Taking Photographs of Children

humberklog

Thaedydal wrote: »

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.

Portfolio or public interest wouldn't be diferentiated in the eyes of the law.

Anyway, horses for courses. Some parents would get their knickers in a twist, others wouldn't. I wouldn't. However the law is on the side of the photographer. Which is probably important to note considering how the thread has evolved and some of the statements made on it regarding what peoples reaction would be.

Ickle Magoo

Enii wrote: »

I wouldn't mind this.

Sure what harm is it causing?

You having no issue with something doesn't negate the issue other people have with it. I have no issue with lots of things that are currently strictly legislated or even illegal in this country.

PCPhoto wrote:

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 !

CCTV images are not profit making and nor are they put on the internet for global consumption, straw & grasp.

Concentrating on the whole "hysterical parents" angle may make for a more compelling argument to maintain the legislative status quo but it is effectively a strawman for the real issue.

littlebug

Enii wrote: »

I wouldn't mind this.

Sure what harm is it causing?

There you have it.... we're all just different. I wouldn't like my or my childs face all over the media but it wouldn't bother you in the slightest. There's no particular reason why either of us feels this way but we just do. Some people like the limelight and attention and others coy away from it. No amount of debate is going to change that.

Similarly all children are different. I know if my children were aware that someone they didn't know was taking photographs in them in a playground they would feel uncomfortable and ask to go home while others will jump at the chance of being in a photograph. I know one very beautiful little boy who won't even sit in for family photographs.

littlebug

Captain Flaps wrote: »

Hi everybody,

My paper deals with the issue of sexual imagery on the internet and whether the fear of this coupled with the potential for spreading a photograph throughout the internet has an effect on the way photographs are viewed.

This is why some people have mentioned paedophilia. The OP set that context and line of thought in his opening paragraph.
I have questioned myself as to why I said in my initial response that I would call the gardai if I saw somone unattached to any child taking pictures of kids in a playground... in fact I nearly went back and deleted it. But in fact the sense of mistrust and suspicion came at the start on reading that line above.
Had he asked the original question without that line the whole debate may have taken a different direction.

Nevyn

We do not legislate for everything, so many things were not legislated for due to the moral codes and respect people for the most part had for each other.

It is not illegal to sit at a restruant table and pick your nose with a fork but it is not acceptable behaviour.

I've emailed the office of the ombusman for children on this to see what they will say.
http://www.oco.ie/en/contact_us.aspx

http://www.oco.ie/yourRights/un_convention_on_the_rights_of_the_child.aspx

Summary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child wrote:

Article 16

You have the right to privacy.

metrovelvet

You have the right to privacy but not on public property. A person can take your photograph on public space. Im not sure what the distribution laws are.

Ickle Magoo

There are cases (like Princess Caroline above) which have been upheld under EU privacy legislation, in lieu of adequate domestic legislation. I think if more cases are challenged then the changes to current privacy laws in Ireland would have to be taken back off the shelf.

humberklog

metrovelvet wrote: »

You have the right to privacy but not on public property. A person can take your photograph on public space. Im not sure what the distribution laws are.

Indeed. I'm aware I didn't point this out on a previous post, I just said privacey. But I intended it in the context of this thread and meant it to mean in the public domain.


Just flicking through a few papers today and there are quite a few photos where I'm sure the person in the photograph would have prefered not to be. Just because some rag considers you newsworthy doesn't mean you've got any more or less rights than the person standing beside you on the bus. And this goes for children too.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Thaedydal wrote: »

I own the rights to my own image and my children own the rights to their's and I am their legal guardian.

My children's school and other groups they are invovled with have to send home a request/permission form if there are to be photos of them taken, from end of year photos to sports day or even class projects.

It has nothing to do with scaremongering it is the right to privacy.

Wrong... and it is scaremongering, you can stop that now, thanks.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

Great, what the world needs is more "do-gooders" creating new irrational laws to "protect" people... instead ye are making a balls of everything.

