Taking Photographs of Children

Ickle Magoo

Enii wrote: »

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

It doesn't have to be sinister. I think people have a right to privacy while doing the mundane, every day things that the press don't have to be commenting on. Didn't the European courts find that the press had invaded the privacy of Princess Caroline of Monaco by taking pictures of her shopping? You like pictures of joe bloggs eating an ice-cream, other people love the pictures the paps get by hounding people - I think somewhere along the line the people who are getting photographed and the point that they not want to be photographed has been forgotten for the sake of getting the picture.

Amdublin, If I see someone we don't know taking an interest in my kids, I worry. It may be paranoid, it is probably unnecessary but a stranger wanting to take their pictures furtively and without asking makes me really, really uncomfortable. There are enough dangers out there & most abusers are known to the child, yes, but some are not. Throwing out low odds that anyone would want to doctor a photo or use a camera from ingratiating themselves with a child doesn't detract from the fact it is a possibility, however small, and one that a lot of parents would rather not risk.

amdublin

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Amdublin, If I see someone we don't know taking an interest in my kids, I worry. It may be paranoid, it is probably unnecessary but a stranger wanting to take their pictures furtively and without asking makes me really, really uncomfortable. There are enough dangers out there & most abusers are known to the child, yes, but some are not. Throwing out low odds that anyone would want to doctor a photo or use a camera from ingratiating themselves with a child doesn't detract from the fact it is a possibility, however small, and one that a lot of parents would rather not risk.

Forgive me. From your other posts I was putting you in the category of the "I don't like the intrusion".

But now I see that you are in the other category altogether.

As you said yourself "it may be paranoid"

amdublin

Enii wrote: »

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?????

I had missed this post earlier.

Wow! What a great photo to have and what a great memory to have been captured on film.

I can't imagine wanting to give this up???

Over the years there are fabulous shots of everyday people going about their everyday lives. Think of those wonderful old grainy b&w shots of men in Dublin standing around on the street/kids playing in the flats/tenements of Dublin (there are some over in the Dublin forum).

You are right are we going to see an end to these pictures because of overprotective parents

Ickle Magoo

Well, I have already stated my thoughts on the paedophile aspect and internet pics in my first post but I can still understand why other parents worry about it, it's not rocket science. It's a bit like expecting them to be happy for any old stranger to approach their kid with a bag of sweets because the chances that it's anything untoward are so low. Some parents aren't going to deliberately put themselves or their kids in what they perceive to be a position of risk, even if the risk is minuscule - and that's their prerogative.

I don't think calling them names because they don't want to take a small risk to do something that they get no benefit from just to grant a photographer their image is very fair.

twowheelsonly

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.

IMO that's ridiculous. Do you stop people from taking photos of every group activity that your son is involved in? All you will end up doing here is embarrasing the child and possibly leave him open to slagging from his peers. I presume that you have some photos of your child taking part in either soccer or other group activities? If you have then is it also fair to presume that you got everybody elses permission too?
The underage sports reports would be very boring if everybody took this stance.
I occassionaly take a few pics of my local underage team and if I do get any worthy shots, whether of the home or away team, I will try to pass them on. Inevitably (if it's a decent shot!!) the club/player are delighted to get them.

Personally, on the overall issue, I would have no problem whatsoever with somebody taking photos of my kids and posting them online or in newspapers etc. Obviously I would draw the line at the swimming togs type shots but apart from that there's no problem. Unposed candid type photos generally have a better chance of having the 'wow' factor for me. The pic of the couple earlier in this thread is a great example. Sports pics are the same as they show people acting normally and generally being themselves, much the same as most kids that will ignore a camera and carry on doing whatever they're at. That, to me is what makes for a great shot.

The whole paranoia thing has gone too far. IMO the only reason that kids would be paranoid about getting their photo taken would be if their parents were paranoid about it in the first place.

amdublin

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think calling them names because they don't want to take a small risk to do something that they get no benefit from just to grant a photographer their image is very fair.

Are you talking about me??!!!!!!

Who did I call names

As for no benefit: what about those fabulous b&w pics that another poster described of the family swinging on a branch unawares their photo was even taken until they saw it in the paper, what about that beautiful, natural, unposed picture of that lovely old couple at a concert, or what about that great action shot of your son/daughter playing football as per below.

What a shame if these type of photos were to stop.

twowheelsonly wrote: »

I occassionaly take a few pics of my local underage team and if I do get any worthy shots, whether of the home or away team, I will try to pass them on. Inevitably (if it's a decent shot!!) the club/player are delighted to get them.

Why would a paedophile be interested in taking photos of your and my child for any other reason than above????

