Photographs of Children in Public

Pawwed Rig · 03-11-2015 8:12pm

Can I remind those speaking on behalf of parents that parents are not of one mind. You speak for yourself not all of us. Personally I have no interest in photography as a hobby but have no problem with anyone taking photos of whatever they want in the public sphere. If it makes you uncomfortable then how do you tolerate the constant monitoring from cctv (which incidentally is not secure and often finds it's way onto YouTube and similar sites).
These freedoms are extremely important particularly if you extend to other sections of society - for example some Police forces in the US are attempting to make photographing them an offence.

DivingDuck · 03-11-2015 8:17pm

challengemaster wrote: »

I'll re-iterate what Paulw said earlier - What exactly is this "danger" people keep talking about.

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or not here, but giving you the benefit of the doubt:

An image today can be taken for nothing, processed for nothing, reproduced for nothing, and distributed for nothing. Whereas twenty years ago it cost money to shoot, develop, copy, and distribute photos, it's now completely free, instantaneous, and irreversible to take an image and send it worldwide to a potential audience of billions within seconds. Do you honestly not see how that's threatening to some people?

Some hypotheticals where this could cause danger:

1. The parent/child has been removed from an unsafe environment, and the posted image (to Flickr, FB, Tumblr, etc.) could give clues to its whereabouts.

2. The image is picked up by predators (who do make use of perfectly innocent photographs) who can easily obtain information about the child by, for example, the team the child is playing for, the park they visit, the street they live on, etc.

3. The child is with someone, or was somewhere, they shouldn't be (i.e., the nanny took the child to the park instead of the museum, or the aunt allowed the child to see his father despite the court ruling, etc.).

4. The photographs are later used in a context that, while legitimate, may be embarrassing or distressing for the child (used as a file photo in a newspaper story, or the photo itself was embarrassing and someone of eighteen is embarrassed by the photo of himself covered in ice cream or looking up another little kid's skirt, whatever).

Different people have different ideas of what is and isn't dangerous for their child. You may not agree any of the examples present a legitimate danger, but you don't have to. You have no right to decide for somebody else's child what is and isn't dangerous when they haven't granted you the right to do so.

If someone handed your child a knife and told them to go for a gentle jog, you'd probably be unhappy about it. It is the same thing. While you may not accept or believe these things to be dangers, the parent considers that they are.

Not respecting their wishes is clearly disrespectful. Why be disrespectful to someone when you don't have to be? It might not be illegal to let the door slam in someone's face behind me, but that doesn't mean I don't always hold it open for the person following to pass though as a matter of respect and consideration. It might cost me a few seconds, but it would cost them far worse to get a door in the face, so why wouldn't I do that? Why wouldn't everyone?

Paulw · 03-11-2015 8:17pm

DivingDuck wrote: »

Parents make hundreds of judgment calls on behalf of their children on a daily basis. Don't touch the stove. Don't pet the stray cat. Don't cross the street without holding my hand. Don't take sweets from strangers..

You forgot "don't allow yourself to be photographed@. :eek: Because that will definitely hurt the child, in so many ways that photographers just can never know.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 03-11-2015 8:18pm

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

and have every right to ask, and there is nothing that can be done about it.

The photographer could also say no. I know if I took the time to set up my camera, took some shots of a beautiful landscape and a child wandered into it, they would be cropped out. Now if a parent asked me to stop, I would ask them to remove their child from the scene :P

Tasden wrote: »

Where did I say they are?
It's not a photographer vs parent scenario. Its one person being uncomfortable and the other not respecting that they are causing that person discomfort when they could very easily just not.
If someobody is uncomfortable with something you are doing that actively involves them you usually respect their request to stop doing it. Well i would hope that most people are considerate enough to do so.

Being uncomfortable is not a valid argument and does not trump the legal rights of anybody.

Whispered wrote: »

I asked a guy to stop taking my pic in a club once. It made me feel very "on display" and impacted how I was enjoying my night. He seemed to have no problem with it. Well he stopped anyway.

As an aside, would none of the photographers here feel uncomfortable with someone taking their pic? Or is it a case of understanding that you're just a small part of a larger picture rather than it being a "picture of you"?

Depends on the nature of the photograph really. In general it's fine, but there are some scenarios where it may not be.

DivingDuck · 03-11-2015 8:20pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

how do you tolerate the constant monitoring from cctv (which incidentally is not secure and often finds it's way onto YouTube and similar sites).

CCTV images are usually of such ludicrously poor quality that, even when given the original files, and with the best equipment available, even the police are mostly unable to successfully identify individuals on them.

A DSLR photograph in full daylight from a couple of feet away is an entirely different animal.

DivingDuck · 03-11-2015 8:21pm

Paulw wrote: »

You forgot "don't allow yourself to be photographed@. :eek: Because that will definitely hurt the child, in so many ways that photographers just can never know.

I outlined the reasons why people might consider this unsafe in the post above yours.

Also, it was very much implied by the tone of the post you quoted.

Tasden · 03-11-2015 8:21pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Can I remind those speaking on behalf of parents that parents are not of one mind. You speak for yourself not all of us. Personally I have no interest in photography as a hobby but have no problem with anyone taking photos of whatever they want in the public sphere. If it makes you uncomfortable then how do you tolerate the constant monitoring from cctv (which incidentally is not secure and often finds it's way onto YouTube and similar sites).
These freedoms are extremely important particularly if you extend to other sections of society - for example some Police forces in the US are attempting to make photographing them an offence.

I didn't think anybody was speaking on behalf of all parents (or all photographers), only for themselves and giving their own opinion.
Maybe its a case of not being able to have a say when it comes to other forms (or not caring) but when faced directly with the person taking a photo specifically of them/their child then they can ask them to stop.

Zara Massive Verdigris wrote: »

Being uncomfortable is not a valid argument and does not trump the legal rights of anybody.

.

I didn't say it trumps anybody's legal rights. I said i personally believe it's more important.

Paulw · 03-11-2015 8:25pm

DivingDuck wrote: »

An image today can be taken for nothing, processed for nothing, reproduced for nothing, and distributed for nothing. Whereas twenty years ago it cost money to shoot, develop, copy, and distribute photos, it's now completely free, instantaneous, and irreversible to take an image and send it worldwide to a potential audience of billions within seconds. Do you honestly not see how that's threatening to some people?

Please tell me where I can get a camera for nothing, memory cards for nothing, a computer to process photos for nothing, software to process the photos for nothing, internet connection for nothing? Please!!!!!!

DivingDuck wrote: »

Some hypotheticals where this could cause danger:

1. The parent/child has been removed from an unsafe environment, and the posted image (to Flickr, FB, Tumblr, etc.) could give clues to its whereabouts.

