Interesting chat on Newstalk about Public Photography.

mrmac

Good discussion on Newstalk, George Hook, about the problem of taking pictures in public, especially kids.

smash

Not near a radio, but I can understand the concern of parents.

trishw78

where does one find newstalk on the radio dail

trooney

steve06 wrote: »

Not near a radio, but I can understand the concern of parents.

What concern exactly?

AnCatDubh

could listen online - newstalk.ie

Paulw

106 fm.

Just heard the end of the article. Heard the "guest" talk about photographing children's reactions at sporting events, and how "professional photographers would always get permission before taking a photo of a child's reaction". What a load of rubbish.

trishw78

It appears my radio only likes 2fm.

Greenmachine

What exactly did he say.

mrmac

Sorry, I missed the name of the "Guest" but I think he was from the Irish Times???

Basically, he was stating that a Pro just wouldn't photograph a minor, without prior consent to do so, and that, like in the UK, some schools and parks are actually banning cameras.

Paulw

mrmac wrote: »

Sorry, I missed the name of the "Guest" but I think he was from the Irish Times???

Basically, he was stating that a Pro just wouldn't photograph a minor, without prior consent to do so.

From experience, he's wrong. Have a browse through Inpho or Sportsfile sites, for images taken from important games (Magner's League, Heineken Cup, GAA games, international football, etc) and you will certainly see images of children. I've also photographed at these games, and have seen the vast number of images taken of the crowd/crowd reaction, including kids.

soccerc

mrmac wrote: »

Basically, he was stating that a Pro just wouldn't photograph a minor, without prior consent to do so.

Talking nonsense I'm afraid.

At a major sporting or any event you are under enough pressure to get the shot never mind seek permission.

smash

trooney wrote: »

What concern exactly?

A friend had his children swimming in Bray beach and someone sopped to take photos. He demanded they be deleted and found it disturbing that someone would take photos of his kids like that.

Sporting events are different.

mrmac

The "guest" also made reference to taking pictures in parks, playgrounds etc. and how parents can get angry if they think you've taken a picture of their child.

GhostInTheRuins

Paulw wrote:

Just heard the end of the article. Heard the "guest" talk about photographing children's reactions at sporting events, and how "professional photographers would always get permission before taking a photo of a child's reaction". What a load of rubbish.

"Hi there, is that your child?"

"Yes it is."

"He looks like he'll react well to the match, very into the game you see"

"Yes I suppose he does have some great reactions, I've noticed it myself"

"Good, good....listen, you wouldn't mind me talking a few pictures of him would you?"

"I don't see why not........hmm..........you're not a paedophile are you?

"Nope, not as far as I'm aware"

"Ah that's grand so, fire away"

Paulw

steve06 wrote: »

A friend had his children swimming in Bray beach and someone sopped to take photos. He demanded they be deleted and found it disturbing that someone would take photos of his kids like that.

Sporting events are different.

The parent had no right to "demand", but had every right to request.

If someone asked me, of course I'd delete the images. However, if someone demanded, I'd be less likely to comply.

smash

Paulw wrote: »

The parent had no right to "demand", but had every right to request.

If someone asked me, of course I'd delete the images. However, if someone demanded, I'd be less likely to comply.

Yes they do have a right, it's a minor, their child and god knows who you could be or what you'd do with the photos or why you'd take them in the first place!

Paulw

steve06 wrote: »

Yes they do have a right, it's a minor, their child and god knows who you could be or what you'd do with the photos or why you'd take them in the first place!

Yeah, they have a right to ask. But, at the same time, the photographer has a right to take photographs, especially in public places.

Surely what someone sees, and does in their mind is more of an issue, and that's not something you can stop. Stopping someone taking a photo can not stop that though.

The vast majority of photographers are normal every day people who just enjoy the world and photography. Paranoid parents are not making the situation better by panicing, but are in fact making the world worse.

Crispin

I know at the street performance world championships many of the performers had children participate in their act. Some of these instances made the best photos. I can't imagine any Pro's trying to find the parents in the audience to ask permission. But in fairness I didn't hear the interview so don't want to comment too much on second hand info.
I can agree that if I was doing street photography and was taking pictures of a particular person (child or adult) then I would be more inclined to ask permission!

CabanSail

steve06 wrote: »

Yes they do have a right, it's a minor, their child and god knows who you could be or what you'd do with the photos or why you'd take them in the first place!

