Taking Photographs of Children

Dublin_Gunner

Thaedydal wrote: »

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.

And that's perfectly acceptable. I was just stating that I believe people were responding the the 'extreme' posts made on thread, not making sweeping generalisations about parents and/or photographers.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Thaedydal wrote: »

Y but parents are not over protective freaks so less of the snipe sweeping statements about parents.

Oh, a lot of parents are and it's seriously limits their freedom. You yourself brought up the fear of having a child's image photoshopped into something a bit more sinister.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Saying that photographers are secretly pedos insults those who are photographer who are posting here.

But the implication has been made, which is ok?

JohnK

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

Erm, actually... http://interneteyes.co.uk/

Register there and you can make money from watching cctv all day. Granted only by reporting more crimes than anyone else but still, you do get to watch people on cctv all day.

Ickle Magoo

Enii wrote: »

What would you think of this? blah, blah, blah

For the n'th time - just because it doesn't bother you, or your brother, or your granny, or your cat, doesn't make it a non-issue to the rest of the world or invalidate anyone else's views on this topic.

Arguments seem to be veering wildly from the extremes of paedophiles to the mundane in the vain hope that there can seem to be no rational argument against the legislative status quo.

Ludo wrote:

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.

I wasn't talking about hiding in bushes either, if someone is taking photos from range they are not being open about it, it doesn't require camouflage and shrubbery to be furtively taking pictures of people.

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

Oh, a lot of parents are and it's seriously limits their freedom...

And some couldn't give a sh0ite about their kids & there is everything in-between, that doesn't mean that those who want a better degree of protection of privacy when going about their private lives don't have a legitimate case - or that they are hysterical, for that matter.

Dublin_Gunner wrote:

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.

I don't see why we should move on from the "privacy thing", especially just to suit the minority. I also don't think it's a sorry affair we (parents) have gotten ourselves into. The issue of alterations to the privacy laws keep being raised because of irresponsible photographers invasive behaviour and refusal to accept that people have the right to a private life. I think the child porn/paedophile aspect is very much a side issue that just makes better headlines and the hype surrounding it is an easier argument to throw out against legislative changes.

Look, I've posted photos of my kids on-line, I think there's one of my son still on this very forum in fact, but that was my choice - and it should be my choice. There are plenty of parents who don't mind their kids being being models, doing pageants, all manner of things - but photography seems to be the only one that parents have little or no choice in their child's participation, even if the picture is commercial or given a global audience - it's the lack of control and choice aspect that annoys most people I've spoken with on this.

Dublin_Gunner

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't see why we should move on from the "privacy thing", especially just to suit the minority. I also don't think it's a sorry affair we (parents) have gotten ourselves into. The issue of alterations to the privacy laws keep being raised because of irresponsible photographers invasive behaviour and refusal to accept that people have the right to a private life. I think the child porn/paedophile aspect is very much a side issue that just makes better headlines and the hype surrounding it is an easier argument to throw out against legislative changes.

But isn't that just the point I've been making? People expecting 'privacy' when in public is more than a little naive TBH. Stupid even.

I respect anyone's privacy - in private. How someone can say anybody is being overly 'invasive' when in public just doesn't make sense.

If someone is that concerned about their privacy, stay in.

To say that invasion of privacy can take place in a public place is a gross contradiction in my view.

Ickle Magoo

JohnK wrote: »

Erm, actually... http://interneteyes.co.uk/

Register there and you can make money from watching cctv all day. Granted only by reporting more crimes than anyone else but still, you do get to watch people on cctv all day.

Is that not just the same as a CCTV operator being paid to survey a shop security system though? The CCTV companies aren't profiteering from the images, they are in fact paying other people to watch them, for the purposes of reporting crimes. It's not the same as selling images for profit or posting images online for any member of the public to click on & see. Nice try, though.

Ludo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't see why we should move on from the "privacy thing", especially just to suit the minority.

Who says people they are the minority? If anything this thread implies the opposite...but then again that doesn't mean anything.

c-note

heres a link to an interesting story where a us soldier is being held after recieving some pics of his niece, sent my his mom and considered as child porn by the military....

http://www.wqad.com/videobeta/watch/?watch=3eebb4dd-6d2c-40c8-9931-ae8436f614c3&src=front

may be an interesting case for your paper

Ickle Magoo

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

But isn't that just the point I've been making? People expecting 'privacy' when in public is more than a little naive TBH. Stupid even.