If they want the type of awful terrible photos that paedophiles are interested in, in my opinion they are not interested in innocent shots of your/my child. Why would they be????

Ickle Magoo

amdublin wrote: »

Are you talking about me??!!!!!!

Who did I call names

You are calling some parents hysterical and over-reactionary, you are peddling the image of parents being ludicrously overprotective of the images of their children rather than acknowledging that there are many who don't see the introduction of public privacy laws as destroying photographers rights but as protecting rights they should always have been afforded.

amdublin wrote: »

As for no benefit: what about those fabulous b&w pics that another poster described of the family swinging on a branch unawares their photo was even taken until they saw it in the paper, what about that beautiful, natural, unposed picture of that lovely old couple at a concert, or what about that great action shot of your son/daughter playing football as per below.

What a shame if these type of photos were to stop.

They are not always of benefit to the subject, especially as the subject may not be aware of the picture and photographers often make money from the images of people who didn't know they were having their picture taken. I'm not totally against photography, I just think it needs stricter legislation. For every cute picture of old people or kids eating ice cream, there are paps making peoples lives a misery, pictures of murder victims, people dead in car accidents, etc, etc. I think it's disingenuous to assume the objections people have to snappers being allowed to snap whatever they want as being some irrational fear of paedophiles - that just happened to be what the OP asked so the posts have concentrated on that tiny section of a much broader range of overall objections.

amdublin wrote: »

Why would a paedophile be interested in taking photos of your and my child for any other reason than above????

If they want the type of awful terrible photos that paedophiles are interested in, in my opinion they are not interested in innocent shots of your/my child. Why would they be????

I have no idea what goes through a paedophiles head or what they would do, tbh - I just know from other parenting sites that there are plenty of parents who don't think photographers should have the right to decide if the image of their child becomes public property to a worldwide audience. I have been berated for posting my own child's picture, other people have had their child's image used by people posing as parents, others have had pictures defaced, doctored, and so on; it's a bigger argument than ruining the chance to take a cute art-house picture Vs paedophiles.

smelltheglove

Within every profession, every culture, every community, there are good and bad. Photography as a profession is viewed quite negatively by some. It is such a pity though that it gets to this stage. There are many photographers out there who take images of strangers for profit, others who do it for art or others who do it just for the love of it. Its just a pity that the professions reputation can be so seriously damaged by a few bad apples , or even by people who are not even photographers.

I had a nice long reply written out here about the effects a change in privacy laws could make, but I am getting the feeling theres no point. I would just hate to have my rights to photography in public places restricted because a few bad apples made people scared.

tricky D

It's not the professional or even casual photographers who parents should be worried about. It's the one doing it covertly which is the real danger.

Ickle Magoo

smelltheglove wrote: »

I would just hate to have my rights to photography in public places restricted because a few bad apples made people scared.

It's not just about people being scared, many don't think the right to photograph should ever have taken precedence over the right to privacy. We can argue till the cows come home over why people should be really glad that people are taking their pictures & all the positives that photography can bring but if people don't want their picture taken then it comes down to your right to photograph Vs their right not to be. Pictures can end up online and be accessible to millions, I think that has changed the way people view what constitutes reasonable privacy.

smelltheglove

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's not just about people being scared, many don't think the right to photograph should ever have taken precedence over the right to privacy. We can argue till the cows come home over why people should be really glad that people are taking their pictures & all the positives that photography can bring but if people don't want their picture taken then it comes down to your right to photograph Vs their right not to be. Pictures can end up online and be accessible to millions, I think that has changed the way people view what constitutes reasonable privacy.

But you see Ickle my right to photograph an area could be at risk if someone was to walk into the view of my camera, say I am commissioned to take pictures of a public park for their website, I am standing there all set up ready to go and do my job and yourself and your family come along for a picnic, now I cannot take the picture because you are there and new laws state I cannot take your picture. Now I am not a rude person, I would be happy for you to stay and photoshop you out, this could be done quite easily by taking 10 or so images of the same spot whilst you move from one place to another, I can layer them ontop of each other and my finished product would be the area as its was without you. That would be the most reasonable solution to me.

Now if privacy laws were changed, what if the person in my view was not a reasonable person, what if I asked them would they mind stepping out of view for a moment so I could take the picture and they declined, they also declined to allow me to photograph an area they are in? That would be a days work gone for me potentially. Yes you can say stand there and wait for them to leave but for the photography often an image taken at 5pm will not be as adequate as an image taken at 10am.

