Taking Photographs of Children

Ickle Magoo

I missed you, guys and gals! Never again will I wish you'd all just feck off!

Back to topic/

I don't think they are anything alike CrazyRabbit - a mental image cannot be sold or made public. You can't see why it's an issue - I kind of got that much, refuse to see how it could possibly be an issue for anyone, more like. I think taking images of ordinary people going about their lives when they don't want their picture taken is just wrong, it's a modern brand of harassment/nuisance/invasion & legislation should reflect that. I think legislation needs to do more to protect people from having their image claimed and used commercially by a stranger taking their picture without their knowledge - which would mean greater legislation on the commercial side of things, rather than banning photography, along the lines of Parliament Square and Trafalgar.

metrovelvet

The solution is to join an actors union. Your images are protected and cant be used commercially without permission and without fees.

humberklog

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think legislation needs to do more to protect people from having their image claimed and used commercially by a stranger taking their picture without their knowle.dge

Newspapers and magazines would be empty of almost all pics though.

Also what about the savaging of artistry this would entail?

Funny that in the week that was the story of private people in the public arena being photographed has popped up a few times: the girl in the affair of the guy in court at the moment being one of the stories.
Pretty clear that the legislation is not there to protect peoples rights over pics of them. As one photographer rightfully said on the Joe Duffy show "people don't have copyright of their faces".

Ickle Magoo

I didn't realise that Metrovelvet - thanks for that nugget!

humberklog wrote: »

As one photographer rightfully said on the Joe Duffy show "people don't have copyright of their faces".

Well of course they don't as things stand - perhaps they should, or something akin to it. I thought that's what we were discussing.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

*sigh*

Icky Poo 2,

I'm really tired of going around in circles with people who have an entirely selfish and vested interest in retaining the legislative status quo. I'm not suggesting ALL photography should be banned, I'm not going to thrash out the minutiae of possible legislation with you, or the myriad of reasons why better privacy legislation is needed - suffice to say we both know they exist. No one suggested banning ALL photographs, that's just yet another knee-jerk extreme to make the argument for better protective legislation, especially for minors, seem more ridiculous and unenforceable. Further, you ask why photographers shouldn't have the same right as parents; with regards to the access to and images of children - if you can't see the blindingly obvious answer to that then any further discussion with you is absolutely pointless.

You're not reading what I typed: I stated that banning all photogrpahs to ensire the safety of the person you brought up was impossible. I know noone suggested it, my point being: there's always a risk. I may be wrong, but I wasn't sure you had understood that.

The fact is, countries have different laws on what constitutes a breach of privacy with regards to photography so it clearly is possible to have and try and enforce a stricter code - the standard "This is the way it always has been and it's impossible to do otherwise" argument just doesn't hold water. I'm not scared, I'm not paranoid, I'm not an idiot - it just irks me that as things stand, a photographer has greater rights to make a living than I have rights to protect my child's privacy. Like so many laws here & in the UK, privacy legislation seems to be badly in need of a modern overhaul.

Oh, I'm completely open to change: if a manageable law can be brought in that respects everyones rights then I'm all for it. I think I also need to clarify that I'm not taking about publishing said photos for profit.

The feeling I get is that want to take control of a public environment, forgetting completely that you're sharing said environment.

metrovelvet

humberklog wrote: »

Newspapers and magazines would be empty of almost all pics though.

Also what about the savaging of artistry this would entail?

Funny that in the week that was the story of private people in the public arena being photographed has popped up a few times: the girl in the affair of the guy in court at the moment being one of the stories.
Pretty clear that the legislation is not there to protect peoples rights over pics of them. As one photographer rightfully said on the Joe Duffy show "people don't have copyright of their faces".

Freedom of the press supercedes rights to privacy doesn't it? Does privacy even exist anymore?

humberklog

metrovelvet wrote: »

Does privacy even exist anymore?

Yep, just not in the public domain.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I didn't realise that Metrovelvet - thanks for that nugget!



Well of course they don't as things stand - perhaps they should, or something akin to it. I thought that's what we were discussing.

I dont know if it counts for newspapers, freedom of the press. Press can do anything they like. I remember a ny tabloid published a picture in the front page of a toddler on fire falling out of a building. Sickos. No concern for the family having to see that everywhere.

metrovelvet

humberklog wrote: »

Yep, just not in the public domain.

So if you are on a private nudist beach, can people photograph you?

Ickle Magoo

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You're not reading what I typed: I stated that banning all photogrpahs to ensire the safety of the person you brought up was impossible. I know noone suggested it, my point being: there's always a risk. I may be wrong, but I wasn't sure you had understood that.



