Taking Photographs of Children

Ickle Magoo

Cabaal wrote: »

Some very valid points, I always find it funny that the same people that are complaining about a person taking a picture and putting it up on the net have taken pictures and put them up on the net themselfs....

The whole world including google to see.....irconic really

So if I followed you around and took pictures of you or your kids without asking you if you minded and then posted them on the internet for whatever reason I wanted, that is no different to someone posting their own image for their own reasons?

Cabaal

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So if I followed you around and took pictures of you or your kids without asking you if you minded and then posted them on the internet for whatever reason I wanted, that is no different to someone posting their own image for their own reasons?

now both you and me know thats not what I said,

It is ironic that the same people that bitch and moan about a third party posting pictures up on the internet will willing do so themselfs on sites such as facebook or there own blog, they don't seem to realise that the whole world can often see these photos.

My response was in-line with what CrazyRabbit said so please don't try and take it out of context.

Ickle Magoo

Cabaal wrote: »

now both you and me know thats not what I said,

It is ironic that the same people that bitch and moan about a third party posting pictures up on the internet will willing do so themselfs on sites such as facebook or there own blog, they don't seem to realise that the whole world can often see these photos.

My response was in-line with what CrazyRabbit said so please don't try and take it out of context.

That's the point though, if there is a clear difference then why is it ironic?

The Big Red Button

on the verge wrote: »

My son plays soccer, and on numerous occassions Ive asked people from the away team to stop takiing photos and the reply i get back most of the time is "Im taking pictures of my chlid" Horse**** I dont know what this guy is going to do with these pictures even if my son is not in them.
As far as Im aware he has no right to photograph my son. I have posted this in the Legal Discussions Forum but didnt get a full answer.

Can I ask you, honestly, what is your fear here? What harm do you think might possibly come to you or your son because of him appearing fully-clothed in the background of a photo taken by another parent of their own kid?

I'm aware that this issue involves some grey areas, e.g. children being photographed by complete strangers at the beach etc., but I cannot imagine a more innocent scenario than another parent wanting to take photos of their own kid playing a football match.

And as far as I'm aware, you're wrong, he has every right to take those photos and he owns full copyright to them. If you want to avoid these situations, maybe you should just stop your son from playing soccer and keep him wrapped up in cotton wool at home altogether! :rolleyes:

In relation to the general topic, I think that when kids are involved it would be good manners to ask the parents first (that's if the kids are the subject of the photos, and not just part of the background!) And I certainly think it would be bad form to start talking to and interacting with the kids without talking to the parents first - no matter how wholesome your intentions are as a photographer, you shouldn't be encouraging the kids to talk to random strangers, and it probably won't do you any favours with the parents.

But, I don't know, there are enough real dangers out there, without imagining more! I just don't see how a random one-off photo of a fully dressed kid is ever going to lead to anyone getting hurt, so it's not something I'd lose any sleep over.

amdublin

chatterpillar wrote: »

But, I don't know, there are enough real dangers out there, without imagining more! I just don't see how a random one-off photo of a fully dressed kid is ever going to lead to anyone getting hurt, so it's not something I'd lose any sleep over.

Good point!

Let's not lose the run of ourselves here folks.

Nevyn

Cabaal wrote: »

now both you and me know thats not what I said,

It is ironic that the same people that bitch and moan about a third party posting pictures up on the internet will willing do so themselfs on sites such as facebook or there own blog, they don't seem to realise that the whole world can often see these photos.

My response was in-line with what CrazyRabbit said so please don't try and take it out of context.

Last time I went looking and reading up on his was 5 years ago.
If I am wrong the please point me in the direct of the legislation on this,
I don't know everything about everything and have never claimed to.

Yes a lot of people do put pics of their kids up for all to see but they choose to do that, some of us respect our kids rights to privacy and only do so in a very limited or restricted way but again it's our choice, they are out children and we choose how much to expose and what is published and in what context.

While I have published photos of my children on the internet in restricted ways I am careful that they can not be clearly identified. I have had threats against me and my kids just for being a notable person on this site.