Another situation to think of is if I am out taking pictures of a bride and groom in a public park, which I have done on occasion, now if there are people passing by I often wait for them to be out of my view but sometimes people will stay put, then I have to take the images and take these people out afterwards, if these people were unreasonable and would not allow it then I would be running into trouble again.

Again another thing to take into consideration is the fact that we would loose so much documentary evidence of our city, our culture, our people.

One way in which it could effect the general public in a bad way is this, a real paedophile is caught and arrested, say a journalist takes his picture to let the country know what he looks like. He gets out of jail early, goes to live on your street, but you are not aware as he would not give the photographer permission to publish his photo as the photographer breached his right to privacy so you live 3 doors up from a paedophile and do not know it but the fella with the camera was just doing his job to inform society and he cannot show you because the fear of paedophiles has taken away his rights to publish the image, ok so roundabout thing but perfectly relevant.

Enii

tricky D wrote: »

It's not the professional or even casual photographers who parents should be worried about. It's the one doing it covertly which is the real danger.

I am in complete agreement with this statement.

Ickle Magoo

smelltheglove wrote: »

But you see Ickle my right to photograph an area could be at risk if someone was to walk into the view of my camera, say I am commissioned to take pictures of a public park for their website, I am standing there all set up ready to go and do my job and yourself and your family come along for a picnic, now I cannot take the picture because you are there and new laws state I cannot take your picture. Now I am not a rude person, I would be happy for you to stay and photoshop you out, this could be done quite easily by taking 10 or so images of the same spot whilst you move from one place to another, I can layer them ontop of each other and my finished product would be the area as its was without you. That would be the most reasonable solution to me.

Or ask them to move or if you can take their photograph?

smelltheglove wrote: »

Now if privacy laws were changed, what if the person in my view was not a reasonable person, what if I asked them would they mind stepping out of view for a moment so I could take the picture and they declined, they also declined to allow me to photograph an area they are in? That would be a days work gone for me potentially. Yes you can say stand there and wait for them to leave but for the photography often an image taken at 5pm will not be as adequate as an image taken at 10am.

Then they are declining the option to be out of the photograph and so forfeit the right to privacy. I don't think there are any more people who wouldn't want to be photographed yet refused to get out of lens shot than there are paedophiles with cameras.

smelltheglove wrote: »

Another situation to think of is if I am out taking pictures of a bride and groom in a public park, which I have done on occasion, now if there are people passing by I often wait for them to be out of my view but sometimes people will stay put, then I have to take the images and take these people out afterwards, if these people were unreasonable and would not allow it then I would be running into trouble again.

Again, they are choosing to be in the photograph, it is not a case of secretly taking an image specifically of them.

smelltheglove wrote: »

Again another thing to take into consideration is the fact that we would loose so much documentary evidence of our city, our culture, our people.

There would still be billions of pictures and films taken by people of themselves and their surroundings, I think it's just a hysterical knee-jerk in the other direction to think otherwise.

smelltheglove wrote: »

One way in which it could effect the general public in a bad way is this, a real paedophile is caught and arrested, say a journalist takes his picture to let the country know what he looks like. He gets out of jail early, goes to live on your street, but you are not aware as he would not give the photographer permission to publish his photo as the photographer breached his right to privacy so you live 3 doors up from a paedophile and do not know it but the fella with the camera was just doing his job to inform society and he cannot show you because the fear of paedophiles has taken away his rights to publish the image, ok so roundabout thing but perfectly relevant.

Are the press currently allowed to print pictures of paedophiles that have served their sentence and have no current allegations hanging over them? If the majority of child abusers are friends of or related to the child/parents then risk from dodgy neighbours carry the same odds as dodgy local photographers, don't they? :P

I think that the press should be allowed to print important information of interest to the public politically and in the name of public security - that shouldn't include pictures of Posh taking the kids to school or me picnicking with my kids though.

I've a foot in each camp on this issue. I'm not happy that I'm told to just suck it up and a photographer has free reign to take pictures of me and mine going about our lives and plaster it all over the internet so they can make a living, a statement and for posterity - but neither do I want to loose the spontaneity of the photographic medium. I think there is plenty of room for a legislated middle ground.

smelltheglove

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I've a foot in each camp on this issue. I'm not happy that I'm told to just suck it up and a photographer has free reign to take pictures of me and mine going about our lives and plaster it all over the internet so they can make a living, a statement and for posterity - but neither do I want to loose the spontaneity of the photographic medium. I think there is plenty of room for a legislated middle ground.