Oh, I'm completely open to change: if a manageable law can be brought in that respects everyones rights then I'm all for it. I think I also need to clarify that I'm not taking about publishing said photos for profit.

The feeling I get is that want to take control of a public environment, forgetting completely that you're sharing said environment.

I've already said that many public behaviours that would not be appreciated by those we share the public space with are covered under specific legislation, I don't see why photography should get special treatment - particularly commercial photography.

You say there is always a risk, of course - all legislation is unenforceable at ground level, that doesn't mean we don't have bother with it - legislation acts both as a deterrent to those contemplating a particular act and so there are consequences for those who do it anyway.

Skittle

metrovelvet wrote: »

So if you are on a private nudist beach, can people photograph you?

If the person taking the photo is standing in a public place then yes they can. Why do you think all those Hollywood stars have so many trees surrounding their property.

metrovelvet

Skittle wrote: »

If the person taking the photo is standing in a public place then yes they can. Why do you think all those Hollywood stars have so many trees surrounding their property.

So someone can photograph you while you are in your home if they are out on the street?

Skittle

Yes. That's the law as it stands. There's not much distinction between seeing something with the human eye and seeing it through the lens of a camera.

metrovelvet

ok. So no, there is no privacy. Btw, you know in france there is a law against staring.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I've already said that many public behaviours that would not be appreciated by those we share the public space with are covered under specific legislation, I don't see why photography should get special treatment - particularly commercial photography.

Now it wounds like you're classing photogrpahy as something lewd (which I know you're not, but that's the way it comes across). Bearing in mind, I'm not talking about being intrusive: If I take a shot of a park with 20 or 30 people in it and use one person as a reference for a painting, where do you stand on that (assuming said person is not recognisable).

I'm not talking about standing three feet from someone with a zoom lens and demanding that they stay still.

Ickle Magoo

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Now it wounds like you're classing photogrpahy as something lewd (which I know you're not, but that's the way it comes across). Bearing in mind, I'm not talking about being intrusive: If I take a shot of a park with 20 or 30 people in it and use one person as a reference for a painting, where do you stand on that (assuming said person is not recognisable).

I'm not talking about standing three feet from someone with a zoom lens and demanding that they stay still.

Lol, no, I think you are determined to paint me as hysterical. I was actually thinking about nuisance behaviour and public order offences & so on.

You are just getting further and further away from the OP's question about specifically photographing children which is where my original objections were directed. If I'm asked, I don't really mind very much in terms of photography or painting - my general complaint is it's just not good enough that privacy has been eroded to the extent it has when technology has moved on in leaps to all but destroy what little privacy had been afforded. I just like being consulted and like having a choice, I turned down an offer for my daughter to be in a nappy ad which was made after seeing her picture elsewhere - which was a bit freaky but I have no issue with the painting my cousin did of her in her nappy for his art degree.

Blisterman

How many of these photos wouldn't be allowed if such a law wa brought in?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055750426

And a more important point is the fact that a lot of these photos helped raise awareness of important causes, which might not have been raised otherwise.

Ickle Magoo

If it is a photo of world-wide importance then it can be granted something similar to freedom of the press in the name of global interest to cover it's publication. I don't think using iconic photographs of war zones or terrorism to argue for that any more legislation for the average joe/jane blogg going about their daily life is "bad" makes any sense - especially since the governing legislation would be dependent on where the photograph is taken.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Lol, no, I think you are determined to paint me as hysterical. I was actually thinking about nuisance behaviour and public order offences & so on.

Not my intention at all, but, yeah, I know, which was why I admitted that I knew it wasn't wahat you meant!

You are just getting further and further away from the OP's question about specifically photographing children which is where my original objections were directed. If I'm asked, I don't really mind very much in terms of photography or painting - my general complaint is it's just not good enough that privacy has been eroded to the extent it has when technology has moved on in leaps to all but destroy what little privacy had been afforded. I just like being consulted and like having a choice, I turned down an offer for my daughter to be in a nappy ad which was made after seeing her picture elsewhere - which was a bit freaky but I have no issue with the painting my cousin did of her in her nappy for his art degree.

I know, I see your point: but I simply do not see talking a photograph in a public place as being an invasion of someon's privacy. Now, as I said, if it the camera was in someone's face or being a direct annoyance, there's a definite case, but I'd liken that to offensive beahaeiour rather than invasion of privacy

Blisterman wrote: »

How many of these photos wouldn't be allowed if such a law wa brought in?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055750426

And a more important point is the fact that a lot of these photos helped raise awareness of important causes, which might not have been raised otherwise.