I have had someone say they would make it their business to wait outside the primary schools in D15 until they saw me collecting my kids and would photograph them and photoshop them and put them on the internet.

When a stranger has a photo of your child you have no idea what they may do with it, I and my children do not need clearly identifiable shots of their faces photoshoped on to hard core porn or worse but up on the internet.

amdublin

Thaedydal wrote: »

While I have published photos of my children on the internet in restricted ways I am careful that they can not be clearly identified. I have had threats against me and my kids just for being a notable person on this site.

I have had someone say they would make it their business to wait outside the primary schools in D15 until they saw me collecting my kids and would photograph them and photoshop them and put them on the internet.

When a stranger has a photo of your child you have no idea what they may do with it, I and my children do not need clearly identifiable shots of their faces photoshoped on to hard core porn or worse but up on the internet.

:eek:

Your first two paragraphs in this quote are clearly shocking and obviously you have a very personal reason to be concerned about photos of your children.

But seriously folks, let's not be paranoid about everyone/everything. Control the controllables - you do not have the right to stop someone taking photos etc - but as long as you are comfortable with the actual photo let's not turn every situation into something it is not.

smelltheglove

Thaedydal wrote: »

While I have published photos of my children on the internet in restricted ways I am careful that they can not be clearly identified. I have had threats against me and my kids just for being a notable person on this site.

I have had someone say they would make it their business to wait outside the primary schools in D15 until they saw me collecting my kids and would photograph them and photoshop them and put them on the internet..

I'm quite shocked to hear that, terrible behaviour. I hope you have reported those pms.

Ickle Magoo

amdublin wrote: »

But seriously folks, let's not be paranoid about everyone/everything. Control the controllables - you do not have the right to stop someone taking photos etc - but as long as you are comfortable with the actual photo let's not turn every situation into something it is not.

How do you know what's a situation that it is not & when it is a situation?

I don't understand why you think people don't have the right to stop people taking photos of them or their children. The right to privacy is still recognised here even if it hasn't been directly legislated for yet with regards to public photography. Something which is on it's way, if the media reports are to be believed.

amdublin

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

How do you know what's a situation that it is not & when it is a situation?

Using common sense and logic. Imo it is patently obvious when something is innocent and something is not.

Photos of Football match: I am not worried
Kids playing in playground: Depending on the style of photos, I'm not worried
My child in swimwear at the beach: I'm very worried!

By their nature paedophiles are looking for more than photos of your/my child playing football. Which they can access at a push of a button. Let's be realistic why would they want a photo your/my child playing football?????

amdublin

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't understand why you think people don't have the right to stop people taking photos of them or their children. The right to privacy is still recognised here even if it hasn't been directly legislated for yet with regards to public photography. Something which is on it's way, if the media reports are to be believed.

How do you intend to proceed to stop someone taking photos?

Ickle Magoo

amdublin wrote: »

Using common sense and logic. Imo it is patently obvious when something is innocent and something is not.

Photos of Football match: I am not worried
Kids playing in playground: Depending on the style of photos, I'm not worried
My child in swimwear at the beach: I'm very worried!

Ah, I get you, parties and football games I can understand though. If I saw someone approaching my kids in the park I wouldn't know what they were up to & even with camera in hand, what there intentions are but yes, some contexts are obviously more worrying than others.

I think for me, it's more about the intrusion than the fear factor, I shouldn't have to be worrying when I'm out trying to have a nice day because photographers should have more cop on than to start showing an interest, professional I mean, in strangers and especially those strangers children.

amdublin wrote: »

How do you intend to proceed to stop someone taking photos?

Chase them away or leave ourselves while vocally berating them for ruining the nice family day we were having, I guess. I wouldn't just stand and pose and tell the kids to do likewise, the nice cameraman has every right to invade our privacy and make us feel awkward and spied on - because I don't think he does. At a kids party or a public football game when other kids are present and their parents may want to take pictures of them, I accept that's the situation we are in - if it's someone honing in on my kid then the red flags go up. :cool:

Nevyn

Shouting at them and interposing yourself between thier camera and the children tends to work.

amdublin

Thaedydal wrote: »

Shouting at them and interposing yourself between thier camera and the children tends to work.