A person at a location that may or may not be recognisable, at a point in time, where the child/parent may never return.

DivingDuck wrote: »

2. The image is picked up by predators (who do make use of perfectly innocent photographs) who can easily obtain information about the child by, for example, the team the child is playing for, the park they visit, the street they live on, etc.

The same predators, who again, are usually family members or people well known to the child. Yep, those predators who may make use of innocent photos, which they can usually take themselves.

DivingDuck wrote: »

3. The child is with someone, or was somewhere, they shouldn't be (i.e., the nanny took the child to the park instead of the museum, or the aunt allowed the child to see his father despite the court ruling, etc.).

So, it's now the photographer's fault that the child is with someone or somewhere they shouldn't be??? WOW.

DivingDuck wrote: »

4. The photographs are later used in a context that, while legitimate, may be embarrassing or distressing for the child (used as a file photo in a newspaper story, or the photo itself was embarrassing and someone of eighteen is embarrassed by the photo of himself covered in ice cream or looking up another little kid's skirt, whatever).

So, now you are dictating what newspapers can/can't use??? That's a whole other ballgame there in itself.

DivingDuck wrote: »

If someone handed your child a knife and told them to go for a gentle jog, you'd probably be unhappy about it. It is the same thing. While you may not accept or believe these things to be dangers, the parent considers that they are.

I would hope that my child has enough sense not to take something from a stranger, and again, we are talking about a physical risk in your post, as opposed to a risk that is in the head of a parent, rather than an actual physical risk at that point in time.

Your post seems to make less sense to me each time I read it ... and I read it a few times before deciding to reply. :eek:

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 03-11-2015 8:28pm

DivingDuck wrote: »

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or not here, but giving you the benefit of the doubt:

An image today can be taken for nothing, processed for nothing, reproduced for nothing, and distributed for nothing. Whereas twenty years ago it cost money to shoot, develop, copy, and distribute photos, it's now completely free, instantaneous, and irreversible to take an image and send it worldwide to a potential audience of billions within seconds. Do you honestly not see how that's threatening to some people?

Some hypotheticals where this could cause danger:

1. The parent/child has been removed from an unsafe environment, and the posted image (to Flickr, FB, Tumblr, etc.) could give clues to its whereabouts.

2. The image is picked up by predators (who do make use of perfectly innocent photographs) who can easily obtain information about the child by, for example, the team the child is playing for, the park they visit, the street they live on, etc.

3. The child is with someone, or was somewhere, they shouldn't be (i.e., the nanny took the child to the park instead of the museum, or the aunt allowed the child to see his father despite the court ruling, etc.).

4. The photographs are later used in a context that, while legitimate, may be embarrassing or distressing for the child (used as a file photo in a newspaper story, or the photo itself was embarrassing and someone of eighteen is embarrassed by the photo of himself covered in ice cream or looking up another little kid's skirt, whatever).

Different people have different ideas of what is and isn't dangerous for their child. You may not agree any of the examples present a legitimate danger, but you don't have to. You have no right to decide for somebody else's child what is and isn't dangerous when they haven't granted you the right to do so.

If someone handed your child a knife and told them to go for a gentle jog, you'd probably be unhappy about it. It is the same thing. While you may not accept or believe these things to be dangers, the parent considers that they are.

Not respecting their wishes is clearly disrespectful. Why be disrespectful to someone when you don't have to be? It might not be illegal to let the door slam in someone's face behind me, but that doesn't mean I don't always hold it open for the person following to pass though as a matter of respect and consideration. It might cost me a few seconds, but it would cost them far worse to get a door in the face, so why wouldn't I do that? Why wouldn't everyone?

While I agree with points 1 and 2, points 3 and 4 are invalid. Your analogies are also awful. Handing a child a knife and taking his/her pictures are not the same, in any regard.

Slamming a door in somebodies face and continuing to take pictures of the child are not the same thing either.

If you are uncomfortable in a situation, leave it, don't take it out on others. It all boils back down to the idea that being a parent gives you additional "rights" regarding the protection of your child, that everybody is out to endanger, kill, eat your child. Which is not the case.

Also, your idea of photography is completely incorrect. I don't think anything of the below is correct. It certainly doesn't apply to the majority of posters in the photography forum anyway.

An image today can be taken for nothing, processed for nothing, reproduced for nothing, and distributed for nothing. Whereas twenty years ago it cost money to shoot, develop, copy, and distribute photos, it's now completely free, instantaneous, and irreversible to take an image and send it worldwide to a potential audience of billions within seconds.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 03-11-2015 8:34pm

Tasden wrote: »

I didn't say it trumps anybody's legal rights. I said i personally believe it's more important.

I am not saying you are wrong, but you are not right...

liamo · 03-11-2015 8:36pm

You know what? I'm getting a little sick and tired of the same old themes and lines being trotted out in this thread.

There have been many attempts by me and others to make a reasoned explanation about why some parents feel uncomfortable about their children being photographed. I think that most of these attempts have been calm, reasoned, courteous and respectful of the position of others.

All that's coming back is the same whine "you all think we're paedos". Get over yourself - we don't!
Or a "my rights are more important than your feelings" kind of comment.
Or accusations of irrationality.
Or a smart comment about being uncomfortable around dogs.
Or some other inane comment that really doesn't address the core problem.

Really it's just the general dismissal - sometimes in a smart, sarcastic way - of the concerns that have been expressed that has really, really p**sed me off.

Some parents have real concerns about strangers taking photographs of their children. That is simply the reality of the situation. It's not about you. It's not about your rights as a photographer. It's about my concerns about the safety of my child. They may be rational or irrational. It doesn't matter. They exist and they are real to me.

What kind of person thinks that it's ok to ignore my concerns about my child so that you can feel smug and superior about your stupid rights to take photos? Frankly, I don't care about your rights. I care about my child. The smallest hair on my child's head is more important to me than all the rights in the world that you can lay claim to.

And why on earth would anyone want to behave in a manner that makes a parent feel concern (however rational or irrational that feeling may be) about their child's safety? What do you think a parent will do if they feel their child is threatened? Forget your rights - you might have more important worries in a situation like that.

DivingDuck · 03-11-2015 8:42pm

Paulw wrote: »

Please tell me where I can get a camera for nothing, memory cards for nothing, a computer to process photos for nothing, software to process the photos for nothing, internet connection for nothing? Please!!!!!!

How many photos do you take over the lifespan of a camera? 300,000 or thereabouts seems to be the general predicted lifespan of a shutter. Let's say a grand for the camera and card. 1000/300,000 = €0.0033 per photo. That's as close to nothing as you're going to get. I assume you use your internet for other things besides posting photos, so you were paying for that already. Ditto the computer. You may need to factor in processing software costs, depending on what you use, but the upshot is that an individual shot these days does not cost anywhere near what it did when film and physical processing was involved, and to pretend otherwise is ludicrous.

