Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Taking Photographs of Children

Options
123457»

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #183
    humberklog
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,536 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #184
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #185
    humberklog
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,536 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #186
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #188
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭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.


    42E1F0B9C39B44708DD8CBC164CFD1CA-500.jpg

    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.


  • Options
    #189
    humberklog
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,536 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #190
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement