her neighbourhood and I made her nervous, I might have been more understanding. Instead, she yelled at me as if I were off my mind to want to take pictures of my beautiful city. Fuck her...

It was clear that you were illustrating another reason why people don't want their pictuers taken, it just wasn't clear why... And, to be fair to me, I'm "coming off like an ass" (I don't think so but you're entitled to your opinion) to you and not these irrational parents.

There are two points I'd like to address in this paragraph but I don't like breaking up quoted paragraphs, so hopefully you'll see what I'm referring to, above...

First, you're right about how they don't know what my intentions are with their photos but that's exactly my point. They don't know what my intentions are so why do they assume that my intentions are so sinister? To say that they have an obligation to protect their children regardless of legality is, at the risk of offending you, a cheap cop-out. If a parent killed a bystander enjoying the view of children at play, would you call that a parental obligation? Of course, this is an extreme example but it is no less stupid. I agree that parents have an obligation to protect their children but I disagree that they may be stupid about it.

Secondly, you suspect that, because I'm an amateur, I'm unaware of "journalistic ethics," so lets go with that. Because I'm an amateur, I'm not likely to know journalistic ethics, so why would you expect me to? How would I follow them if I don't know them since, by your own admission, that's the typical case? This isn't really relevent, I just wanted to show you how questionable your reasoning can be.

My real second point is that the conduct of professionals don't reflect the expected conduct of amateurs. To give you a cheesy example, you need a license to cook food for public consumption but you certainly don't need one to cook for yourself! More realistically, one of the advantages of being an amateur is that you're, often, not bounded by regulations that professionals are.

Furthermore, what "journalistic ethics" are you referring to? When I walk past the checkout counter to see Kirsten Dunst, topless, censored by black bars, on tabloids or the newspaper featuring photographs of arrested suspects hiding their faces from the press, I wonder what professional ethics you're referring to...

We're not talking about people not wanting to be in my photograph. We're talking about people who think I'm a creep for wanting to take a photograph and thinking that this give them the right to restrict my rights. These are the people I'm objecting to...

My point is that the current social climate has become stupid and doesn't deserve respect.

Your position is to appease parents, probably because you think their fear has some merit, and to do what I can while preserving their idiocy.

Perhaps there's some hope in educating parents and a natural first step is to point out their ignorance and show how unreasonable their fear is. After all, you can't solve a problem if you don't know that you have one, right? However, as you can see, no one wants to even address the issue, mentioning other reasons for not wanting photographs taken or threatening the introduction of more restrictive laws, which I find ironic. Lets say it together: "The fear of strangers taking photographs is unreasonable."

When I re-read this thread, I can see that my point really was simply "I think parents should grow a brain if they are to raise children." Actually, it was, to paraphrase myself, that parents should understand that there's nothing to fear. Then Charlatan came in, saying "if someone doesn't want you to do it, don't be an ass and keep doing it," suggesting that taking photographs was being an ass and to simply stop doing it. Well, documenting life is not being an ass and I think this attitude is asinine and, hence, the discussion continues...

lindalove, was the example you used the online comic guy from Real Life?

knifemissile,

I don't appreciate your commentary on my reasoning abilities. you are upset, and you explained your reasoning why, but I value your opinion and I continue to engage you in a civil manner without impugning your intelligence or your reasoning skills. I would appreciate the same courtesy be extend to me from you.

perhaps we have a difference of opinion; or perhaps you should ease off me for a minute and try to understand what I'm getting at instead of advocating for you position so strongly you shut down rational discourse. I'm aware of the dynamic of the politics section of this forum, and at least some of the reasons underpinning your absence from there. why would you want to reproduce that over here in general discussion?

Journalists have a professional code of ethics. it's obtainable. all professional groups have codes of ethics, and none of them that I know of short of the legal and medical profession are regulatory in nature. my point to you is that if you assume the role of a documentarian, and you did, which is different from the casual photographer (that is if you engage in a claim that you not only have a right but an obligation to capture certain images), then at the very least you should comport yourself in a manner consistent with other people in the profession. at the very least, you impung the profession you are claiming to represent by your unethical behavior. now you could use examples of tabloid press, but that doesn't help your case in my opinion. rather, achieving the opposite given that at least some of the basis of the lack of respect the general public has toward tabloid press is it doesn't adhere to professional standards of ethics.

using your "cheesy" example: it's certainly true that you wouldn't need a license to feed yourself. but we're not talking about taking pictures of oneself now are we? at the very least, we ought to produce appropriate analogies if one is to claim their relevence in the disucssion at issue. if you held a public bbq in the park, you would at the very least adhere to the safety guidelines the licensing process detailed--I hope. Do you not owe the people you're feeding, morally and ethically speaking--not necessarily legally--that basic courtesy?

Neither charlatan nor myself suggested that taking pictures of people was being an ass. that's totally unfair to either of us and we tried repeatedly to make that clear. all we suggested was that your mode of conduct can be moderated WHILE you are doing what you wish to do. I never suggested that anyone's rights superceded any one else's, rights and assumptions of obligations tend to collide, precisely why I pointed out that such a discussion would essentially go nowhere. I simply suggested to you to not get into a tiff with me about what your rights vs. parents' rights actually are--because such a discussion is fruitless on a number of levels. 1) we would have to suss out all the relevant case law and local statutes and 2) it's totally irrelevant to how parents are going to act anyway

I didn't tell you to appease parents, but I did recommend rationally speaking to someone and explaining that you harbor no ill will and would like to continue, and if they object, hey no problem, move your kid. I specifically stated that I wasn't referring to your behavior as acting like an ass, so seriously dude, get off your kick. as a fellow photographer, I suggested you consult the profession's ethical code for guidance (which have to do with behaving ethically, and not legally) and warned you that your attitude toward others is going to backfire given the climate right now. stand your ground, demand your rights to take pictures of children when their parents don't want you to, and watch the legislative bodies respond by passing statutes limiting your ability to do so. if that makes you feel vindicated, that's your right, as well, since you seem so keen on justifying your behavior despite its negative ramifications with rights claims.

I already gave you some specific instances that might explain why parents would suspect you without attributing their behavior to irrational fear. you can choose to believe them or not. I don't know the specific details of the original incident nor do I know your particular circumstances. but I can tell you how you appear to me in this thread, where I and at least one other person responded to you in a rational and calm manner, and in my opinion you do not come off very well at all. I didn't say you were acting like an ass to that woman, but I do feel like you are toward me and it makes me wonder just how that interaction transpired between her and you.

I'm really not used to Canadians being so forceful so you've taken me quite aback and to be perfectly frank with you it doesn't reflect nicely on the opinion I beforenow held of you. whether that is of any importance to you is something you alone can judge. I believe I've presented my case clearly, politely, and now repeatedly and if your intention was to run an equally valid but different point of view out of the discussion then you've succeeded. have a good one, knifemissile, and maybe a cold one wouldn't be inappropriate.

Knifemissle.

1) Let's move on from my erroneous assumption about the legality of taking my picture in public. My reasoning came from the need of getting a release signed if you want to use it for commercial purposes.

2) I don't think we disagree here. I am taking the position of rude photographer who, when politely asked to stop, doesn't respect my wishes. You are taking the position of a photographer being accosted by a rude person who objects to being photographed.

The common element here is rudeness.

The person who accused you of "creepiness" was an ass. If she had concerns she should have approached you in a calm rational manner and asked what you were up to and then taken appropriate action (which could have included anything from letting you carry on, to asking you to let her get her kids out of the shot, etc.). The key is communication and, if neccessary negotiation.

I feel like you are coming at this situation and seeing it through the lense of your negative experience and are blind to other possibilities. I have to believe that you can see the situation where someone doesn't want there picture taken and doesn't freak out. Now we seem to have established that they have no rights and that you can do what you please. Answer this: Is this how you want to go through life? Do you want to forego communication and interaction and rely only on what your legal rights are? (clearly I am exagerating here).

The thing to remember is that anyone can be an ass. The question is do you want to be one and how do you react when you meet one?

I apologize for this. It was not meant as an attack. While responding, I had read that portion, realized how little sense it made and pointed it out to you in an ineffective attempt to get you to question yourself. In retrospect, it was probably as effective as pointing out your spelling mistakes. It was likely just something you had quickly thought up while typing out the rest of your response...

I think I do understand what you are saying and I'm disagreeing with you and telling you why. Just so there's no misunderstanding, you think that anyone who takes public pictures that include people are responsible for reassuring the people that they (the photographer) are no danger. Is this correct?

If it is, perhaps we can just start there...

I used the example of taboids and the newspaper (which you failed to mention) to exemplify the point that journalistic professionals don't appear to follow any sort of ethics that I can see, so I might not want to act "professionally."

Regardless, I'm not part of the press, I'm simply a private citizen and I comport myself as such. Anything else would just be pretentious on my part, including any claims that I represent any profession...

Yes, the are many ways to interpret my "cheesy" example... Which makes it cheesy... Hence, why I told you it was cheesy... So that you wouldn't take it too seriously. My interpretation was that the photos would be for personal use, much like the food you cook yourself.