No - They do not have a "right"


As Paul says they can ask & if the Photographer agrees then it's from their good nature. Nothing to do with any rights.

smelltheglove

As a parent and a photographer I think there are different instances to consider.

a) whilst a child is engaging in a private task such as walking to school, playing in the garden, swimming, playing in the playground or park I think permission should be requested.

b) when a child is engaging in a public task such as going to a match, going to the street performers or a gig where photographers are expected then I do not think permission needs to be requested.

If someone took a picture of one of my children outside my house, in the playground or even at the school without my permission I would not be a happy bunny, even more so whilst swimming, it is one thing that I actually fear of on holidays, someone taking my girls pictures int heir swimsuits. I took my kids to the street performers with me, the only child other than my own that I photographed was one included in the act, I dont feel right photographing children without permission, however as I posted on here elswhere a number of people took pictures of one of my children and I was delighted to see that, the specificate occasion where the photographs were taken was something I would have photographed myself and I was delighted to see there were others who appreciated the moment, just wish I could see the results. I do think there is a huge difference in each of the occasions and I think it is only common sense as to which is right and which is wrong.

smash

That's what I was trying to say... If it's not an event and it's a private family activity I don't think anyone that's not involved should be taking photos!

I didn't mind on St Patricks day when my son was waving a flag around at the parade that someone took a photo, but while out swimming on the beach or in a playground - that's a different matter in my eyes!

thebaz

I believe child pornoghraphy and paedophilia are the lowest and most despicable crimes , the destruction of a childs innocence . Just as every priest is not a paedopholile, so too people who like to photograph children playing should be not classed weird. Hopefully Cartier Bresson was not, but some of his innocent random shots of children playing are some of his best . Now when I see shots of children, i stop, look for the guardian , its sad we can no longer record children playing , cause of the warpt actions and thougts of a small few - I guess this is the way it is , and the way it will stay , sadly the paedophiles will look elsewhere, in particular areas where no regulations exist, and they can get sickly expoited for sick thrills

DaireQuinlan

steve06 wrote: »

That's what I was trying to say... If it's not an event and it's a private family activity I don't think anyone that's not involved should be taking photos!

I didn't mind on St Patricks day when my son was waving a flag around at the parade that someone took a photo, but while out swimming on the beach or in a playground - that's a different matter in my eyes!

Yes, but how you feel about this is, luckily, completely irrelevent in the eyes of the law. I'm perfectly entitled to take shots of (say) your kid, in a playground, and whats more, sell those pictures as fine art prints. You don't like this ? Then don't ever let your kid leave your house. If they have to leave then force them to wear a burkha or something. That would protect them from the predatory photographic paedophiles who, as someone informed us in one of the myriad identical threads that seem to be littering the forum nowadays, are EVERYWHERE nowadays. EVERYWHERE !

Won't someone think of the children ! (only not TOO much obviously, we all know where THAT goes)

I think we should just sticky this thread or next identical one that'll come along in a days time and be done with it. Redirect all the misplaced paranoia and grotesque over-reaction to the one place.

trooney

steve06 wrote: »

Yes they do have a right, it's a minor, their child and god knows who you could be or what you'd do with the photos or why you'd take them in the first place!

God I hate this knee jerk reaction so much it makes my blood boil. I recently had a friend categorically tell me that it is illegal in Ireland to take a picture of a child in a public place. Not a stupid person by any measure, but for this attitude to pervade purely from the rantings of ignorant journos, lowest common denominator 'newspapers' and other deranged media outlets is, IMO, almost more of a sad reflection on the people who listen to this s h i t and take it as read. I've said it before and will say it again - most children are abused by somebody they know. A parent. A relative. A family friend. Perhaps if energy is to be wasted in the cotton-wooling of children these are the people who should be the target...

Fajitas!

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Yes, but how you feel about this is, luckily, completely irrelevent in the eyes of the law. I'm perfectly entitled to take shots of (say) your kid, in a playground, and whats more, sell those pictures as fine art prints. You don't like this ? Then don't ever let your kid leave your house. If they have to leave then force them to wear a burkha or something. That would protect them from the predatory photographic paedophiles who, as someone informed us in one of the myriad identical threads that seem to be littering the forum nowadays, are EVERYWHERE nowadays. EVERYWHERE !