I appreciate your personal situation/reason that you would want to do this.

But if everyone was to do this is it not an extreme kneejerk reaction and OTT - again making a situation out of something it is not. To quote another poster: there are enough real dangers out there, without imagining more.

Nevyn

Even before that I had a dim view of anyone taking pics of my kids, my parents were the same. We live in an age were privacy is important to use and if parents do not want pictures taken of thier children then they should not be. Nothing to do with scaremongering or the law but respecting people.

We have CLICK noises on cameras on mobile phones to alert people photos are being taking, in this day and age where photos can be so widely distributed so fast people's wishes and esp parents wishes in terms of thier children should be respected.

CrazyRabbit

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So if I followed you around and took pictures of you or your kids without asking you if you minded and then posted them on the internet for whatever reason I wanted, that is no different to someone posting their own image for their own reasons?

Thaedydal wrote: »

Last time I went looking and reading up on his was 5 years ago.
If I am wrong the please point me in the direct of the legislation on this,
I don't know everything about everything and have never claimed to.

Yes a lot of people do put pics of their kids up for all to see but they choose to do that, some of us respect our kids rights to privacy and only do so in a very limited or restricted way but again it's our choice, they are out children and we choose how much to expose and what is published and in what context.

While I have published photos of my children on the internet in restricted ways I am careful that they can not be clearly identified. I have had threats against me and my kids just for being a notable person on this site.

I have had someone say they would make it their business to wait outside the primary schools in D15 until they saw me collecting my kids and would photograph them and photoshop them and put them on the internet.

When a stranger has a photo of your child you have no idea what they may do with it, I and my children do not need clearly identifiable shots of their faces photoshoped on to hard core porn or worse but up on the internet.

There is a huge difference between somebody taking the odd picture and someone stalking you/your kids.

Nevyn

Again its a stranger taking a picture and a parent not knowing them or what they are going to use it for or if it goes on the internet given some of the creative commons free usage what it may get used as. While parents can sue after the fact that doesn't undo some of the damage that may get done.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/virgin-sued-over-photo/2007/09/21/1189881735928.html#

Virgin sued for using teen's photo


The photo of Alison Chang (left) from Justin Ho-Wee Wong's Flickr photo-sharing web page. The photo was�used by Virgin Mobile in an advertising campaign.
Photo: Justin Ho-Wee Wong

September 21, 2007 - 11:09AM

A Texas family has sued Australia's Virgin Mobile phone company, claiming it caused their teenage daughter grief and humiliation by plastering her photo on billboards and website advertisements without consent.

The family of Alison Chang says Virgin Mobile grabbed the picture from Flickr, Yahoo Inc's popular photo-sharing website, and failed to credit the photographer by name.

Chang's photo was part of a Virgin Mobile Australia campaign called "Are You With Us Or What?" It features pictures downloaded from Flickr superimposed with the company's ad slogans.

The picture of 16-year-old Chang flashing a peace sign was taken in April by Alison's youth counsellor, who posted it that day on his Flickr page, according to Alison's brother, Damon.

In the ad, Virgin Mobile printed one of its campaign slogans, "Dump your pen friend," over Alison's picture.

The ad also says "Free text virgin to virgin" at the bottom.

The experience damaged Alison's reputation and exposed her to ridicule from her peers and scrutiny from people who can now Google her, the family said in the lawsuit.

"It's the tag line; it's derogatory," said Damon Chang, 27. "A lot of her church friends saw it."

The lawsuit, filed in Dallas late yesterday, names Virgin Mobile USA LLC, its Australian counterpart, and Creative Commons Corp, a Massachusetts nonprofit that licenses sharing of Flickr photos, as defendants.

The family accused the companies of libel and invasion of Chang's privacy. The suit seeks unspecified damages for Chang and the photographer, Justin Ho-Wee Wong.