A person at a location that may or may not be recognisable, at a point in time, where the child/parent may never return.

"May or may not" still includes "may", i.e., the possibility that they could be.

The same predators, who again, are usually family members or people well known to the child. Yep, those predators who may make use of innocent photos, which they can usually take themselves.

They usually are known to the family, yes. They are not always known to the family. Consequently, the parents are trying to reduce the risk for their child. Surely that's their job? The risk will never be zero, but most parents actively work to bring it as close to zero as they possibly can.

So, it's now the photographer's fault that the child is with someone or somewhere they shouldn't be??? WOW.

No, it is not the fault of the photographer, but it may well be their fault if that information becomes common knowledge.

So, now you are dictating what newspapers can/can't use??? That's a whole other ballgame there in itself.

I believe it is in fact the photographer who gets to dictate that on copyright grounds...?

I would hope that my child has enough sense not to take something from a stranger, and again, we are talking about a physical risk in your post, as opposed to a risk that is in the head of a parent, rather than an actual physical risk at that point in time.

You would always hope, but that is not always how things play out. There are other situations which may not present "an actual physical risk" that you may not want your child to be in, like getting falling drunk with strangers. All of those strangers might be lovely people, who would not rob them or take advantage sexually, but you don't know that they are. Most parents don't much like the thought of their kids getting tanked in a field or sneaking into a club on a fake ID-- of course these things happen, but the parents will try to prevent them when they can. They would also advise their kids not to use expensive gadgets near the doors of public transport, or to study for an exam they have next week, or any number of other things.

This is the same.

There is a risk. Some parents are troubled by this risk as it is difficult to quantify or estimate. As parents, they have to make what they believe are the best choices for their child. To ignore their requests not to go against those choices is unnecessarily discourteous.

DivingDuck · 03-11-2015 8:56pm

Zara Massive Verdigris wrote: »

While I agree with points 1 and 2, points 3 and 4 are invalid. Your analogies are also awful. Handing a child a knife and taking his/her pictures are not the same, in any regard.

Point three is tenuous, I admit, but I stand by point 4.

As for the knife anology, I was using extreme hyperbole as I clearly have a very different idea of "risk" to the person I was responding to, and was unsure if anything less than immediate loss of life would be considered dangerous by that person.

Slamming a door in somebodies face and continuing to take pictures of the child are not the same thing either.

Not taking a photograph, but taking a photograph against someone's express request.

There is a difference there, and in my view, the latter is just as much of a moral/social no-no.

If you are uncomfortable in a situation, leave it, don't take it out on others. It all boils back down to the idea that being a parent gives you additional "rights" regarding the protection of your child, that everybody is out to endanger, kill, eat your child. Which is not the case.

It is not always possible to leave a situation where photographs are being taken. Also, leaving after the images have been taken against your request will not un-take the photographs. Nothing I have said has suggested taking anything out on anyone.

Nobody, least of all myself, is suggesting that everyone is out to harm children. However, it is an undeniable fact that such people exist in our world, and that a photo taken right now can be in their hands within ten seconds without any intent or consent on the part of the photographer to facilitate their perversion. I don't think anyone here is accusing the photographers of taking the images with perverse intention. We are simply saying that these innocent images can easily fall into the hands of predators, which can potentially lead to the child subject being targeted. That is a fact. The level of risk, as I said above, is debatable, but if someone feels that risk is too great for their comfort as it relates to their child, why can't other people respect that?

Many parents have said here they have no problem with their kids being photographed, so why not just photograph those children? There is no shortage of kids (and inanimate subjects) in the world. Why must people insist on taking photos of the ones whose parents would like them to be off-limits?

Also, your idea of photography is completely incorrect. I don't think anything of the below is correct. It certainly doesn't apply to the majority of posters in the photography forum anyway.

...I'm a hobby photographer myself. As I explained in my last post, by "nothing" I mean in the sense that each photograph costs about 33% of a penny. Your costs per image are minimal these days, and with always-on internet, it costs you nothing more to send your images worldwide, and nothing for the potential predator to then send that image to all of their creepy friends.

As a photographer, you already have your equipment. Not taking an image when asked not to or to delete one you have taken costs you nothing.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 03-11-2015 9:06pm

liamo wrote: »

You know what? I'm getting a little sick and tired of the same old themes and lines being trotted out in this thread.

There have been many attempts by me and others to make a reasoned explanation about why some parents feel uncomfortable about their children being photographed. I think that most of these attempts have been calm, reasoned, courteous and respectful of the position of others.

All that's coming back is the same whine "you all think we're paedos". Get over yourself - we don't!
Or a "my rights are more important than your feelings" kind of comment.
Or accusations of irrationality.
Or a smart comment about being uncomfortable around dogs.
Or some other inane comment that really doesn't address the core problem.

Really it's just the general dismissal - sometimes in a smart, sarcastic way - of the concerns that have been expressed that has really, really p**sed me off.

Some parents have real concerns about strangers taking photographs of their children. That is simply the reality of the situation. It's not about you. It's not about your rights as a photographer. It's about my concerns about the safety of my child. They may be rational or irrational. It doesn't matter. They exist and they are real to me.

What kind of person thinks that it's ok to ignore my concerns about my child so that you can feel smug and superior about your stupid rights to take photos? Frankly, I don't care about your rights. I care about my child. The smallest hair on my child's head is more important to me than all the rights in the world that you can lay claim to.

And why on earth would anyone want to behave in a manner that makes a parent feel concern (however rational or irrational that feeling may be) about their child's safety? What do you think a parent will do if they feel their child is threatened? Forget your rights - you might have more important worries in a situation like that.

I really wish I was able to articulate this in a better way, i'll give it my best shot.

I know I am a little sick and tired of repeating myself and some posters being completely dismissive of the facts at hand. I can see that both sides have presented their points and in general it has been taken on board. What I am finding hard to understand, is why some posters, like yourself, keep harping on about your concerns as a parent. You even mention that it doesn't matter if they are rational or irrational, when in reality it does matter.