I'm not saying suck it up at all, I think people should have a right to privacy etc and it should be respected in certain ways. It is a very very grey area but changing the privacy laws could have a huge effect on so many circumstances. Common sense should prevail as always, there are some 'paps' that go too far in the media, lying on the ground to get pictures of young stars getting into cars etc, its a terrible attitude but there are always bad apples in every bunch and it is unfortunate but do the good ones need to be put at a loss because of it? This is my point, go over to the photography forum and you will see plenty of photographers who regularily go to the courts and photograph criminals going in and out of court, of course they dont get their permission, they get abused for it also, some photographers and journalists put their lives at risk to bring images to the public, note this thread here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055791634 which is actually quite funny but shows the abuse some get whilst doing their job.

A middle ground somewhere would seem the best option because of the unfortunates of some pushing the boundaries but it is always going to have an effect, there is always going to be a grey area between here and there and unfortunately it most likely will have a detrimental effect on the documentation of todays society and of that in the future.

A very high percentage of the time we are in public we are being photographed or recorded in some way. Most stores have cctv camera, would a change in law effect these? I once worked in retail, we had problems with the cctv at one stage and a company came in to refit and rewire etc. The lads were there for a couple of weeks doing their jobs. They got to a stage where it was testing time. The main man on the job was a lovely man, New Zealand I think he was from but over the course of the few weeks I had many conversations with him and could enjoy a laugh. Without telling me they decided to test it using me as the subject. To this day I still have images they gave me afterwards. They had footage of me doing my job, checking prices, putting up signs, checking tills, speaking with customers, staff and management, pretty much everything for a time period of maybe an hour or less. I remember being quite freaked out that I had not once realised that I was being watched, they could see everything but this is the way it is going into any store, walking down some streets, video and photo is everywhere, we are never going to be able to stop our children or ourselves being photographed without our permission, it is impossible.

Obviously I am thinking about it in a professional sense, I dont like the thought of my job being any harder than it already is, I dont like the thought of possibly having to be rude by asking someone to move so I can do my job if it can easily be done without that need. I dont like the thought of people having any sort of fear if they see me with a camera in my hand and I mean that would be lessened by the fact that I am a woman, it would be even harder for my male counterparts to deal with. I dont like the thought of not seeing images in the press that we are used to, such as a seaside full of bathers at the start of the summer, pictures of the kids on their school sports day, pictures of the school play, so many memories can be at stake here. When I think about it as a parent, I can understand people having fears of anything happening to their children, but common senseneeds to prevail there too.

There are times when I would be seriously irritated if I noticed someone taking pictures of my children I am sure but I need to get grips on my own common sense for that, do they look dodgy, are they just trying to photograph their own children and mine are there also, i.e. in the swimming pool, or is it a strange person lurking alone closing in on them.

The right to photography in public is a hard thing to defend but it is also a hard thing to prosecute, there are so many angles, so many ifs or buts. I like it the way it is without a doubt, I'd hate for anything to change in that sense, I understand others dont but its the world we live in.

Ickle Magoo

Sorry, I didn't mean you specifically were telling me to suck it up, I mean that's where the current legislation leaves me.

I also appreciate as a photographer that the current lack of legislation suits you and any further additions would automatically make life harder but I also think in the era of the internet and telescopic zoom lenses that day to day privacy is harder to achieve and the ever increasing grey areas between invasion and journalism - when common sense is clearly not being used - respect for privacy needs to be legislated in some way, even if just to try and cut out some of the bad apples.

Ickle Magoo

smelltheglove wrote: »

...we are never going to be able to stop our children or ourselves being photographed without our permission, it is impossible.

It is, but it's not impossible to legislate what can be done with such photos ie putting them on the internet or selling them.

Blisterman

I know a professional photographer, who's actually given up photography as a result of parents complaining to her, when they saw her taking photos while their kids were around. She wasn't even taking pictures of the kids. They just happened to be in the vicinity.

I think it's sad that people's paranoia has reached the level that good photographers are afraid to take photos in public. We need a bit of common sense. Are paedophiles really gonna go out and take photos of clothed kids to get off on? I'm sure they could find them anywhere. Do non-pedos go out and take photos of clothed adults?

Nevyn

It's not pedos it the right to privacy and not to have our image or those of our children used for anything with out our permission.

Ickle Magoo

Blisterman wrote: »

I know a professional photographer, who's actually given up photography as a result of parents complaining to her, when they saw her taking photos while their kids were around. She wasn't even taking pictures of the kids. They just happened to be in the vicinity.

I think it's sad that people's paranoia has reached the level that good photographers are afraid to take photos in public. We need a bit of common sense. Are paedophiles really gonna go out and take photos of clothed kids to get off on? I'm sure they could find them anywhere. Do non-pedos go out and take photos of clothed adults?

Do you really think the main beef parents have with people taking unsolicited pictures of them and their family going about their daily lives is the fear of pedophiles?