A spokeswoman for Virgin Mobile USA said the company had nothing to do with the ads and had asked to be removed from the lawsuit.

Virgin Mobile Australia said it was "unable to comment at this stage as we have not received or seen a copy of the lawsuit in question".

People who post photos on Flickr are asked how they want to license their attribution. The youth counsellor chose a sharing licence from Creative Commons that allows others to reuse work such as photos without violating copyright laws, if they credit the photographer and say where the photo was taken. His Flickr page appears at the bottom of the ad.

Flickr was a Canadian company that developed the photo-sharing website then sold it to Yahoo in 2005.

Cabaal

Thaedydal wrote: »

Last time I went looking and reading up on his was 5 years ago.
If I am wrong the please point me in the direct of the legislation on this,
I don't know everything about everything and have never claimed to.

I never mentioned that you did know everything
I don't have the links to hand but I'm pretty sure there on the digital rights ireland website

While I have published photos of my children on the internet in restricted ways I am careful that they can not be clearly identified. I have had threats against me and my kids just for being a notable person on this site.

I have had someone say they would make it their business to wait outside the primary schools in D15 until they saw me collecting my kids and would photograph them and photoshop them and put them on the internet.

Ok in fairness given your circumstances and the people that you've dealt with on this site then I honestly can understand where your coming from and more importantly why.

When a stranger has a photo of your child you have no idea what they may do with it, I and my children do not need clearly identifiable shots of their faces photoshoped on to hard core porn or worse but up on the internet.

I'd agree you do not need that type of twisted stuff done, however these types of actions and very much an exception.

Cabaal

amdublin wrote: »

Using common sense and logic. Imo it is patently obvious when something is innocent and something is not.

Photos of Football match: I am not worried
Kids playing in playground: Depending on the style of photos, I'm not worried
My child in swimwear at the beach: I'm very worried!

By their nature paedophiles are looking for more than photos of your/my child playing football. Which they can access at a push of a button. Let's be realistic why would they want a photo your/my child playing football?????

Fully agree, a common sense approach is whats needed, flying off the handle and assuming the worst first thing is the last thing that should be done

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Ah, I get you, parties and football games I can understand though. If I saw someone approaching my kids in the park I wouldn't know what they were up to & even with camera in hand, what there intentions are but yes, some contexts are obviously more worrying than others.

Things def have to be put in context

the nice cameraman has every right to invade our privacy and make us feel awkward and spied on - because I don't think he does.

Thing is if your walking down the street and somebody takes your picture he hasn't invaded your privacy, your on public property

Again things must be put into context, if your in your back garden then thats another thing

Cabaal

Thaedydal wrote: »

Again its a stranger taking a picture and a parent not knowing them or what they are going to use it for or if it goes on the internet given some of the creative commons free usage what it may get used as. While parents can sue after the fact that doesn't undo some of the damage that may get done.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/virgin-sued-over-photo/2007/09/21/1189881735928.html#

Ah yes I remember this case,
The person that took the picture placed it under a Creative Commons license and obviously failed to understand the implications of doing so (their fault), what Virgin did wasn't wrong as they credited the person under the license to my understanding.

Had the person kept the photo all rights reserved then Virgin wouldn't have simply used the photo in the manner in which they did.

If you take the photography forum you'll find the vast majority of photographers will not release there work under creative commons and instead will retain copyright.

In addition if they have photos of people and wish to use them for a commercial venture or profit then they will often seek model releases and permission from the person in the shot.

Its not fair to bundle all photographers into the one group of "dodgy" and "can't be trusted".

Ickle Magoo

Cabaal wrote: »

Thing is if your walking down the street and somebody takes your picture he hasn't invaded your privacy, your on public property

I may be on public property but I am not public property and neither are my kids so of course they are invading my privacy. I am entitled to walk down a public street without being made to feel threatened or worried or uneasy and if I spotted someone trying to take my picture or that of my kids, I would feel all those things. Are you suggesting that someone taking pictures of my kids as we have a lovely day out in the park isn't invading our privacy because it's a public park? I don't think that would stand up in court.