To top it off, you make underlying threats to people who don't bend to your will. Again, having a child doesn't give you any special rights in society. If you cannot abide by the laws which govern society, then you should look to live elsewhere, where your are more in harmony with specific laws. I think this link might help you Country specific consent requirements

Poncke · 03-11-2015 9:07pm

Tasden wrote: »

I wouldn't respect anybody who continued doing something to somebody after they were told it made the person uncomfortable when they are perfectly able to find somebody who is willing. I'd only lose respect for them when they aren't being considerate of their subject who expressed that they want them to stop i.e. not respecting someone. We're going round in circles.
I personally think someone's feelings of discomfort at being photographed are more important than a photo/someone's right or want to take said photo. You obviously don't feel the same and I'm not saying you have to.

no that's not what I am saying. I wasn't talking about rights. I am talking about feeling uncomfortable. You seem to think only parents can feel uncomfortable whilst I have already explained parents make me feel uncomfortable. So why shouldn't the parents consider my feelings? Not talking about laws or rights

CelticRambler · 03-11-2015 9:10pm

liamo wrote: »

What kind of person thinks that it's ok to ignore my concerns about my child ...

Me!

I'm not a photographer; I do sometimes take photos, and as mentioned above, I sometimes use photos supplied by others for publicity purposes, but in my day-job I come across numerous examples of parent being "concerned" for their children in ways that are completely at odds with the actual risk. If I'm fortunate enough to have the child present, I indulge my smug superiority and speak directly to the child, explaining to them the real risks they face and how to deal with them.

Some parents are idiots, and an awful lot more just "don't get it". Children are nowhere near as fragile as they're made out to be, and by the age of about seven they're well able to run rings 'round their parents. I have no doubt that the same parents who express "concern" for the "danger" posed by a photo being taken are exposing their children to many more - very real - risks every day, most of them in their own homes and by their own deliberate action.

Full disclosure: I have four children of my own, all of whom have had their photos taken in dozens of different contexts, with and without my permission. None of the trouble my children have ever got into was caused by a photo.

Poncke · 03-11-2015 9:10pm

DivingDuck wrote: »

Parents make hundreds of judgment calls on behalf of their children on a daily basis. Don't touch the stove. Don't pet the stray cat. Don't cross the street without holding my hand. Don't take sweets from strangers.

This is in no way different. When a child is not intellectually mature enough to recognize the dangers of a situation, the parent must step in to impose rules to protect them. It's the most basic tenet of parenting, and applies to this situation as much as any other.

What danger? The photographer?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 03-11-2015 9:27pm

DivingDuck wrote: »

Many parents have said here they have no problem with their kids being photographed, so why not just photograph those children? There is no shortage of kids (and inanimate subjects) in the world. Why must people insist on taking photos of the ones whose parents would like them to be off-limits?

...I'm a hobby photographer myself. As I explained in my last post, by "nothing" I mean in the sense that each photograph costs about 33% of a penny. Your costs per image are minimal these days, and with always-on internet, it costs you nothing more to send your images worldwide, and nothing for the potential predator to then send that image to all of their creepy friends.

As a photographer, you already have your equipment. Not taking an image when asked not to or to delete one you have taken costs you nothing.

Inanimate objects is another subject matter. Some are interested in taking these pictures, others are not. Photography is an art of which there are many forms. I am interested in Landscape, wildlife and macro photography and I am completely disinterested in architecture, people & planes. Anyway, how do you pick out the kids of willing parents and those of unwilling parents, that's one part. The next part is to get a photographer willing to agree to your terms, even if what the photographer is doing is within the law.

The logic of already having your equipment is flawed from a business perspective. You can't ignore previous costs when putting a price on something, overheads take up a large part of the cost of a product. If your idea was true, then the cost of everything would be much lower. I think a lot more photographers on here will have equipment worth much more than 1K. I am a hobbyist too and my gear costs over 6K. I even excluded SD cards, bags, 3 travel tripods, intervelometer, filters and any other bits and bobs I accumulated over the years. You also didn't factor in the post processing, time (this is huge) and any other expenses incurred related to taking the picture. Now you may find this a bit pedantic, but it's the correct way to find the true price of something.

The argument of a picture myself or somebody else takes, finding it's way into the hands of a predator is also flawed. There's millions, if not billions of pictures on the internet of children doing what children do.

liamo · 03-11-2015 9:33pm

Zara Massive Verdigris wrote: »

What I am finding hard to understand, is why some posters, like yourself, keep harping on about your concerns as a parent.

Apologies for "harping on". I understand that you're probably bored with the point that was being made. I'll stop now. I do think, though, that by dismissing my posts as "harping on" you are really making my point for me.

To top it off, you make underlying threats to people who don't bend to your will.

After I posted and re-read my last comments I did wonder if someone would read a threat into it. I can assure you that none was meant. It was a simple acknowledgement of the potential consequences in a situation where a parent is feeling concerned about their child. But, threat? No.

Bend to my will? Oh come on. Just please don't take my child's photo. That's all. Bend to my will? Sheesh.

Again, having a child doesn't give you any special rights in society. If you cannot abide by the laws which govern society, then you should look to live elsewhere, where your are more in harmony with specific laws.

I simply don't understand the point you are trying (badly) to make.

amdublin · 03-11-2015 9:36pm

I'd be more obsessed with teaching my kids how to safely cross the road rather than not get their photo taken. The risk to them is way more with the former.

magicbastarder · 03-11-2015 9:38pm

what we need here is a poll. along the lines of: you're taking photos in public, say candids, and someone whose photo you've already taken, or whose child's photo you've taken, comes up to you and says 'please don't take my photo, i find it uncomfortable'. what do you do? tell them you've every right to? or stop taking their photo?

RustyNut · 03-11-2015 9:43pm

Tasden wrote: »

I wouldn't respect anybody who continued doing something to somebody after they were told it made the person uncomfortable when they are perfectly able to find somebody who is willing. I'd only lose respect for them when they aren't being considerate of their subject who expressed that they want them to stop i.e. not respecting someone. We're going round in circles.
I personally think someone's feelings of discomfort at being photographed are more important than a photo/someone's right or want to take said photo. You obviously don't feel the same and I'm not saying you have to.

So for the sake of debate, say I'm in the park taking random piccies and you are there with the kids, you approach me and explain that you would prefer if i didn't take any photos of your kids. I then tell you that I respect your position and that I will only be there for one more hour and if you come back after that then i will not take any photos of your kids.

Where do we stand then?

liamo · 03-11-2015 9:43pm

The two are not mutually exclusive. You can be obsessed with both.

amdublin wrote: »

I'd be more obsessed with teaching my kids how to safely cross the road rather than not get their photo taken. The risk to them is way more with the former.

liamo · 03-11-2015 9:49pm

RustyNut wrote: »

So for the sake of debate, say I'm in the park taking random piccies and you are there with the kids, you approach me and explain that you would prefer if i didn't take any photos of your kids. I then tell you that I respect your position and that I will only be there for one more hour and if you come back after that then i will not take any photos of your kids.

Where do we stand then?

Perfectly reasonable.

Frankly, random piccies in which a child might appear would cause me little, if any, problem. This would be different to a situation where the child is the subject of the photo.