The case of the Vietnameese girl running naked down the street springs to mind. I'm suprised people aren't offended more whan that gets published somewhere.

Ickle Magoo

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I know, I see your point: but I simply do not see talking a photograph in a public place as being an invasion of someon's privacy.

There are clearly people who think privacy ends as soon as you open your curtains and by stepping out the front door you forfeit the right to choose if you or your children are the subject of commercial or private photography, without or without permission - or even against your wishes - obviously I'm not one of them. I can understand why you think privacy in public does not exist but in reality it only doesn't exist legislatively in particular countries rather than as a concept, it's certainly possible that taking a photograph of someone in a public place and/or publication of said photograph can be made an invasion of privacy.

humberklog

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

it's certainly possible that taking a photograph of someone in a public place and/or publication of said photograph can be made an invasion of privacy.

In legal terms?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There are clearly people who think privacy ends as soon as you open your curtains and by stepping out the front door you forfeit the right to choose if you or your children are the subject of commercial or private photography, without or without permission - or even against your wishes - obviously I'm not one of them. I can understand why you think privacy in public does not exist but in reality it only doesn't exist legislatively in particular countries rather than as a concept, it's certainly possible that taking a photograph of someone in a public place and/or publication of said photograph can be made an invasion of privacy.

It's more the need to control the locality as soon as someone steps outside. And privacy in a public place is more a matter of sharing said public place. I can accept privacy in a public place, for example a picnic, but you cannot dictate to someone who is a good bit far away and not doign anything the law deems offensive. And taking pictures is not offensive.

humberklog wrote: »

In legal terms?

Taking it, no. Publishing it, yes.

humberklog

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Taking it, no. Publishing it, yes.

Could you provide a link to any such legislation in this jurisdiction?

I've looked and enquired and haven't been able to find definitive information on the relevant laws.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

humberklog wrote: »

Could you provide a link to any such legislation in this jurisdiction?

I've looked and enquired and haven't been able to find definitive information on the relevant laws.

The irish statue website returns no links regard this (typical!), but I'm pretty sure you need a Model Release Form from the subject in order to publsh a reconisable photo. You also need one from the parent/guardian if the person is a minor.

humberklog

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

The irish statue website returns no links regard this (typical!), but I'm pretty sure you need a Model Release Form from the subject in order to publsh a reconisable photo. You also need one from the parent/guardian if the person is a minor.

Oh come on "pretty sures" don't cut it. It can't be linked because what you talk of doesn't exist. For adults or children.

If this exists in our law then it can be linked. If it doesn't exist it can't be.

Regardless of whather one feels it is wrong or has personal moral objections to this issue I put it that it is wrong and dangerous to begin stating a law on the basis of "pretty sures". Wrong and dangerous.

If it exists it can be linked.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

humberklog wrote: »

Oh come on "pretty sures" don't cut it. It can't be linked because what you talk of doesn't exist. For adults or children.

If this exists in our law then it can be linked. If it doesn't exist it can't be.

Regardless of whather one feels it is wrong or has personal moral objections to this issue I put it that it is wrong and dangerous to begin stating a law on the basis of "pretty sures". Wrong and dangerous.

If it exists it can be linked.

"I'm pretty sure" simply means I can't find the link. Me not being able to find the link does NOT mean I'm automatically wrong.

Ask on the photogrpahy forum - someone there should know.

humberklog

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

"I'm pretty sure" simply means I can't find the link. Me not being able to find the link does NOT mean I'm automatically wrong.

Ask on the photogrpahy forum - someone there should know.

I've read many threads on the photography forum that have dealt with the subject already and have also taken legal advice on the matter in the past. Take the pics, there is no issue is the info recieved.

Here's a question: do you think that Eamonn Lillis was asked for permission by The Herald to print his mug on page 8 of today's paper?

That's a peculiar interpretation on "pretty sure" in the original context you used it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

humberklog wrote: »

I've read many threads on the photography forum that have dealt with the subject already and have also taken legal advice on the matter in the past. Take the pics, there is no issue is the info recieved.

Here's a question: do you think that Eamonn Lillis was asked for permission by The Herald to print his mug on page 8 of today's paper?

That's a peculiar interpretation on "pretty sure" in the original context you used it.

To be honest, I'm not a pro photographer, so it doesn't really effect me. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'd be very sruprised to learn that you can publish a photo of anyone without their permission. This is, however way off topic, considering we're in the parenting forum.

humberklog

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

To be honest, I'm not a pro photographer, so it doesn't really effect me. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'd be very sruprised to learn that you can publish a photo of anyone without their permission. This is, however way off topic, considering we're in the parenting forum.