I think the common sense thing goes both ways. Regardless of the lack of legislation here, you know how most people feel about the paps and their complete lack of ethics in the drive to get a picture, why put yourself in that category? Why not ask parents or people that you want to photograph, or even better - use models that you know & know you so you are not annoying anyone instead of demanding the right to invade peoples privacy for your own gains?

Ickle Magoo

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

There is a huge difference between somebody taking the odd picture and someone stalking you/your kids.

To the photographer perhaps but are they not just at different ends of the same scale? Different people have different ideas of how far along the scale a stranger taking pictures of them and their kids gets before it becomes an issue. If I ask someone to stop and they demand the right to take the kids pictures because we're in public, is that when it becomes an issue? If someone follows us around a park and takes pictures making us feel awkward and worried, is that an issue? Who gets to decide the boundaries?

CrazyRabbit

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I may be on public property but I am not public property and neither are my kids so of course they are invading my privacy. I am entitled to walk down a public street without being made to feel threatened or worried or uneasy and if I spotted someone trying to take my picture or that of my kids, I would feel all those things. Are you suggesting that someone taking pictures of my kids as we have a lovely day out in the park isn't invading our privacy because it's a public park? I don't think that would stand up in court.

I think the common sense thing goes both ways. Regardless of the lack of legislation here, you know how most people feel about the paps and their complete lack of ethics in the drive to get a picture, why put yourself in that category? Why not ask parents or people that you want to photograph, or even better - use models that you know & know you so you are not annoying anyone instead of demanding the right to invade peoples privacy for your own gains?

What is the difference between someone looking at you/your kids in a public area and taking a picture? How is one an invasion of privacy and the other not?

Privacy doesn't exist in public areas. Camera or not, people can see everything you do, hear everything you say etc in public areas. There are no laws to protect your privacy in public places (due to laws to protect freedom of the press).

Simply put, you don't have any right to privacy in public and people can legally take your picture (under those laws to protect freedom of the press). Yes, it would be polite to ask permission before someone takes a pic of you or your kids, and respect your decision.

If someone takes a pic, and you don't want to, then ask them nicely to stop and delete any pics taken. But remember, you don't have any right to make any demand.

Ickle Magoo

I wouldn't like someone taking a specific interest in my kids without a camera, either.

I appreciate that there are no specific legislations to cover privacy in public places but it is a constitutionally implied right open to challenge until express legislation is passed. People have the right not to be harassed or feel threatened, there are express laws against harassment and nuisance behaviour so of course people can demand that a photographer stops doing either.

I can't imagine your average sunday photographer taking pics of kids on the beach being able to hide behind the freedom of the press argument, tbh, I thought has something to do with serving the best interests of the public, anyway?

According to the Press Commission of Ireland;

5.1 Privacy is a human right, protected as a personal right in the Irish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, which is incorporated into Irish law. The private and family life, home and correspondence of everyone must be respected.

If I'm having a day out with my kids, that's my family life.

smelltheglove

Trust me I had this argument on the photography forum before many a time, but after my kids being the subject of another photographers images I was actually quite proud. For me as a photographer to want to take an image of a stranger it would have to be something that draws my attention, draws me in, maybe the interaction of a mother and a child, or a family or whatever. I think its probably a great form of flattery, the photographer picks up on a moment that they might envy, or even just appreciate, a moment completely natural.

I dont often take pictures of strangers in public, sometimes at gigs and that but when out and about its not usual for me. But here is an example



Now I looked at this couple who stood out from the crowd, everyone else was sitting but these were standing because of a disability. I looked at them and thought how they looked like a young couple in love, they laughed together so beautifully and I thought I would love it if myself and my husband looked as happy as they did when we reach their age. I only wished afterwards when I saw the results that I could pass the image on to them.