I respect anyone's privacy - in private. How someone can say anybody is being overly 'invasive' when in public just doesn't make sense.

If someone is that concerned about their privacy, stay in.

To say that invasion of privacy can take place in a public place is a gross contradiction in my view.

Really? The scrums of paps camping out on peoples doorsteps and chasing them every time they set foot outside is not overly invasive because the person chooses to leave the house? Wow.

I don't think it's particularly stupid, either. Take it to the extremes and it gets a bit silly but that's no sillier than the extremes that are currently left unlegislated to the point that people need to go to the European courts to have their rights acknowledged.

JohnK

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Is that not just the same as a CCTV operator being paid to survey a shop security system though? The CCTV companies aren't profiteering from the images, they are in fact paying other people to watch them, for the purposes of reporting crimes. It's not the same as selling images for profit or posting images online for any member of the public to click on & see.

Well not really since its random members of the public who can register and spend all day watching you from anywhere in the world. Also you only have their word for it that they're not taking screen grabs and posting them online.

Ickle Magoo

Ludo wrote: »

Who says people they are the minority? If anything this thread implies the opposite...but then again that doesn't mean anything.

Photographers who want carte blanche are a minority, I assume.

Ickle Magoo

JohnK wrote: »

Well not really since its random members of the public who can register and spend all day watching you from anywhere in the world. Also you only have their word for it that they're not taking screen grabs and posting them online.

Well, random members of the public are hired by stores to stare at their CCTV images, I'm not seeing a difference. They also state;

Images may not be copied or used for any other purpose. Misuse of personal data may be a crime under Data Protection Laws.

So I'm guessing that screen grabs and posting them would fall foul of legislation that general photography does not have.

Dublin_Gunner

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Really? The scrums of paps camping out on peoples doorsteps and chasing them every time they set foot outside is not overly invasive because the person chooses to leave the house? Wow.

I don't think it's particularly stupid, either. Take it to the extremes and it gets a bit silly but that's no sillier than the extremes that are currently left unlegislated to the point that people need to go to the European courts to have their rights acknowledged.

OK, so when did we move from talking about being photographed in public, to being hounded by paparazzi?? You know for a fact they are two TOTALLY different things.

But secondly, if you chose to be in the public eye, you should expect attention from the paps.

Ludo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Photographers who want carte blanche are a minority, I assume.

No, but people who want legislation to protect their privacy from photographers are probably not in the majority either.

And this discussion is not about the paps anyway. This discussion started out about people taking photos in public places of children...it has been turned into an extreme discussion which is not relevant.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Really? The scrums of paps camping out on peoples doorsteps and chasing them every time they set foot outside is not overly invasive because the person chooses to leave the house? Wow.

If the people in question didn't give a **** the paps would soon lose interest. And tabloids would have nothing to print resulting in less paranoid being generated by the media. The porblem isn't fear of your photo being taken, it's fear of what that photo MIGHT be used for.

Here's some hyporacy: the people who demand laws that you cannot take photos of people in public are somethimes the very same peoople reading the ****ing rags and tabloids and gossiping about the people in that take photos... that were taken in public. Usually with a hell of a lot more intrusion than a photographer in a public place.

I don't think it's particularly stupid, either. Take it to the extremes and it gets a bit silly but that's no sillier than the extremes that are currently left unlegislated to the point that people need to go to the European courts to have their rights acknowledged.

Didn't you have a go at me for takin it to extremes by mentioning Michael Jackson?

And how exactly do you bring in legislation? You're giving police and potentially parents carte blanche to stop and search anyone they think might have a camera.

Also, isn't demanding to see photos on someone's camera an invasion of the photographers privacy?

Parent - "You took photos and my child are in them."
Photogrpaher - "What photos?"
Parent - "On your camra. I want to see the photos on your camera."
Photographer - "What camera?"
Parent - "Let me search you. I demand you let me search you."
Photogrpaher - "No.
Parent - "I'm calling the guards. Please stay here."
Photographer - "**** off."

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, random members of the public are hired by stores to stare at their CCTV images, I'm not seeing a difference. They also state;

So I'm guessing that screen grabs and posting them would fall foul of legislation that general photography does not have.

The photogrpaher states the same thing. That okay, then?

Ickle Magoo

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

If the people in question didn't give a **** the paps would soon lose interest. And tabloids would have nothing to print resulting in less paranoid being generated by the media. The porblem isn't fear of your photo being taken, it's fear of what that photo MIGHT be used for.