Well, when Charlatan says "the thing is, if someone doesn't want you to do it, don't be an ass and keep doing it," and you say "Charlatan's point was to be respectful of your 'subjects' wishes and the current social climate surrounding perceived danger to children, and not be an ass," it suggests that you're saying "that taking pictures of people was being an ass." Obviously, there's a lot of context around all that but you and Charlatans posts do sound like you think that people who take public pictures, despite parental objections, is being an ass, rather than parents objectioning to public pictures are being asses, which I think is far more accurate considering you're doing nothing wrong and their concerns are baseless.

I had forgotten about your request to remove the focus of legal rights to the discussion while I was describing why you were one-sided and I wasn't, as much (it would be hard for me to deny that I'm picking a side). What I had meant to do was just to point out how it came up...

Well, having to explain that I harbour no ill will, even rationally, is appeasing parents, so... Yes, you were telling me to appease parents.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that escalating a parental encounter to a violent confrontation is a useful thing. However, I do want to impart onto parents that their fears are unreasonable, even if it is done calmy (in fact, that would be prefereble).

When a parent approaches you with concern and you reassure them with words like "oh, don't worry. I'm not one of them," you're reinforcing their fears of "them," as if they were something to be feared. They are not. They are figments of our imagination and the short end of a bell curve of an extremely large population...

As an aside, what parents that would support restrictive legislation won't understand is that when they restrict my rights they are restricting their own, for my rights are their rights and the rights of their children. So, when they try to make life hard for me, they're going to make life hard for their children as well. Way to "protect" your children you parental idiots...

Hmm, how do I address this?

Firstly, could you point out the "specific examples" of parental suspicions not brought about by irrational fear? The closest I could find were the third paragraph of post 28 and the fourth paragraph of post 36, neither of which seem to be examples of suspicion, specific or otherwise.

Secondly, I think you will find my demeanor to change from thread to thread (although I'd be interested to see if people agree with my assessment of myself!), so imagine how it may differ from a web forum to a personal encounter! While I have a thread that suggests there's no anonymity on this forum, there is relative anonymity in that you don't know who I am outside of it. For better or worse (either side is debatable), this allows for a change in how we approach communication. Someone who is extremely shy in person may be loud and obnoxious here. I also think my attitude here is atypical of me but you can, of course, judge for youself. I make some really good posts...

Well, you're probably not used to Canadians being accused of kidnapping, either! Out of curiosity, did you have an opinion of me before this thread?

A good point. To be honest, I really don't know what I could have done with my accuser. I think I might very well have been more afraid of her than she was of me! She really didn't care what I had to say for myself and the only thing I could think to do was calmly back away.

I don't claim to have any answers, I just think this attitude is ludicrous and do wish that people could see that. Everything I have ever posted in this thread is towards this end...

Actually, that's wrong. You can take a picture of anyone as long as 1) you're in a public place, or on private property that you have permission to be on and 2) they are in a public place or in a place that is visible with the naked eye from a public place.

To break this down with examples:

Kids in a public park - OK

Kids on the unfenced front lawn of their house - OK

Kids on the fenced in back yard of their house that you have to climb the fence on the neighbor's property to get the shot - not OK

Kids in a gas station that you shoot through the windows while standing on the sidewalk with a regular lens - OK

Kids in a gas station that you shoot through the windows while standing on the sidewalk that's so far away you have to use a supertelephoto lens to see them - not OK.

You may be thinking of the fact that they have a COMMERCIAL right to their image -- in other words if you take their picture and then use it in an advertisement for something without their permission, you're in the wrong.

(But if you take their picture and then use it in a magazine/newspaper/TV news broadcast, you're doing nothing wrong.)

As is usually the case in a thread that interests me, I show up late.

So, my opinion is thus: Yes, we have a legal right to photograph anyone in a public place as long as it is not for commercial purposes, but I will always respect the rights of someone who doesn't want their photograph taken.

Some people don't like having their photo taken. If they ask that I don't photograph them, then I don't photograph them. I understand it's a different situation if you're approached in a beligerent manner by someone, but often the situation can be diffused if you are polite about it. When it comes to photographing children, I make it a habit of just not doing it unless I'm specifically asked to. I have this policy not because I'm worried some irate parent will accost me, but because I can't stand Anne Geddes

That sentiment was noticeably lacking at the Wellstone and King funerals. Little attention is paid to it by gay rights demonstrators, or anti-war demonstrators, either.

The point being, you have the right to dislike what someone else is doing, but you are not a law unto yourself.

Although this is a stereotype, it would probably not be wise to follow that course of action with a typical New Yorker, unless you want your kids to hear some very grown-up language. Come to think of it, a southern redneck would probably react unfavorably to you as well.

You don't own the park. If the other person doesn't feel like giving you the picture, or erasing it, your choices are to recognize that you aren't allowed to tell people what to do, or find some other place to take your kids.