Blisterman

Well that seems to be the impression I got reading through the thread.

Nevyn

I just went over the thread it is the photographers who are assuming it's to do with pedos and groundless scaremongering and the parents seem to be saying invasion, respect and privacy.

Ickle Magoo

Really? I must be reading it all wrong. The main beefs I picked up from parents posting were privacy and intrusion issues followed by a general unease of strangers wanting to interact or have images of their children - pretty standard stuff.

There are certainly parents who are worried that pictures of their kids fall into less than honorable hands and want to prevent that at all costs but I certainly don't think that's necessarily down to some irrational fear of pedophiles or even the main issue. This debate has been done to death on most of the parenting forums I know and the general consensus seems to be a general unhappiness with the lack of legislation and control over use of images. Imagine your child was filmed or photographed without your permission or even without your knowledge and it became a global phenomena, their face known to millions - and their parents have no control over it. I think that freaks people out more than the idea that some weirdo is going to be photo-shopping images together.

Ludo

Thaedydal wrote: »

I just went over the thread it is the photographers who are assuming it's to do with pedos and groundless scaremongering and the parents seem to be saying invasion, respect and privacy.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Really? I must be reading it all wrong. The main beefs I picked up from parents posting were privacy and intrusion issues followed by a general unease of strangers wanting to interact or have images of their children - pretty standard stuff.

Ye must be reading a different thread to me then. Privacy gets mentioned a lot, but so do pedos and there is a definite undertone of paranoia about pedos.

Ickle Magoo

Perhaps I am. I just see photographers making leading questions and then jumping on the answers as being the only objections to photos being taken.

I guess it depends on where you are standing as well. As a photographer, being able to take photos where you want and of whom you want is important - parents who are not photographers just see it as an unnecessary hassle and worry they currently HAVE to deal with for the sake of someone else getting the picture they want.

humberklog

http://193.178.1.79/2000/en/act/pub/0037/sec0001.html

Should be all in there with regards to rights.

As far as I'm aware in Ireland you can take a pic of anyone of any age at any time once they're in the public domain.

I don't know about the legalities of selling images of people without their permission but I do about 4 or 5 days a week in town.


Edit...wrong link but it is about the child protection and there's no mention of it in there. If I can find the another more specific one then I'll post it up.

I've had people taking pics of my daughter without permission (not that it's needed but it is polite), even on a beach!! Wow!! Nah...didn't care.

Blisterman

Realistically, with the explosion in popularity of digital cameras, you and your children are gonna be photographed hundreds of times a year. You can't really avoid it, short of staying in the house all day.

PCPhoto

Thaedydal wrote: »

I just went over the thread it is the photographers who are assuming it's to do with pedos and groundless scaremongering and the parents seem to be saying invasion, respect and privacy.

For the parents - do you take the same attitude (claiming invasion of privacy) - for the amount of times you are recorded on CCTV ......EVERY DAY !

The Garda cameras, in store security camera's , outside store security camera .... do schools have CCTV ? .....
are the parents reading this thread claiming that the schools in this case are invading the privacy of its students ? or keeping the students safe in the event of kidnapping ?

We are all monitored and recorded on a daily basis - and with camera recognition technology its only a matter of time before an individual can be tracked down through security cameras.

humberklog

Or pick up any newspaper or magazine. Celebs munching on kebabs, men on trial for murder entering the courts, people crying outside their obliterated homes, kids suffering the double humility of being naked and starving, couples crawling from a bombed tube station, drunken revellers on Hollowe'en, people in the crowd of football matches or caught behind a riot, shoppers heading North in their cars, crowds gathering on busses heading to Slane in the summer or in the crowd as the camera pans across them, Gardai arresting people, nurses in a march for more money. None of these need be asked for permission. In fact you can often see some celebs and criminals attacking the photographer and it's the attacker that gets hauled up in court.
Sure we all expect privacey but it ain't in the law. OK, NOW and The Herald would be empty of pics.

Nevyn

CCTV is low quality and it's often hard for an ID to be gotten from it again it's like a picture of a crowd at a sports even it is imperonal it is not a lone photographer choosing to photograph our children.

All of the above is considered news, someone choosing to photograph my children with out permission for thier portfolio ( which was the context given in this thread for discussion ) has nothing to do with news and public intrest.

Enii

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Imagine your child was filmed or photographed without your permission or even without your knowledge and it became a global phenomena, their face known to millions - and their parents have no control over it. I think that freaks people out more than the idea that some weirdo is going to be photo-shopping images together.

I wouldn't mind this.

Sure what harm is it causing?