DivingDuck · 03-11-2015 9:50pm

Zara Massive Verdigris wrote: »

The logic of already having your equipment is flawed from a business perspective. You can't ignore previous costs when putting a price on something, overheads take up a large part of the cost of a product. If your idea was true, then the cost of everything would be much lower. I think a lot more photographers on here will have equipment worth much more than 1K. I am a hobbyist too and my gear costs over 6K. I even excluded SD cards, bags, 3 travel tripods, intervelometer, filters and any other bits and bobs I accumulated over the years. You also didn't factor in the post processing, time (this is huge) and any other expenses incurred related to taking the picture. Now you may find this a bit pedantic, but it's the correct way to find the true price of something.

I take your point, but my point is that it costs virtually nothing to delete an image if requested (it is easy to do, and each individual shot represents minimal investment as another can be taken in its place), and nothing at all to not take a photo if the subject's guardian asks you not to.

The only reason I brought up costs was to explain why people are more concerned about this now than they were previously. Taking photos, and especially distributing photos, costs less now than it used to. The reach of an image is also monumentally wider. Cheaper shots mean more shots, and faster and wider distribution means bigger and unknown audiences. That's the only point I was trying to make, not to devalue photography as an art or anything else.

The argument of a picture myself or somebody else takes, finding it's way into the hands of a predator is also flawed. There's millions, if not billions of pictures on the internet of children doing what children do.

Of course there are, but that doesn't prevent a parent from feeling anxious or sickened at the thought of their child's image being used as currency or fantasy fodder for predators. Your responsibility as a parent ends with your child, and you cannot dictate to other people whether or not they release or promote images of their own children. That's their decision, not mine or anyone else's.

Like liamo, though, I'm bowing out here. My points have been made repeatedly in many ways and by many people, so it's not a case of ignorance, it's case of spite on the part of the people who believe that because they have a legal right, they also have a moral entitlement. No amount of explanation is going to change someone's mind if they lack the empathy to refrain, when requested to refrain, from doing something they know is harming others.

The rest of us will just have to accept that they know they are distressing another person for the sake of a picture, and they don't care.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 03-11-2015 9:53pm

liamo wrote: »

Apologies for "harping on". I understand that you're probably bored with the point that was being made. I'll stop now. I do think, though, that by dismissing my posts as "harping on" you are really making my point for me.

Disagreeing and being dismissive are not the same. I acknowledge your points, considered them and I disagreed. I am finding, that if anybody is being dismissive it's the parents in this thread and their concerns for the welfare of their child. The facts and laws are being dismissed completely.

After I posted and re-read my last comments I did wonder if someone would read a threat into it. I can assure you that none was meant. It was a simple acknowledgement of the potential consequences in a situation where a parent is feeling concerned about their child. But, threat? No.

How can this be read in any other way than a threat, please do explain;

What do you think a parent will do if they feel their child is threatened? Forget your rights - you might have more important worries in a situation like that.

Bend to my will? Oh come on. Just please don't take my child's photo. That's all. Bend to my will? Sheesh.

Well that's exactly what it is. Bending to your will. If you don't want your child's photo to be taken in a public place, by all means politely ask the photographer to stop. However, you must be prepared for an outcome which you may not agree with, that is, the photographer continues to take pictures of children in a public place.

I simply don't understand the point you are trying (badly) to make.

I mad this point a few times in this thread, in a few different ways I believe. Some parents seem to think that having a child trumps everything else. Nobody else has any rights what-so-ever. It was also mentioned in this thread a couple of times by parents, that their concerns are more important than the law.

Here's a couple of points to take home.

Photographers are within their legal rights to take pictures of children in public areas.
Photographers are not obliged to delete images, or stop taking pictures of children upon the request of the Parent/Guardian.
The concerns of the parent are not more important than the law (Personal opinions are meaningless here).
The feelings of a parent do not automatically trump the feelings of the photographer.

Whispered · 03-11-2015 9:59pm

RustyNut wrote: »

So for the sake of debate, say I'm in the park taking random piccies and you are there with the kids, you approach me and explain that you would prefer if i didn't take any photos of your kids. I then tell you that I respect your position and that I will only be there for one more hour and if you come back after that then i will not take any photos of your kids.

Where do we stand then?

Personally speaking, if you were taking shots of something and my child got in the way I'd apologise and move him. That's honestly the truth. Whether we have our right to be there or not I wouldn't want to wreck whatever it is you're trying to do. I think most people would be the same. In my day to day life I am a polite person, if something I'm doing is making someone feel uncomfortable or in some way annoying them, I stop if possible.

In that scenario I wouldn't feel the need to ask you to stop anyway because you're taking random pics of the park. You're not focusing on taking pics of my child. Again, for me anyway,context is everything.

liamo · 03-11-2015 10:03pm

Zara Massive Verdigris wrote: »

Here's a couple of points to take home.

Photographers are within their legal rights to take pictures of children in public areas.
Photographers are not obliged to delete images, or stop taking pictures of children upon the request of the Parent/Guardian.
The concerns of the parent are not more important than the law (Personal opinions are meaningless here).
The feelings of a parent do not automatically trump the feelings of the photographer.

I agree with all of your points. They are not in conflict with my own points.

amdublin · 03-11-2015 10:04pm

I donr remember this btw but i have the photo to prove it!

When I was about seven and at a friends birthday party the dad snapped a photo of each chi

Paulw · 03-11-2015 10:23pm

DivingDuck wrote: »

Of course there are, but that doesn't prevent a parent from feeling anxious or sickened at the thought of their child's image being used as currency or fantasy fodder for predators. Your responsibility as a parent ends with your child, and you cannot dictate to other people whether or not they release or promote images of their own children. That's their decision, not mine or anyone else's.

But again, and again, the majority of predators of children are family members or people well known to the child. Not a random photographer taking photos.

DivingDuck wrote: »

No amount of explanation is going to change someone's mind if they lack the empathy to refrain, when requested to refrain, from doing something they know is harming others.

Again ... what harm is being caused, aside from the irrational illogical fear in the mind of the parent. No child is harmed from a photo being taken.

Cienciano · 03-11-2015 10:35pm

I think the whole pedo thing is completely blown out of proportion. Has a pedo ever been caught with pictures of random kids out on the street?
However, I don't like the idea of a stranger taking photos of me or my kids. If he came up and asked, was nice about it and flicked through a few photos on his camera, I'd probably be alright with it.
I've never taken photos of people I don't know out in public unless they're in the background. I wouldn't feel comfortable doing it myself.

CelticRambler · 03-11-2015 11:11pm

DivingDuck wrote: »

Taking photos, and especially distributing photos, costs less now than it used to. The reach of an image is also monumentally wider. Cheaper shots mean more shots, and faster and wider distribution means bigger and unknown audiences.