Won't someone think of the children ! (only not TOO much obviously, we all know where THAT goes)

I think we should just sticky this thread or next identical one that'll come along in a days time and be done with it. Redirect all the misplaced paranoia and grotesque over-reaction to the one place.

+1

I do love when Daire gets going

Myself and Humberklog had a bit of a chat about this tonight. The general consensus seems to be...

THEY'RE NOT ALL PAEDO'S

Paulw

Fajitas! wrote: »

THEY'RE NOT ALL PAEDO'S

They, or WE??

I have some lovely picts of kids, that are ones printed and around my place. No idea who any of the kids are, all taken in public places too, and .... I never asked permission.

One of my favourites -

OctavarIan

It's perfectly understandable for a journo to be paranoid about this sort of thing, there's a lot at stake if they get in trouble with the law. If you're just a hobbyist then by all means snap away, you'll get a slap on the wrist or at worst a confiscated film/memory card if anything!

And afaik it's illegal to take a photo of anyone without their permission on private property. So if it's a public playground by all means go snap happy

soccerc

OctavarIan wrote: »

It's perfectly understandable for a journo to be paranoid about this sort of thing, there's a lot at stake if they get in trouble with the law. If you're just a hobbyist then by all means snap away, you'll get a slap on the wrist or at worst a confiscated film/memory card if anything!

And afaik it's illegal to take a photo of anyone without their permission on private property. So if it's a public playground by all means go snap happy

I really wish some people would refrain from illconceived comment on a subject that they believe they have a little knowledge of.

PaulieC

interesting to see that the hysterical reactions are not confined to non-photographers. I really would have expected photographers to have a lot more understanding of a) the relevant laws and b) the intent of other photographers in general...it's mystifying, it really is

Fajitas!

@Paulw Well, "they" as a message to the general public

OctavarIan wrote: »

It's perfectly understandable for a journo to be paranoid about this sort of thing, there's a lot at stake if they get in trouble with the law. If you're just a hobbyist then by all means snap away, you'll get a slap on the wrist or at worst a confiscated film/memory card if anything!

And afaik it's illegal to take a photo of anyone without their permission on private property. So if it's a public playground by all means go snap happy

Even on private property, they'll have to go through the legal system to confiscate memory cards or film. And they're still my photos... which I'll argue to the death (Journo, general pro or spare time photographer)

Paulw

OctavarIan wrote: »

It's perfectly understandable for a journo to be paranoid about this sort of thing, there's a lot at stake if they get in trouble with the law. If you're just a hobbyist then by all means snap away, you'll get a slap on the wrist or at worst a confiscated film/memory card if anything!

Please go learn the law in relation to what you're trying to talk about.

The photographer can't get in to trouble at all for taking photos of kids in public places, especially at sporting events (which was the comment on the radio show). It is rubbish to say that professional photographers seek permission before taking a shot. If anything, it's a case of "shoot first and ask questions later" .... where have I heard THAT before?

No professional photographer is going to miss a shot to seek permission, trust me on that.

There are a number of us here on boards who shoot at sporting events, at PR events, at public events, and shoot with the full time professional photographers. I doubt any of us would seek permission and risk missing the shot.

And, as Fajitas! said, no one can confiscate your memory cards, without a court order, or proper legal procedure.

Even a Garda doesn't have the right to get you to delete any images. If (major IF) the images do break the law, then the images must be preserved and used as evidence in court. If they are not breaking the law then no one has the right to get you to delete them. Now those are FACTS.

AnCatDubh

In fairness to both sides of the argument irrational fear is a potent emotion and there is a primal instinct in the human condition to protect kin.

Photographers in general are responsible people and will stick within what they understand their rights to be. The vast majority won't stalk a child even within their rights of public place.

But an issue for photographers is to deal with is their rational understanding of their rights when encountering the irrational fear of the unknown. Offspring = highly emotive topic in all respects.

I think i've expressed thoughts on this subject over about 4 maybe 5 recent threads. (Severe case of Deja vu).

/shakes head.

smelltheglove

I am kind of shocked at the reaction to this issue over and over. A lot of us and by us I mean photographers get overly defensive about the fact that it is our picture and if we took it parents cant make us delete them. Also the public place etc etc, as someone said if you dont want your child photographed dont let them leave the house. On a recent thread I declared an instance that would make me want to wrap my children in cotton wool but yes it is true that most of these cases the perp is someone known by the victim. Peoples reluctance to have their children photographed by strangers all the same is not necessarily down to the fact that these strangers may be paedos.