Well threads naturally evolve. This one took a fairly predictable route as that it drew reactions from people. These reactions showed some peoples lack of knowledge on the law regading the topic and some wrong and dangerous statements regarding peoples perception of the law.


Surely all that is well and fine on an on line discussion forum. I like reading peoples thoughts on the matter especially when the topic broadens but retains a context.

smelltheglove

With regard to model releases, as far as I am aware, these are needed fir commercial reasons only, ie advert campaigns, not for documentary which would be newspapers, I don't think they are required for sale of art but not 100% sure, I've never tried to sell an image of someone as art! I use model releases when I take pictures of models and as part of the contract for weddings to ensure I have permission to display my images in my portfolios on and offline.

If we needed model releases just to print in papers the papers would have very few pictures if any!

Ickle Magoo

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

....but you cannot dictate to someone who is a good bit far away and not doign anything the law deems offensive. And taking pictures is not offensive.

I'm not advocating dictating to people, I'm advocating a change in what the law deems offensive.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

And taking pictures is not offensive.

I think it depends entirely on the context.

humberklog wrote: »

In legal terms?

Of course, do you think legal terms begin and end in the Irish statute book 2010 - any number of legislative introductions regarding privacy and photography are possible.

humberklog

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

.



Of course, do you think legal terms begin and end in the Irish statute book 2010 - any number of legislative introductions regarding privacy and photography are possible.

I'm really not sure of what you're saying here IM. There's an answer, a question without a question mark and a rather fuzzy statement I don't understand in the context of this thread.

My only point is that it is legal to take pictures of anyone in the the public arena and it's is legal to retain and print these images without any consent of the person being photographed.

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I can understand why you think privacy in public does not exist but in reality it only doesn't exist legislatively in particular countries rather than as a concept, it's certainly possible that taking a photograph of someone in a public place and/or publication of said photograph can be made an invasion of privacy.

humberklog wrote: »

In legal terms?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Of course, do you think legal terms begin and end in the Irish statute book 2010 - any number of legislative introductions regarding privacy and photography are possible.

Question mark omissions aside (:p), what's so difficult to understand? There has been repeated proclamations that taking photos that people don't want taken and publishing them is perfectly legal - I think the majority of posters knew that was the case - they just don't agree that should be the case and as such, will object to the photographer taking their picture, regardless of where the law sits on it presently.

humberklog

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Question mark omissions aside, what's so difficult to understand? There has been repeated proclamations that taking photos that people don't want taken and publishing them is perfectly legal - I think the majority of posters knew that was the case - they just don't agree that should be the case and as such, will object to the photographer taking their picture, regardless of where the law sits on it presently.

Oh yeah...that tidies it up a bit. Thanks for making it clearer.

Ludo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

- I think the majority of posters knew that was the case - they just don't agree that should be the case and as such, will object to the photographer taking their picture, regardless of where the law sits on it presently.

You keep saying the majority disagree with the current law. I disagree with that and looking back over this thread, that does not appear to be the case at all. In fact it appears to be a very small, but vocal, minority who want the law changed.

One thing we all agree on is that a photographer harassing people, following them and what not is not on. But there are already laws that can handle that scenario and that is an extreme case that "normal" (non-celebrity) people will never have to deal with.

I seriously doubt the majority want to ban photography without permission in public which is what you appear to want.

Ickle Magoo

Ludo wrote: »

You keep saying the majority disagree with the current law. I disagree with that and looking back over this thread, that does not appear to be the case at all. In fact it appears to be a very small, but vocal, minority who want the law changed.

Ask again on a parenting forum like roller-coaster or magic mum and see what response you get, the majority of responses on this thread past page one seem to be from photographers, hardly a varied section of society.

Ludo wrote: »

One thing we all agree on is that a photographer harassing people, following them and what not is not on. But there are already laws that can handle that scenario and that is an extreme case that "normal" (non-celebrity) people will never have to deal with.

I've been through this, several times now...there is no legislation to prevent a photographer taking my or my child's picture, distributing it and selling it. I think there should be, end of.

Ludo wrote: »

I seriously doubt the majority want to ban photography without permission in public which is what you appear to want.