And who's taking those "cheaper shots" and distributing them to a "bigger and unknown audience" ? It's the millions of people (including children) walking 'round with smartphones and selfie sticks, posting them on insecure facebook pages and making them into crappy YouTube videos. So really that's the problem, isn't it? We need to have the camera function on all those devices disabled in a public space.

That's where the paranoia fits in: a professional photographer, or anyone with a decent DSLR and a good eye, will take hundreds of photos, but when they get home, they'll find maybe one or two that are of real interest and worth distributing; a few dozen more may be worth keeping for personal use, and the rest will be deleted.

In fact, it's not so much paranoia on the part of the parents but over-inflated ego, thinking that their child is sooooooo special he or she will be The Chosen One. :P

CabanSail · 03-11-2015 11:31pm

Wow.... I go sleep and wake up to many more pages here. From a Moderation point of view thanks all for keeping this thread on topic and civil since the on thread warning. Much appreciated.

Reading through all this has brought up things that I had forgotten.

I do recall a local photographer who specialises in birds got into a bit of trouble. He saw some birds which nest in holes in the banks of rivers. On the other side of the river was a reserve next to a school. He was using his car as a hide and shooting out the window with a 400mm f2.8 lens (a big telephoto lens for the non-photographers) When he noticed some children walking in the reserve and along the track where he was parked he hid his camera. The logic was that he did not want to alert the children to the presence of the nest in case they would disturb the birds. When they moved away he continued to shoot. A short time later the police arrived and he had to accompany them to the station. A teacher had considered he was taking photo's of children as was being deceptive. He had to show them the images on the camera and they still had to call the school before letting him go. I would hate to think what would have happened if he had been taking photo's of the kids, even though he was well within his rights.

Another time I was taking photo's in a park of my grand-niece. It was her I was interested in but inevitably she was interacting with other children. I was approached by a mother who was very demanding an insisted I stopped taking photo's of her kids as I know it's illegal. I had to keep my distance from her as she was smoking. I did try to explain it was not illegal and I was not interested in her kids. She was very rude, aggressive and made me feel uncomfortable. I did also wonder how safe her children were being exposed to her smoke.

On the other had I was once at an event where I was on the other end. There was a presentation which was not in public. I brought my camera as it was quite an historic and controversial meeting. The organisers made an announcement that while they were allowing photography it was only to be of the presenters and not of the audience. Because of the sensitivity of the subject they requested that their privacy be respected. I duly complied with the request and thought it was very fair. It amazed me when the next day many people told me that they had seen me in the papers. When I checked there I was in a group in the audience. One of the photographers, who was almost next to me when the request was made, had ignored the restrictions and had submitted images of the audience. It is those sort of actions which upset people and it leads to photography being banned.

On the subject of the costs of photographs it should be pointed out that some of us still shoot film. So it would not be OK if I was shooting images with my D800 (DSLR) but if I were to change the body to my F4S (SLR) it somehow be OK? The costs are also way out, the €1k would cover the deposit on some of lenses which get us into trouble. I also do not delete images in camera as it can cause corruption of a whole card and cost more than losing just one image.

Whispered · 03-11-2015 11:42pm

Actually, mentioning film vs digital would you all be ok with someone seeing you in the street, taking out their iphone and snapping some pics of you?
Would that have any influence on whether you think it's ok or not? Are there any things you do day to day in public you wouldn't be happy someone photographing?
I'm very self conscious and hate having my pic taken anyway, someone taking a pic of me (as opposed to a pic which I happen to be in) would bother me.

Asking you not to take pics in a park when you're there with your niece is OTT, but similarly I had my baby in a play centre recently. He's our first and so EVERYTHING he does is a surprise and big deal to us

, I was on the phone to my husband saying how cute he was and he asked for a pic, and I hesitated. There was only one other child there as it was a weekday, so I asked her mother who didn't have a problem. But yes, I definitely hesitated.

The J Stands for Jay · 04-11-2015 12:00am

liamo wrote: »

"my rights are more important than your feelings" .

Rights are always more important than feelings.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 04-11-2015 12:03am

You go into public, your photo may be taken. Regardless of whether your a child or an adult.

I really for the life of me can not see how if can be in some way dangerous to have a photo of your chid taken in a public place.

Poncke · 04-11-2015 12:33am

DivingDuck wrote: »

...Of course there are, but that doesn't prevent a parent from feeling anxious or sickened at the thought of their child's image being used as currency or fantasy fodder for predators..

I would feel anxious or sickened if my childs image was used by predators, thats is not what is being discussed here. The issue for me is that you think that an image of your child will be used by a predator, which is borderline paranoia.

challengemaster · 04-11-2015 12:47am

DivingDuck wrote: »

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or not here, but giving you the benefit of the doubt

Ah sorry, I didn't get the memo that only one side of the debate could be obtuse

2. The image is picked up by predators (who do make use of perfectly innocent photographs) who can easily obtain information about the child by, for example, the team the child is playing for, the park they visit, the street they live on, etc.

Or you know, they could just follow them home from the park rather than playing "CSI: where was this photo on the internet taken".

3. The child is with someone, or was somewhere, they shouldn't be (i.e., the nanny took the child to the park instead of the museum, or the aunt allowed the child to see his father despite the court ruling, etc.).

I can only LOL at this.

4. The photographs are later used in a context that, while legitimate, may be embarrassing or distressing for the child (used as a file photo in a newspaper story, or the photo itself was embarrassing and someone of eighteen is embarrassed by the photo of himself covered in ice cream or looking up another little kid's skirt, whatever).

You know how kids normally respond to being told they're in the newspaper? With excitement. Embarrassed? You do know being embarrassed happens to everyone at some stage during their life right? You also know that NOTHING HAPPENS when you're embarrassed. You don't spontaneously combust, or catch leprosy - you just get over it and get on with life.

Not respecting their wishes is clearly disrespectful. Why be disrespectful to someone when you don't have to be? It might not be illegal to let the door slam in someone's face behind me, but that doesn't mean I don't always hold it open for the person following to pass though as a matter of respect and consideration. It might cost me a few seconds, but it would cost them far worse to get a door in the face, so why wouldn't I do that? Why wouldn't everyone?

You're continually basing your terrible analogies on some very shaky basis. Slamming the door in someones face is disrespectful, but it's also pointless. A photographer taking photos is not pointless - and that is the bit you seem to keep missing. It's not someone being disrespectful for no reason, so stop claiming it is.

liamo wrote: »

You know what? I'm getting a little sick and tired of the same old themes and lines being trotted out in this thread.

