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!