Thaedydal wrote: »

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.

Wrong. Your image can be taken regardless if your permission has been given or not. How exactly do you think photographers survive? You think that the press must ask every celebrity for permission first?

Either way, if you are in your home and somebody is taking your picture, then you have a case, if you are walking the street, then you cannot do anything about it but ask the photographer to stop. If he doesn't then you are very very powerless. Nothing you can do about it.


My girlfriends father has lots and lots of pictures of naked children, his own children and complete strangers. Does this make him a paedophile? The pc-brigade have made a right mess of this. Not everyone is a paedophile. Some people like to capture the innocents of children in their actions, be it playing, watching TV or eating their dinner, but too many people have made this a problem, now you have to watch what you are doing just in case you are labled a paedo. Once upon a time photo albums would have the odd picture with naked children in them, bathing, on the beach or just in the back garden in summer, now you cannot have that anymore as you will be in trouble.

You can't take your camera to the pool, or to the beach or anywhere that you might cause offence to some over protective naive ignorant self obsorbed uneducated fool of a parent. Really, get a grip people.

Nevyn

Iamxavier banned for a week for not posting in a civil manner and insulting other members .

Max Power1

metrovelvet wrote: »

You have the right to privacy but not on public property. A person can take your photograph on public space. Im not sure what the distribution laws are.

As a close relative of someone who I could only describe as "photography mad" - spends hours taking photos of people in public places..

I would advise that there is no recourse with regards to privacy rights. If you are in the public domain and your photo is taken there is nothing you can do about it, unless it is being sold/displayed for profit.

With regards to iamxavier's post - I can only agree with what he is saying. I wont say anymore because his opinion got him banned and I do not wish the same fate to befall me

Nevyn

Again parents have said privacy and not wanting to be intruded on, if a professional photographer takes a picture for their portfolio then they get a booking and paid due to a photo in the portfolio then they are making a profit from those pictures.

If someone is discretely taking photos and are not intruding that is different then the scenario set up by the op in the original post, which out lines being intruded upon by a stranger taking pictures as that stranger wanting to put them in a portfolio, and possibly publishing them and putting the photos online and parents have said they would not want those things to happen.

That is not unreasonable.

Ickle Magoo

Raven Jolly Alphabet wrote: »

Great, what the world needs is more "do-gooders" creating new irrational laws to "protect" people... instead ye are making a balls of everything.

What the world needs is people who can read a thread.

I'm just one of millions who want better legislation to protect my privacy and that of my children. I know it is not CURRENTLY illegal, I am suggesting there should be specific legislation that puts citizens rights to privacy before the freedom of a photographer to create, sell and distribute photographs of the general public for their own gains.

Raven Jolly Alphabet wrote: »

My girlfriends father has lots and lots of pictures of naked children, his own children and complete strangers. Does this make him a paedophile?

Err, no, sounds like your average fella.

If people want their kids to be stars or on posters naked then that's one thing - I don't think it's wholly unreasonable/crazy/unrealistic/whatever that parents don't want the control of the image of their children, with or without clothes on, to be up to a random photographer.

humberklog

Could the OP clarify "portfolio"? My understnading is that portfolio is a collection of work. Simple as that. It may be for sale, it may be to judge their progress in the skill, it could simply mean Album. Because a portfolio of work by a person with a camera does not mean that it is a professional's body of work for sale.

And what is a professional photographer? Anyone with a camera that's who. What with the growth of on line sharing sites such as flickr and pix.ie any picture uploaded can be viewed across the globe and contact can be made and a deal on the photo done. A sale, any sale can make you professional. Hell, never mind havin pics sure just having a web site these days seams to work for some.

From my reading of this thread some people have the opinion that they have a legal entitlement to whether they want to be photographed or that they have some rights over the image (all this refering to pics in the public domain). They (you and me) don't. It is up to the discretion of the photographer in both instances. This goes for whether your mug is newsworthy or not. Even the most vile celebs or criminals have exactly the same rights as those that keep their noses down.

I'm a photographer. Professional? Well I only work at selling my photos. I don't do weddings, gigs etc. I capture life on the street or create collages. I sell in Dublin city when it's dry and exhibit my stuff around town.
Here's an example. 2 kids (I don't know the age of the girl), one revealing one feeding. This is by far one of my big sellers. I've even sold one to a female Garda before xmas. She wanted it to use as a present. She asked about the story behind it. Simple, the girl was begging and breastfeeding I was taking photos. The 3 of us simply working away.
Legal, unpleasant to some, artistic to others and a bit of fun to most that have bought it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

humberklog wrote: »

Could the OP clarify "portfolio"? My understnading is that portfolio is a collection of work. Simple as that. It may be for sale, it may be to judge their progress in the skill, it could simply mean Album. Because a portfolio of work by a person with a camera does not mean that it is a professional's body of work for sale.

And what is a professional photographer? Anyone with a camera that's who. What with the growth of on line sharing sites such as flickr and pix.ie any picture uploaded can be viewed across the globe and contact can be made and a deal on the photo done. A sale, any sale can make you professional. Hell, never mind havin pics sure just having a web site these days seams to work for some.

From my reading of this thread some people have the opinion that they have a legal entitlement to whether they want to be photographed or that they have some rights over the image (all this refering to pics in the public domain). They (you and me) don't. It is up to the discretion of the photographer in both instances. This goes for whether your mug is newsworthy or not. Even the most vile celebs or criminals have exactly the same rights as those that keep their noses down.

I'm a photographer. Professional? Well I only work at selling my photos. I don't do weddings, gigs etc. I capture life on the street or create collages. I sell in Dublin city when it's dry and exhibit my stuff around town.
Here's an example. 2 kids (I don't know the age of the girl), one revealing one feeding. This is by far one of my big sellers. I've even sold one to a female Garda before xmas. She wanted it to use as a present. She asked about the story behind it. Simple, the girl was begging and breastfeeding I was taking photos. The 3 of us simply working away.
Legal, unpleasant to some, artistic to others and a bit of fun to most that have bought it.

I think you'll find that that photo will be judged by the legallity/ethical quality rather than on actual merit.

I hold my hand up - I've taken pictures of kids and adults in open situations - but I've never published them. I have used them for references for paintings, though, but the painting never contains the recognisable image of the subject (unless it's a portrait, obviously). How people react to this is up to them.

I've also clicked on flickr/pix.ie links in sigs on boards.ie and been led to photos that look like they were taken without permission. Didn't look like the kids were under any distress. If I found a picture of myself online, I really would not be that worried. ****, I have enough REAL things to worry about.

Michael Jackson used to make his kids wear masks because he didn't want them being photographed in public and people though he was a paranoid weirdo. Now, it seems that the same people are in the same mindset.

Ickle Magoo

humberklog wrote: »

From my reading of this thread some people have the opinion that they have a legal entitlement to whether they want to be photographed or that they have some rights over the image (all this refering to pics in the public domain). They (you and me) don't. It is up to the discretion of the photographer in both instances.

From what I'm reading, that this is the case, is the crux of the issue.

Icky Poo2,

I'm getting the distinct impression from this thread that photographers think the status quo is hunky-dory & it suits them to propagate the idea that anyone who thinks otherwise is a paranoid idiot - for obvious & wholly selfish reasons. It suits to concentrate on the extreme examples of paranoid behaviour such as the late & completely eccentric Michael Jackson and try and marry a request to have some say over the public distribution of the images of ourselves and our children in everyday life as being tantamount to a mega-star forcing their kids to wear masks to avoid being photographed by the paparazzo. Seriously now, I despair. :rolleyes:

Blisterman

To be honest, it should be a matter of photographers having consideration, and not taking photos of people without their permission. The last thing needed is more awkward unenforcable laws.

Ickle Magoo

Blisterman wrote: »

To be honest, it should be a matter of photographers having consideration, and not taking photos of people without their permission. The last thing needed is more awkward unenforcable laws.