Fear? You are just trying to use emotive language to emphasise a weak point. I don't think it should be perfectly legal that my image or that of my children can be used without permission and issued to or for the general public. My friend left a violent husband who has stated he will kill her if he ever finds her, she doesn't want her photograph popping up somewhere identifiable - she has a fear of what pictures are used for - I just think people like her have a right to privacy and that right should be both legislated and constitutionally enshrined.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Here's some hyporacy: the people who demand laws that you cannot take photos of people in public are somethimes the very same peoople reading the ****ing rags and tabloids and gossiping about the people in that take photos... that were taken in public. Usually with a hell of a lot more intrusion than a photographer in a public place.

I have no idea what that has to do with your argument, it's a complete strawman you've pulled out your hat - or perhaps you just think swearing like a petulant teenager somehow lends credence to your points.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Didn't you have a go at me for takin it to extremes by mentioning Michael Jackson?

What's good for the goose....MJ took parental paranoia to the same extreme as the paps take photography, & the same legislation applies to paps printing in the tabloids to joe bloggs photographer in my local park.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

And how exactly do you bring in legislation? You're giving police and potentially parents carte blanche to stop and search anyone they think might have a camera.

Also, isn't demanding to see photos on someone's camera an invasion of the photographers privacy?

Parent - "You took photos and my child are in them."
Photogrpaher - "What photos?"
Parent - "On your camra. I want to see the photos on your camera."
Photographer - "What camera?"
Parent - "Let me search you. I demand you let me search you."
Photogrpaher - "No.
Parent - "I'm calling the guards. Please stay here."
Photographer - "**** off."

How do we bring in legislation about anything? Why is there legislative differences between over-eager and nuisance behaviour, or acting the maggot and public order?

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

The photogrpaher states the same thing. That okay, then?

How would that be okay unless photographers actually DO fall under the same legislation and data protection that people working with details and images of the public are under?

Ickle Magoo

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

OK, so when did we move from talking about being photographed in public, to being hounded by paparazzi?? You know for a fact they are two TOTALLY different things.

But secondly, if you chose to be in the public eye, you should expect attention from the paps.

Are they? They are just at different ends of the same spectrum aren't they. Like your average sceptical parent Vs Michael Jackson.

There are attention whores, of course, but there are equally plenty of murder victims families, widows of soldiers, etc, etc who didn't ask for and don't want the intrusion. I'd also hazard a guess that the folks who got court injunctions stopping the paps from making their lives a misery also don't want it.

The whole; you're on telly so we've got a right to follow you dropping the kids at school & using telescopic ranges to get you on holiday, mentality is one I don't understand. People who choose to be in film or television should have as much right to privacy while going about their daily lives as the rest of us should be afforded.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Fear? You are just trying to use emotive language to emphasise a weak point. I don't think it should be perfectly legal that my image or that of my children can be used without permission and issued to or for the general public. My friend left a violent husband who has stated he will kill her if he ever finds her, she doesn't want her photograph popping up somewhere identifiable - she has a fear of what pictures are used for - I just think people like her have a right to privacy and that right should be both legislated and constitutionally enshrined.

Emotive?! You're joking, right? After all the sh1te that's been published in this thread about photoshop and images winding up on billboards you accuse ME of using emotive langauge?! It's the use of emotive languagae that started this mess!

And your scenario portrayed above is not emotive either, is it? One specific incident does not justify every single fear/unease/worry/choose you unemotive word as you see fit that every single parent has about every single photograph. How do you stop party photos with said person in the background being published? What if she shows up in a crowd?

Short of banning the publication of all personal photography, there is no way to guarantee anything.

I have no idea what that has to do with your argument, it's a complete strawman you've pulled out your hat - or perhaps you just think swearing like a petulant teenager somehow lends credence to your points.

If you focus on the swearing, then of course you'll miss the point, but here it is in simple terms: if you use the unsolicited photos of others to base judgements and for entertainment purposes, how can you turn around and then say that unsolicitated photos of people you know should be banned?

How do we bring in legislation about anything? Why is there legislative differences between over-eager and nuisance behaviour, or acting the maggot and public order?

You're talking about bringing it to public attention. Actually getting it passed is another matter. How do you intend to tell civil rights groups and right-wing fanatics that you're giving police and parents stop and search parents and that it's a good idea?