I doubt there would be many photographers that would stand in front of you and take a picture, most would be in the distance and notice something that they viewed as beautiful or interesting, many times the subjects never know that they have been photographed, I doubt that there would be many who would continue if asked not to, but still there is no law against it.

littlebug

smelltheglove it looks like you captured a lovely moment there without being intrusive.
To me that's where the problem lies... the intrusion.
My family were in the midst of a lovely nostalgic moment (sorry vague on details) which was suddenly disturbed by lots of click as the beauty of the moment hadn't gone unnoticed by a group of tourists :rolleyes: The moment and feeling is gone, everyone feels uncomfortable and the kids ask to go inside. I really was :mad: Ok it wasn't a photographer, just snap happy tourists and a photographer might be more discrete but..... I also don't like the thought of a photographer taking sneaky pictures of my children either no matter how innocent/ artistic/ whatever.

That said...even if a photographer asked permission I / my children would still find it intrusive and they would feel awkward so I'd still say no...

smelltheglove

Well littlebug I suppose the intrusion depends on the photographer also, if there were people taking pics of me close by I would be unnerved, I agree. When I have noticed photographers taking pics of my family, 2 occasions in particular would be mor ethe fact that I notice other people with cameras around, I never found them intrusive.

Ickle Magoo

It's a great pic, StG & I understand the point you are making.

I agree with Littlebug, I'm no fan of getting my photo taken and if I see someone taking pics of me or mine it unnerves me and deducts from my enjoyment of whatever we are doing which is doubly as unpleasant if it is just for the sake of someone else's profit or artistic outlet. I know there are some iconic images captured without the subject knowledge and these are widely accepted as brilliant art.

The idea of long range lenses to swoop in and capture some private moment between ordinary people that don't know they are on camera so the photographer can make a possibly public statement with their image is one I'm not particularly comfortable with. I know it is not illegal, I think perhaps my issue is with the lack of privacy laws rather than what photographers are doing perfectly legally.

Enii

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I may be on public property but I am not public property and neither are my kids so of course they are invading my privacy. I am entitled to walk down a public street without being made to feel threatened or worried or uneasy and if I spotted someone trying to take my picture or that of my kids, I would feel all those things. Are you suggesting that someone taking pictures of my kids as we have a lovely day out in the park isn't invading our privacy because it's a public park? I don't think that would stand up in court.

Why the feeling that something sinister or underhand is going on?

My friend has a fantastic b&w picture of herself her brothers and her Dad taken in the Phoenix Park in the '80's. It was taken by a Freelance photographer who was taking pictures of storm damagae (fallen trees etc.) after a particularly windy night.

My friend'ss family were all swinging off a large branch that was hanging down after the wind (the Dad was at the end of the branch giving it a big swing).

Anyway the picture made a National paper the next day - presume it was with a caption relating to a family having lots of fun due to stormy weather (obviously to counter all the pictures of the bad damage caused). The Dad got a copy of the picture from the paper.

There is nothing sinister about all of the above.

And in fact I do like these type of pictures that apear in the papers from time to time i.e. on a very sunny day there might be pictures of people sun bathing in St. Stephens Green enjoying the weather, or a kid eating an ice cream, or a dog running in to the sea trying to cool down - you know the type of pics.

Will we see an end to these pictures because of over protective parents who are imagining things that are just not there?????

amdublin

I've been thinking alot about this subject over yesterday and last night.

The intrusion is one thing. And I see people's perspective about how "they just don't like that" and I must say I really understand that....

But this hysterical kneejerk reaction that if someone takes a photograph it is immediately going to be used in a bad way is a completely another thing altogether.

One poster even mentioned taking photos and photoshopping it. Which I'm taking to mean the photo could be originally what I deem innocent but somebody is going to photoshop another child in less innocent clothes/postions on to the picture of your child

Folks. Let's take a reality check here and lose the hysterical drama. Why would somebody do this to your child (or mine) when they can access any measure (unfortunately) of poor children who really are in awful circumstances/serious danger at a few keystrokes. Like, would a paedophile really be that interested in a few innocent pictures of your kids on a family day out???

Come on! Think about it!

Again, to quote another poster. There are enough real dangers out there without imagining more.