I agree, it should be - but leaving it up to the photographers to decide boundaries clearly doesn't work - and judging by some of the "we can take your picture and there's nothing you can do, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah"-esque comments here, that's just the way they want it. Did that woman above want her picture taken? Was that taken into consideration? Do the people that need to take out injunctions to get the paps from camping on their doorsteps want their picture taken? If there was more common sense shown by certain sectors of the photographic world then I don't think it would ever have become an issue.

EDITED TO ADD: Perhaps rather than pointing the finger at some obscure surge in paranoid parents as being the issue, some photographers could look a little closer to home.

Dublin_Gunner

I haven't read the whole thread, just the initial post.

Call me crazy, but I'm of the opinion that not everyone with a camera is a paedophile, or looking to exploit pictures of my children on the internet.

If a photographer wants to take a picture of my child, and asks beforehand, there is absolutely NO problem whatsoever.

I mean, what ever happened to people thinking its an innocent picture of a child?

This would have been a non issue only 10-15 years ago. But with media hype about paedophiles and kiddy porn, its gotten out of control.

Its terribly sad that society has become so paranoid. Really grinds my gears.

Its actuallly fcuking scary to see some of the replies on this thread. The paranoia is astounding. Seriously. Stop believing everything you see on TV3.

Enii

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

I haven't read the whole thread, just the initial post.

Call me crazy, but I'm of the opinion that not everyone with a camera is a paedophile, or looking to exploit pictures of my children on the internet.

If a photographer wants to take a picture of my child, and asks beforehand, there is absolutely NO problem whatsoever.

I mean, what ever happened to people thinking its an innocent picture of a child?

This would have been a non issue only 10-15 years ago. But with media hype about paedophiles and kiddy porn, its gotten out of control.

Its terribly sad that society has become so paranoid. Really grinds my gears.

Its actuallly fcuking scary to see some of the replies on this thread. The paranoia is astounding. Seriously. Stop believing everything you see on TV3.

Have to agree.

Even when posters are spouting on about privacy they are then letting their true feelings come out by saying things like imagine your childs image being used in a worldwide campaign. Yeah so what? It is highly unlikely that this will happen, so why worry.

Ickle Magoo

Enii wrote: »

Have to agree.

Even when posters are spouting on about privacy they are then letting their true feelings come out by saying things like imagine your childs image being used in a worldwide campaign. Yeah so what? It is highly unlikely that this will happen, so why worry.

Lol, the whole worldwide thing was a point that was brought up on another forum by another poster, I used it as an example of something that had nothing to do with paedophiles that made parents uneasy with the lack of control they have over their children's images.

We have laws against lots of things that are highly unlikely to happen, I'm not sure why the low odds of something happening should make it immune from legislation?

Dublin_Gunner

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Lol, the whole worldwide thing was a point that was brought up on another forum by another poster, I used it as an example of something that had nothing to do with paedophiles that made parents uneasy with the lack of control they have over their children's images.

We have laws against lots of things that are highly unlikely to happen, I'm not sure why the low odds of something happening should make it immune from legislation?

Its not immune from legislation though. But someone merely taking a photograph does not constitute them doing anything illegal with it.

And people talking about 'privacy' when out in public, well, if you cannot see the contradictive* irony...

*yes, I believe I fabricated that word. But it makes sense, to me at least

Ickle Magoo

That was in response to the repeated "It doesn't bother me so why bother about it" posts. Photography has changed, the methods and the technology, the legislation should change too - that's what the last 1.8 pages have been about.

There is a contradiction between absolute privacy in public but I don't think anyone is talking about absolute privacy. Asking that people not be allowed to look at one another or accidentally get someone else's elbow in their pictures of their own kids - silly. Not wanting someone to specifically take their image without permission/in secret and then use the image commercially or open to a world-wide audience online - not so silly. See, there's that middle ground I was talking about.