Also, you haven't answered the question: what makes the parents rights more important than the photographers?

How would that be okay unless photographers actually DO fall under the same legislation and data protection that people working with details and images of the public are under?

If someone states that the images will not be reproduced or published without permission, than everything's ok in CCTV world. Can the same be said in the photographer scenario?

Blisterman

A law against publishing photos of people without their permission would be unenforcable.

How could you get everyone's permission in crowd shots for example?

Nevyn

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Oh, a lot of parents are and it's seriously limits their freedom. You yourself brought up the fear of having a child's image photoshopped into something a bit more sinister.

Which I didn't make up, I had a sicko threaten to do that to my kids.

Generally I don't like my photo taken, I object to even family taking pictures.

My son is the same and I will tell family members not to take his photo if he does not wish it, so if I respect my son enough to stop family members taking his photo and distressing him, what makes you think I would not do the same with a stranger?

At least some people have the manners to ask if they can take a photo.

Ickle Magoo

*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.

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.

Blisterman

What sort of law would you suggest Ickle Poo?

Ickle Magoo

Blisterman wrote: »

What sort of law would you suggest Ickle Poo?

Is that question directed to my and Icky's child?! :P

Sleepy

As a photographer it's something I'm quite aware of. There's been many times when I've let potentially great (for me) photo ops go because it would involve photographing other people's children. To date, I've only made one exception to this when I took a photograph of a friend's niece at her wedding (bored out of her mind lying on her Dad's shoulder during the ceremony). It was a nice pic and I took it for my friend and no longer have a copy myself.

If a child happens to be in a public place and is visible in a crowd shot / street scene etc. I can't see a problem with not requiring a parental release.

If the child is the main focus of the photo being taken in a public place, however, I think it's fair that we require parental permission for the shot. In the digital era it's not hard to do this on a 'hi, I took this photo of your child, is that okay, would you prefer I delete it or would you like me to mail you a copy?' basis so as not to impinge on the creativity of the photographer or the right to privacy* of the child.

(*the legislation doesn't actually confer these rights but maybe it should)

Blisterman

That's a reasonable approach, that photographers should take anyway Sleepy.

The problem is, people will look for any excuse to sue, and if it's made law, photographers would have to carry waiver forms, and it would all get a bit ridiculous.

Ickle Magoo

I'm with Sleepy.

I would be looking for something more in the line of legislating what can or cannot be distributed in or to the public without permission, rather than trying to prevent photographers actually taking pictures. Crowd shots, of course, are not person specific. I'm sure there could be a range of definitions of what pertains to be reasonable privacy and privacy being automatically waived; a crowd watching a public event vs private family moment in the park, for instance.

Ludo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

t vs private family moment in the park, for instance.

Ya see, this in itself is a contradiction. If you are in a park, then you are in public therefore it is in fact a public family moment.

Ickle Magoo

No, it's a private family moment in a public place - that doesn't mean any Tom, Dick & Harry that happens to be passing with a camera should automatically have the rights to publicly display & sell our images of our family moment.

People have the right not to be attacked in public places, not to be annoyed in public, not to be followed around, not to have blaring music in public places - laws don't just legislate on private grounds or for the masses, it deals with individuals in public all the time.

Ickle Magoo

Ludo wrote: »

Ya see, this in itself is a contradiction. If you are in a park, then you are in public therefore it is in fact a public family moment.

This is just going back onto the whole absolute privacy carousel. Absolute privacy as a definition is not the same as reasonable privacy as a legislative right.

CrazyRabbit

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, it's a private family moment in a public place - that doesn't mean any Tom, Dick & Harry that happens to be passing with a camera should automatically have the rights to publicly display & sell our images of our family moment.

People have the right not to be attacked in public places, not to be annoyed in public, not to be followed around, not to have blaring music in public places - laws don't just legislate on private grounds or for the masses, it deals with individuals in public all the time.

In a public place, every Tom, Dick & Harry can look at your 'private family' moment, listen to everything that is said and generally gather far more information than what would be captured in a photograph.

What if an artist drew a sketch of you or a family member?

Whilst I fully support your right to say 'no' if asked if your pic can be taken, I just don't understand why it's an issue. A photograph is a mere moment in your life, one with sound or a story. A person simply walking by will learn so much more about you in just a few seconds that could be gained for that photograph.

What is it about photographs that make it feel like they are an invasion of privacy? Isn't the very act of looking at you doing the exact same thing?