All the same, do we not have respect for boundaries? Should a child be left to be a child and enjoy the fun and amazement of this world without having people photograph them whilst they are engaging in a private activity? And isn't it still true even to us that some things are best left to memory rather than film/digital media?

Not every moment has to be recorded, not every smile, not every glance, some truly are best left to memory and the innocence and wonder of a child sometimes should be left for that child alone to enjoy rather than a bystander photograph!

This is somewhere that I really have to disagree and even as a photographer would happily accept to a rule forbidding me from photographing a child without permission in a private family occasion even if the child is engaging in a private outing in a public place.

AnCatDubh

smelltheglove wrote: »

respect for boundaries?

really good point

only issue i'd have is boundaries can be many things to many people. My approach to a boundary and someone else's may be vastly different. However it is an interesting angle which should be considered imho.

smelltheglove

AnCatDubh wrote: »

only issue i'd have is boundaries can be many things to many people.

Ok lets look at Pauls picture on I think the previous page, thats pretty much ok right? I have taken some very very similar of my own children and there is no harm there really but a child splashing about int he water in a swimsuit really to most people would be crossing the line, yes people have different attitudes but envisage the child as your own and you are a wary parent and then think would I want a stranger looking at my child like this....

Paulw

What about this one then?



There's a story with this pict, and all involved knew they were being photographed. No permission was asked for.

GhostInTheRuins

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Yes, but how you feel about this is, luckily, completely irrelevent in the eyes of the law. I'm perfectly entitled to take shots of (say) your kid, in a playground, and whats more, sell those pictures as fine art prints. You don't like this ? Then don't ever let your kid leave your house. If they have to leave then force them to wear a burkha or something. That would protect them from the predatory photographic paedophiles who, as someone informed us in one of the myriad identical threads that seem to be littering the forum nowadays, are EVERYWHERE nowadays. EVERYWHERE !

Won't someone think of the children ! (only not TOO much obviously, we all know where THAT goes)

I think we should just sticky this thread or next identical one that'll come along in a days time and be done with it. Redirect all the misplaced paranoia and grotesque over-reaction to the one place.

Post of the day!

mrmac

Jeez, I didn't start this thread to cause a row, and tbh, I'm not aware of a similiar discussion recently.

You know what?

You're both right!

Yes, I have a RIGHT to take whatever picture I like (within the law).
Yes, I have a RIGHT to protect my child - as I see fit (within the law).

Parents can react badly to a stranger taking a picture of their kid. If I was in a situation like that, I'd happily show the picture to the parent, and if they still objected, I'd delete it.

I don't have to, I know that - but I would.

Mycroft H

mrmac wrote: »

Yes, I have a RIGHT to take whatever picture I like (within the law).
Yes, I have a RIGHT to protect my child - as I see fit (within the law).

I think thats it in a nut-shell.

Where the law is not clearly defined OR where parents are not aware of the law there will always be this inevitible conflict, and it sickens me to think child abuse and peadopheala is brought into the arguement.

Thirdfox

Of course a particularly litigious parent (or a law student who wants to practise his skills in relation to torts may decide to go after you for harassment).

The *safest* legal answer is - taking 1 photo of someone who is aware of you taking photos, in a public place, is perfectly legal. Of course you can take as many as you want in a public place if they don't notice you.

This topic has been done to death though - legal doesn't mean ethical/moral etc.

I love it back in China - people simply don't have these (illogical, in my mind) fears about photography, they love getting their photos taken (some may even ask for you to take photos!)

Fajitas!

Paulw wrote: »

What about this one then?

The Gardai are on their way out to your house, Paul. Sit tight and have all memory cards ready for confiscation and a controlled explosion.













:pac:

smash

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Yes, but how you feel about this is, luckily, completely irrelevent in the eyes of the law. I'm perfectly entitled to take shots of (say) your kid, in a playground, and whats more, sell those pictures as fine art prints. You don't like this ? Then don't ever let your kid leave your house. If they have to leave then force them to wear a burkha or something. That would protect them from the predatory photographic paedophiles who, as someone informed us in one of the myriad identical threads that seem to be littering the forum nowadays, are EVERYWHERE nowadays. EVERYWHERE !