That's ironic :pac:

Or accusations of irrationality.

Woah there. If you're going to shoot yourself in the foot, don't do it and then blame someone else.

liamo wrote: »

I tried very hard to rationalise my objection to someone taking my child's picture without permission and I couldn't.

DivingDuck wrote: »

No, it is not the fault of the photographer, but it may well be their fault if that information becomes common knowledge.

LOL nope. I think you'll still find the person you should be blaming is not the photographer. Nice try though.

You would always hope, but that is not always how things play out. There are other situations which may not present "an actual physical risk" that you may not want your child to be in, like getting falling drunk with strangers. All of those strangers might be lovely people, who would not rob them or take advantage sexually, but you don't know that they are. Most parents don't much like the thought of their kids getting tanked in a field or sneaking into a club on a fake ID-- of course these things happen, but the parents will try to prevent them when they can.

Indeed, you would hope your 8 year old child doesn't get locked with a load of strangers. Thanks for more terrible analogies though.

DivingDuck wrote: »

There is a difference there, and in my view, the latter is just as much of a moral/social no-no.

In your opinion.

Not taking an image when asked not to or to delete one you have taken costs you nothing.

It costs me the photo that I wanted to take. Which is a concept you don't seem to understand.

MysticalRain · 04-11-2015 1:17am

I do see both sides of the debate here, and I don’t particularly like my own photo being taken either. But mother of God, there is a ton of irrational hysteria on the part of some parents these days. As soon as the spectre of pedophilia is raised, all rational thought goes out the window (and the same people don’t realize the fact that most pedos are likely to be a close relative or acquaintance of the family). I see this as evidence of the further decline and general pussyfication of western civilization.

Of course if we replaced “DSLR” with “smartphone” then the argument would magically disappear because otherwise almost every adult passing within a 50 meters of a playground would then be a potential pedo/rapist or terrorist.

irish_dave_83 · 04-11-2015 10:57am

Poncke wrote: »

What? Why?

Protect children from what exactly?

How about I need to protect my income to feed my kids, so no, I wont put my camera away to serve your paranoia.

If you read the context of my post you would understand that that the paranoia is there anyway, not just against photographers, but strangers in general, surely you can understand that. No one is saying that photographers or most strangers are paedophiles, but often reasoned thought doesn't come into it.

If my kids are playing in a park and I am watching them and I am going to notice someone taking pictures of them. I understand that the photographer might want to get the a shot of "happiness" or "pure joy" etc. or even the background shot and my kids might be in the way, either way I will then be curious.
If I can help them out I will. But answering a simple few questions from a parent shouldn't be a struggle, i.e. are my kids in the way? or what will the photos be used for?
Instead response like, "its my right", "its a public place you cant stop me", "its not against the law" are not helping anyone.

Again, as I have said in previous posts, giving attitude towards the parents will not get you the shot you need. They won't care what your rights are, this seems to be what some photographers cannot grasp. And even if you believe a parent is being unreasonable and they politely or otherwise ask you not to take photos of their children, they would expect you not to. Generally they don't care about your income to feed your kids with pictures of theirs. Therefore they will decide the outcome.

OldGoat · 04-11-2015 11:12am

What have we learnt from this thread?

On one hand we see that a polite and reasoned request to stop or delete images of your children will be met with a polite and reasoned response - in the majority the images will be removed deleted or in some cases parents receiving beautifully crafted photographs of their sprogs.

On the other hand an irrational rant and demand to delete pictures will be met with a stand off with hackles raised and the belligerence of the righteous photographer wronged.

A win for civility. Yay!

Rubberchikken · 04-11-2015 11:21am

20 years ago i was walking around our street with my kids, then 4 and 1. a man, with camera, asked if he could take a photo of them. said he was from the local paper. turned out he was. and the photo duly appeared on the front page the following week. innocent times - no id. just took him at face value.
i didn't assume he was going to use it for nefarious purposes or steal their souls.
some parents will get all up about their precious kiddies being photographed. others are more reasonable. tbh if i was taking photos of kids i'd stick with those i know just for the ease of it. some people just aren't worth dealing with.

Paulw · 04-11-2015 11:30am

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

If you read the context of my post you would understand that that the paranoia is there anyway.

So, there we have it.

It's all about the paranoid parents. Nothing to do with the children, nothing to do with any actual danger. It's just the paranoia.

Say no more.

irish_dave_83 · 04-11-2015 11:53am

Paulw wrote: »

So, there we have it.

It's all about the paranoid parents. Nothing to do with the children, nothing to do with any actual danger. It's just the paranoia.

Say no more.

Yet another person who can't understand context, and from a Mod no less. There is nothing wrong with questioning why someone is taking photographs of your kids.

What is the point in debating the issue, with responses like this. Unbelievable.

Paulw · 04-11-2015 12:44pm

But, you totally summed it up. It is simply about paranoia. There doesn't seem to be any other basis to it all. The statistics don't support anything other than that. Most abuse is by family or someone well known to the child/family. So, a photographer would be statistically not a safety concern for the child.

Context, context, context - no, it's about paranoia.

As I have said, many times, I am a parent and a photographer. I photograph hundreds or thousands of children each year. The most hassle I have ever had is a parent wanting to make sure that I get a photo of their child. Almost none of the children are known to me. I don't seek permission before taking the shot. I can show lots of images of children out having fun. That, to me, is one part of the job that I really love. The joy, the fun, the innocence.

But yet, on here, people rant about their dislike for people taking photos of their child. This is all pure paranoia in their head. Nothing more, nothing less.

Also, I may be a mod but I am not a mod in photography, so being a mod has absolutely no relevance to the discussion.

irish_dave_83 · 04-11-2015 1:38pm

Paulw wrote: »

But, you totally summed it up. It is simply about paranoia. There doesn't seem to be any other basis to it all. The statistics don't support anything other than that. Most abuse is by family or someone well known to the child/family. So, a photographer would be statistically not a safety concern for the child.

Context, context, context - no, it's about paranoia.

As I have said, many times, I am a parent and a photographer. I photograph hundreds or thousands of children each year. The most hassle I have ever had is a parent wanting to make sure that I get a photo of their child. Almost none of the children are known to me. I don't seek permission before taking the shot. I can show lots of images of children out having fun. That, to me, is one part of the job that I really love. The joy, the fun, the innocence.

But yet, on here, people rant about their dislike for people taking photos of their child. This is all pure paranoia in their head. Nothing more, nothing less.

Also, I may be a mod but I am not a mod in photography, so being a mod has absolutely no relevance to the discussion.

I know you are not a mod in photography, that is obvious. The relevance is that you don't seem to be catching the point, maybe I just assumed that you may be able to see the bigger picture. So maybe I was wrong in this regard. All you seem to be saying is "paranoia, paranoia!!".