Enii

What would you think of this?

My brother plays football once a week - just a kick around with a few mates.

One evening he notices a photographer taking pictures of the game.

4 weeks later when he is walking up to the sports centre he notices the glass entrance is now covered in large shots of people playing football.

And guess who is on the last largest panel and is the most visible player. Yes, it's my brother.

He didn't care. No one who was playing that night cared. What's the big deal? It didn't change his life in any way. He still goes about his normal day to day life.

Is this the type of thing that the "privacy argument" posters are against?

Would you be concerned about this?

Ludo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

without permission/in secret

To me there is a difference here between these two which is being blurred (possibly deliberately). We are not talking about someone hiding in a bush taking photos of kids but someone wh ois being quite open about it. There is a big difference.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm getting the distinct impression from this thread that photographers think the status quo is hunky-dory & it suits them to propagate the idea that anyone who thinks otherwise is a paranoid idiot - for obvious & wholly selfish reasons. It suits to concentrate on the extreme examples of paranoid behaviour such as the late & completely eccentric Michael Jackson and try and marry a request to have some say over the public distribution of the images of ourselves and our children in everyday life as being tantamount to a mega-star forcing their kids to wear masks to avoid being photographed by the paparazzo. Seriously now, I despair. :rolleyes:

You'd need to ask people who are both photographers and parents that. Technically, I'm neither, but unofficially, I'm both.

Regarding the Michael Jackson reference - yes, I was going to the extreme to point out how paranoid and eccentric some (not all) people really are. Take the guy at the start of the thread who said he'd take the camera by force and destroy it. :rolleyes: returned.

That said, if someone IS stalking in the bushes by a playground, I see your point and agree. But if there is a scene where a few photogrpahers are taking photos of a street entertainer and your kids are in the background, how are you going to go up to each one and demand that they destroy their work just to ease your hysteria?

Nevyn

Yes photographers are not pedos and it is wrong to suggest so but parents are not over protective freaks so less of the snipe sweeping statements about parents, sweeping statements in the photography forum about most of the posters there would not be allowed and sweeping statements here about parents are not allowed.

Dublin_Gunner

This:
http://www.aputure.com/en/product/gigtube_instant_digita_screen_visible_remote_control.htm

Should help all those pesky bush-hiding profiteers.

(gotta love the 'low angle' position lol)

I suppose in a perfect world, photographers would ask everyone if they mind being photographed, and certainly if the pics are going to be sold for profit. But in reality, this isn;t going to happen.

We really should try and move on from the whole 'privacy' thing too. Privacy should be respected, yes, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse for someone doing something you may not agree with.

Surely, anyone with common sense could merely ask the photographer "Would you mind not taking pictures of me/my kids/grandmother/dog" or whatever if you don't want it done.

And finally, just because someone is taking pictures of a child, does not mean their intentions are not wholesome.

Some people just like pictures of children, being happy, playing etc

Children have almost become 'taboo' in recent years due to the media hyping stories of child pornography, paedophiles, kidnap etc.

It really is a sorry state of affairs we have gotten ourselves into.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Yes photographers are not pedos and it is wrong to suggest so but parents are not over protective freaks so less of the snipe sweeping statements about parents, sweeping statements in the photography forum about most of the posters there would not be allowed and sweeping statements here about parents are not allowed.

Sorry Thaedydal - but is that just because you don't agree with some peoples opinions? I'm a parent, I'm not some paranoid freak, but some of the responses here from some members would suggest otherwise for a lot of parents.

Its hardly a 'sweeping statement' when people are openly responding with their opinions on what some people here have posted.

metrovelvet

Its not illegal to stare but people still don't like it.

Nevyn

Comparing parents who post here who do not which thier kids to the likes of extreme examples does not help and frankly is insulting to those who post here.
Saying that photographers are secretly pedos insults those who are photographer who are posting here.
There forum was set up as safe and suporting place for parents and posts which belittle or deride people are not acceptable. That is the ethos of the forum.