Won't someone think of the children ! (only not TOO much obviously, we all know where THAT goes)

Wow man, you really went full retard on that reply..... I never said anything about "predatory photographic paedophiles" and I don't think like this at all, I just think there are situations where people should know better and think more about what they're doing.

Interestingly though your reply brings me to another question about selling the photos - what's the deal with model release signatures etc?

Fajitas!

steve06 wrote: »

I just think there are situations where people should know better and think more about what they're doing.

Half of the problem is people thinking more about what they're doing... and what other people are doing.

Paulw

steve06 wrote: »

Interestingly though your reply brings me to another question about selling the photos - what's the deal with model release signatures etc?

A model release isn't required in all situations, in fact the only real area a model release is required is for advertising purposes.

Limited edition fine art prints are permitted without a model release.

smash

Paulw wrote: »

A model release isn't required in all situations, in fact the only real area a model release is required is for advertising purposes.

Cheers, that what I thought.

trooney

steve06 wrote: »

Wow man, you really went full retard on that reply..... I never said anything about "predatory photographic paedophiles" and I don't think like this at all, I just think there are situations where people should know better and think more about what they're doing.

You didn't really need to mention predatory photographic paedophiles. The subtext of any post of a nature which suggests people have a right to demand photos be deleted all have this accusation at their very core. What are the other perceived problems with a childs photo being taken?

smash

trooney wrote: »

You didn't really need to mention predatory photographic paedophiles. The subtext of any post of a nature which suggests people have a right to demand photos be deleted all have this accusation at their very core.

If you hadn't noticed.... I didn't say it originally! And I also mentioned that I didn't think like that.

trooney wrote: »

What are the other perceived problems with a childs photo being taken?

Some people do consider it an invasion of privacy!

Paulw

steve06 wrote: »

Some people do consider it an invasion of privacy!

Yeah, you don't want to steal their spirits. :rolleyes:

If people want privacy, stay at home. You can't expect privacy in a public place.

I'm wondering though, do you have as much an issue with CCTV? Do you ask every place to stop using CCTV when you're in the area, so it doesn't record your kids? Or is your issue just with photographers?

People seem to ignore the vast amount of recording that goes on - private CCTV (shops, hotels, shopping centres, etc) and then the public CCTV (local authority, Gardai, etc). No one seems to object to being captured on CCTV, but yet they panic at the thought of a single photographer capturing their image.

PaulieC

steve06 wrote: »

If you hadn't noticed.... I didn't say it originally! And I also mentioned that I didn't think like that.


Some people do consider it an invasion of privacy!

I'm interested in this perception of someone taking a photo of you in a public place invading your privacy. How would you see this as an invasion of privacy? Does the same invasion of privacy occur of someone just looks at you? Or is it just if they take a picture ?
Also, what is it about people being younger than 18 that causes this to be an invasion of privacy ? When they turn 18, can their privacy not be invaded by having a photograph taken of themselves in public ?

This general attitude is what has this (and many other) country the way it is. Stop being so paranoid and get on with your life. People aren't out to get you, despite what government, law enforcement, special interest groups, Eircom might have you believe...

smash

Paulw wrote: »

Yeah, you don't want to steal their spirits. :rolleyes:

If people want privacy, stay at home. You can't expect privacy in a public place.

I'm wondering though, do you have as much an issue with CCTV? Do you ask every place to stop using CCTV when you're in the area, so it doesn't record your kids? Or is your issue just with photographers?

OK I'm going to try and explain this again!

When you're out with your kids having fun, or even just walking around it would make people feel uncompfortable if you're minding your own business and at the same time there's somebody else sticking their nose in it! And then possible printing it and selling it...

CCTV is recorded and deleted if not needed and it's not focused on a single person unless they're doing something wrong.

The argument of "stay at home" of a silly argument and I think we all know that. If you want to photograph a child and have nothing to hide then why not ask permission and forget about the "It's a public place" and "It's my camera/memory card and I'll do what I like with it" kind of attitude.

Dodgykeeper

Interesting point re: the CCTV, but my feeling on this is that this is being recorded by an Organisation be it the Guards or private security firms and will not be displayed in public or viewed by others.

If I bring my kids to an Event be it in Croke Park, Merrion Square etc I would have no problem having them photographed, If I was on the beach/playground with them I would have a problem or indeed if they were playing on the street and some stranger came and took their pic without permission then I would have a problem, that is my opinion as a parent!