Paranoia certainly has a part to play, I certainly don't deny that. Also, some people just don't want photos of their kids taken by anyone they don't know and not for paranoid reasons.
I don't mind people taking photos of my children most of the time, but in the instances where I do question them about it, the photographer should be understanding and not start telling me about his/her legal rights.

You need to accept that some people may not understand or care what the photo means to you. I love my job, but I imagine some/most people would think that it is boring or too complicated etc, because they don't understand it. Just because you have a legitimate right to photograph in a public place is meaningless to some parents and unless they are violent towards you, what realistically can you do about it?

CelticRambler · 04-11-2015 1:42pm

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

Yet another person who can't understand context ...

The only context you've described is parents exhibiting irrational fears. Should playgrounds be cleared of all spiders because some children are scared of them? I think you'd find it hard to get support for that, but statistically, a child is more likely to suffer harm because of a spider, or panicky reaction to seeing one, than any photographer.

Sticking with the playground context, those spongy surfaces that are supposed to prevent injury have been demonstrated to have a net negative effect on child safety. While they do minimise the injuries suffered by toddlers and younger children, they also limit the learning process, i.e. that falling off a climbing frame hurts. As result, A&E departments see more older children with more severe injuries, suffered when they start doing what children do away from the supervision of their parents.

Then you've got those parents who smoke, the ones who aren't paying the least bit of attention to their playground bully (that'll be the one whacking your child with a stick), or the dog that's "really good with children" snapping at their heels, and then you've got those who are still on the 'phone as they drive out of the car-park not noticing the toddler on a scooter ...

And somehow a guy taking photos is the big bogey man in this context?

Paulw · 04-11-2015 1:54pm

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

The relevance is that you don't seem to be catching the point, maybe I just assumed that you may be able to see the bigger picture. All you seem to be saying is "paranoia, paranoia!!".

But, what more is there than simply paranoia? What is the bigger picture? The bigger picture is that a photographer is not a threat to the child. The bigger picture is that a child is much much more likely to be abused by a family member or someone well known to the child/family.

So, please, if it is not paranoia - what is it? What is the actual threat to the child?

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

I don't mind people taking photos of my children most of the time, but in the instances where I do question them about it, the photographer should be understanding and not start telling me about his/her legal rights.

But why should you ignore his rights? Should you not simply remove yourself and your child from the scene/area, if you are unhappy to be photographed? Why should the photographer have to justify his art/work to you, or anyone else?

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

You need to accept that some people may not understand or care what the photo means to you. Just because you have a legitimate right to photograph in a public place is meaningless to some parents and unless they are violent towards you, what realistically can you do about it?

What should the photographer have to do? The parent should be the one who has to do something - accept the situation and the right of the photographer, or make the decision to leave the area.

Again, why are people, so commonly online, threatening violence?

There are far far more dangerous things to children out there than a photographer taking photos. Each time I am out with my daughter I do my best to protect her - watching for traffic when crossing the road, watching for broken glass on the path, watching for things she may trip on when walking, etc. I certainly don't feel there is any threat from a photographer. I photographer her many times and she has been at a few events where there are photographers (both professional and hobby). Has she been photographed and her image being put online (facebook, flickr, etc) ... yes.

Has she been harmed by someone taking her photo - absolutely not.

So, again, if it's not paranoia, what is the threat to the child?

irish_dave_83 · 04-11-2015 1:57pm

CelticRambler wrote: »

The only context you've described is parents exhibiting irrational fears. Should playgrounds be cleared of all spiders because some children are scared of them? I think you'd find it hard to get support for that, but statistically, a child is more likely to suffer harm because of a spider, or panicky reaction to seeing one, than any photographer.

Sticking with the playground context, those spongy surfaces that are supposed to prevent injury have been demonstrated to have a net negative effect on child safety. While they do minimise the injuries suffered by toddlers and younger children, they also limit the learning process, i.e. that falling off a climbing frame hurts. As result, A&E departments see more older children with more severe injuries, suffered when they start doing what children do away from the supervision of their parents.

Then you've got those parents who smoke, the ones who aren't paying the least bit of attention to their playground bully (that'll be the one whacking your child with a stick), or the dog that's "really good with children" snapping at their heels, and then you've got those who are still on the 'phone as they drive out of the car-park not noticing the toddler on a scooter ...

And somehow a guy taking photos is the big bogey man in this context?

The difference in the things you have described is that the parent makes a conscious decision to let their children take part in these things or put their children in the situation. Right or wrong, these decisions are made.

When a stranger starts taking photos of your child they have imposed themselves into the life of the parent, knowingly or not. Can you see the context now?

The point is that, some photographers don't have the capacity to see this. As you have proved.

irish_dave_83 · 04-11-2015 2:24pm

Paulw wrote: »

But, what more is there than simply paranoia? What is the bigger picture? The bigger picture is that a photographer is not a threat to the child. The bigger picture is that a child is much much more likely to be abused by a family member or someone well known to the child/family.

So, please, if it is not paranoia - what is it? What is the actual threat to the child?

But why should you ignore his rights? Should you not simply remove yourself and your child from the scene/area, if you are unhappy to be photographed? Why should the photographer have to justify his art/work to you, or anyone else?

What should the photographer have to do? The parent should be the one who has to do something - accept the situation and the right of the photographer, or make the decision to leave the area.

Again, why are people, so commonly online, threatening violence?

There are far far more dangerous things to children out there than a photographer taking photos. Each time I am out with my daughter I do my best to protect her - watching for traffic when crossing the road, watching for broken glass on the path, watching for things she may trip on when walking, etc. I certainly don't feel there is any threat from a photographer. I photographer her many times and she has been at a few events where there are photographers (both professional and hobby). Has she been photographed and her image being put online (facebook, flickr, etc) ... yes.

Has she been harmed by someone taking her photo - absolutely not.

So, again, if it's not paranoia, what is the threat to the child?

You keep going on about paedophilia, I haven't once said that photographers are paedophiles. Nor have I threatened or condoned violence.

You ask why the photographer needs to leave? But why should the family.
Neither should, maybe the parent should just stand in front of the lens or have a game of football near the camera. All within their rights within a public place. But of course that is ridiculous carry on, and I am not suggesting that because it is childish.
But surely, so is recognising that someone is uncomfortable with you taking photos of them or their children and you not caring about it and being stubborn?

The fact that you are a parent makes no difference, maybe you don't understand the discomfort of being photographed, because you are a photographer. Maybe you don't mind people watching you play foolishly with your children, but some people don't like the "watching" feeling. Its not always a threatening feeling that is the cause.

Photographs of Children in Public

Comments