Yeah, that's exactly what I've been saying - I'm so glad you are reading my posts rather than just putting words in my mouth. *sigh* :rolleyes:

Ickle Magoo wrote:

You are just getting further and further away from the OP's question about specifically photographing children which is where my original objections were directed. If I'm asked, I don't really mind very much in terms of photography or painting - my general complaint is it's just not good enough that privacy has been eroded to the extent it has when technology has moved on in leaps to all but destroy what little privacy had been afforded. I just like being consulted and like having a choice, I turned down an offer for my daughter to be in a nappy ad which was made after seeing her picture elsewhere - which was a bit freaky but I have no issue with the painting my cousin did of her in her nappy for his art degree.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

....I'm not suggesting ALL photography should be banned, I'm not going to thrash out the minutiae of possible legislation with you, or the myriad of reasons why better privacy legislation is needed - suffice to say we both know they exist. No one suggested banning ALL photographs, that's just yet another knee-jerk extreme to make the argument for better protective legislation, especially for minors, seem more ridiculous and unenforceable. Further, you ask why photographers shouldn't have the same right as parents; with regards to the access to and images of children - if you can't see the blindingly obvious answer to that then any further discussion with you is absolutely pointless.

The fact is, countries have different laws on what constitutes a breach of privacy with regards to photography so it clearly is possible to have and try and enforce a stricter code - the standard "This is the way it always has been and it's impossible to do otherwise" argument just doesn't hold water. I'm not scared, I'm not paranoid, I'm not an idiot - it just irks me that as things stand, a photographer has greater rights to make a living than I have rights to protect my child's privacy. Like so many laws here & in the UK, privacy legislation seems to be badly in need of a modern overhaul.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

...for obvious & wholly selfish reasons...

This part made me laugh... Selfish? I don't think the photographers are the ones being selfish here... lol...

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

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.

You can thank the PC brigade for that much

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.

Lol... I cracked up reading this part... thanks for that

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

It surely is not a "sweeping statement". It's a statement based on what parents are posting.

metrovelvet wrote: »

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

Would you ask somebody to stop staring at you?

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.

What a great picture. Very artistic. Although, you would have a large portion of the PC brigade and over paronoid parents, mothers in perticular disagreeing.

People are now afraid to simply look at children as they may be labled a pedo, people are very concious of this and it's a load of crap. Why should people feel like this? It's not right...

Either way, if I have the potential to capture a great moment of a stranger, no matter what age, I won't be stopping to ask you nor will I delete it. It's my picture, if you don't want it taken I suggest you wear a bag over your head or just don't leave your house.

I hope the PC brigade don't make a balls of things by lobbying for new laws to be made for this. That would be a complete joke.

humberklog

Raven Jolly Alphabet wrote: »

Although, you would have a large portion of the PC brigade and over paronoid parents, mothers in perticular disagreeing.
QUOTE]


Well that's the thing (and why I put it up as a good example): I've never have had any negative feedback from anybody about it.
Now I must explain, this picture is viewed about 200 times a day on the street. I sell my pictures in the centre of Dublin and, as said, this is one of my biggest sellers. Now that's also not taking into account the amount of times it has been viewed on line in pix.ie, flickr and Boards- perhaps 3500 times. Not one word of ethical questioning nor it's artistic merits and (to the point on this thread) neither about invasion of privacy or exploitation of a minor.

I've a curious bent as to what floats peoples boats artistically, well being an artist it's in my jobs interest to, and what could offend people (I'm not too eager on being chased down the street). Along this thread some posters have been taking very strong stances against invasion of privacy, to the point of making up laws that they believe so strongly should exist that they imagine them to exist.
Now if you threw a rock in the air a few times you will hit someone on the street or on line that would share these opinions of expected privacy. However when the picture is presented there is never a peep of disgust or moral outrage. How could there be? Everybody buys newspapers, magazines, watches TV and snoops about on line. Browses art galleries. The images of other peoples privacy being invaded is so pervasive in society and is so entwined into our everyday visuals that they become almost invisible, perhaps even subconsciously expected. (How would people react if in the morning they awoke to every image ever taken of a person without their permission had mysteriously disappeared into the ether? It's a peculiar thought.)

Privacy is personal. Nobody else really cares about other peoples privacy after it has been exposed, only of course the person whose privacy has been jeopardised. Some people may disagree but I do base this on pretty good experience and consideration by putting myself firstly behind the camera and then in front of my work every day.

On a btw this photo sells mostly to women and has just made 25 euro for Haiti in an on line auction. Bought by a woman that has kids.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

humberklog wrote: »

Along this thread some posters have been taking very strong stances against invasion of privacy, to the point of making up laws that they believe so strongly should exist that they imagine them to exist.

So true. Perfect examples... lol. Where do people get this from? Honestly...

Thaedydal wrote: »

You do not have the right o take anyones photo with out thier permission esp if it id them clearly and you do not have the right to photograph my child with out my permission... bla bla bla...

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... bla bla bla...

Definately an over reaction at the very least.