Photographs of Children in Public

amdublin

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

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.

What's next?? "Stop using your eyes to look at my child"

:eek:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

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.

By taking the child into a public space in the first place, a parent is making a conscious decision to let their children take part in said situation. They have no more consent with the photographers than do with the spiders.

Unless said stranger is neing intrusive - as in stickign the camera in someone's face - he is not imposing anything on anyone. How could they be?

Paulw

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

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

Correct, you haven't mentioned paedophilia, but others have.

You may not have threatened nor condoned violence, but you have mentioned it at least twice in the thread.

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

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.

I personally hate being photographed. It's a self image thing. But, I know there are cameras out there, I know people take photos, and I know I am in many photos/videos, and many that are posted online. My discomfort at being photographed/videoed doesn't give me any right to confront the photographer/videographer. I simply get on with life.

As for being watched playing foolishly with my child ... I honestly don't consider anything other than myself and my child. As long is she is having fun, I don't care. Do I look like a fool? Yeah, probably, but such is life.

If people don't like the "watching" feeling - how do they deal with walking down the street? Getting public transport? Going to a big sporting event? Going to any event in public. Almost all those have CCTV and/or photographers.

So, again - if it's not paranoia - what is it?

magicbastarder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLb9CJXO7s4#t=0m54s

irish_dave_83

Paulw wrote: »

Correct, you haven't mentioned paedophilia, but others have.

You may not have threatened nor condoned violence, but you have mentioned it at least twice in the thread.




I personally hate being photographed. It's a self image thing. But, I know there are cameras out there, I know people take photos, and I know I am in many photos/videos, and many that are posted online. My discomfort at being photographed/videoed doesn't give me any right to confront the photographer/videographer. I simply get on with life.

As for being watched playing foolishly with my child ... I honestly don't consider anything other than myself and my child. As long is she is having fun, I don't care. Do I look like a fool? Yeah, probably, but such is life.

If people don't like the "watching" feeling - how do they deal with walking down the street? Getting public transport? Going to a big sporting event? Going to any event in public. Almost all those have CCTV and/or photographers.

So, again - if it's not paranoia - what is it?

I have mentioned violence as a negative thing, however you implied that I threatened it online in response to one of my comments which is not the case. If I misunderstood that, I apologise.

Do you watch people when walking down the street, or while on public transport in the same way as when you are watching them for the right photograph? And CCTV has a purpose, security. They are different situations, think about it.

The photographers purpose in line with this thread is to capture an image of your child, albeit for artistic reasons. All I am saying is that the parents do not understand those reasons, much like you may not understand the reasoning of another professional doing their job and you may question it regardless of there legitimate reason for doing so.

I said in my previous post that paranoia plays a part did I not? But it is not the only reason. People are self-conscious which is not paranoia. People don't know what is going to happen with the photos which is paranoia, i.e. will it end up on a gallery wall, a magazine, Facebook. Personally I wouldn't immediately think anything else, but other parents might.

Of course there are circumstances such as public events, parties etc, where reasonable people don't mind and expect photos to be taken and are ok with that. Its when people go somewhere, such as a park or a playground where you don't expect the photographer to appear that causes the issue. Its not the fault of the photographer, but its not unreasonable to ask someone to stop taking photos of their kids.

Don't get me wrong if my kids are getting in the way of a photographer taking their photo of something else, I will move them, no problem at all. Its when the photographer chooses to turn the camera to my kids in the scenario I described previously, I would be curious to know why. It doesn't have to be a confrontation, I would be curious that's all, then I can decide to let it go on, or ask him/her to not take anymore, or remove my kids from the area in question.
The photographers can explain or he can have the "you can't stop me attitude". The latter is will in most cases escalate the matter.

liamo

Dave, you're wasting your time.

You and I and others have tried to explain that some parents would simply prefer if their children were not the subject of a stranger's photography.

The reasonable and human thing to do is to try to understand where the parent is coming from and think that perhaps acceding to a parent's request to desist from behaviour where his child is concerned is not such a hard thing to do.

Instead, these attempts to explain the parent's point of view have been subject to mockery and ridicule, accusations of paranoia, of thinking all photographers are paedophiles, and so on and so on. Anything but address the simple, basic point - "I'd rather you didn't take pictures of my child. Would you please mind not doing that?"

The answer to that question is usually more questions such as "where is the threat?", "are people known to the family not more likely to be paedophiles?", "why should the feelings of the parent trump my legal rights?"

You can expect your latest post (and, doubtless, this one) to be subject to more of the same from the usual suspects.

Frankly, I suspect that a lot of the bluster and posturing by some posters in this thread bears little resemblance to what would happen in real life.

That is, if a photographer is taking photos of my child I will approach him and ask him nicely to stop. I rather suspect that very few, if any, of the oh-so-concerned-about-their-rights posters here will actually refuse to accede to my request when facing a real-life parent.

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

I have mentioned violence as a negative thing, however you implied that I threatened it online in response to one of my comments which is not the case. If I misunderstood that, I apologise.

Do you watch people when walking down the street, or while on public transport in the same way as when you are watching them for the right photograph? And CCTV has a purpose, security. They are different situations, think about it.

The photographers purpose in line with this thread is to capture an image of your child, albeit for artistic reasons. All I am saying is that the parents do not understand those reasons, much like you may not understand the reasoning of another professional doing their job and you may question it regardless of there legitimate reason for doing so.

I said in my previous post that paranoia plays a part did I not? But it is not the only reason. People are self-conscious which is not paranoia. People don't know what is going to happen with the photos which is paranoia, i.e. will it end up on a gallery wall, a magazine, Facebook. Personally I wouldn't immediately think anything else, but other parents might.

Of course there are circumstances such as public events, parties etc, where reasonable people don't mind and expect photos to be taken and are ok with that. Its when people go somewhere, such as a park or a playground where you don't expect the photographer to appear that causes the issue. Its not the fault of the photographer, but its not unreasonable to ask someone to stop taking photos of their kids.

Don't get me wrong if my kids are getting in the way of a photographer taking their photo of something else, I will move them, no problem at all. Its when the photographer chooses to turn the camera to my kids in the scenario I described previously, I would be curious to know why. It doesn't have to be a confrontation, I would be curious that's all, then I can decide to let it go on, or ask him/her to not take anymore, or remove my kids from the area in question.
The photographers can explain or he can have the "you can't stop me attitude". The latter is will in most cases escalate the matter.

Lyaiera

If someone doesn't want their picture taken, and it's not an important, newsworthy even I won't take their picture. I've often found a smile and a wave is enough for most people. Being honest and up front with people will get you a long way, but if someone doesn't want to be in a picture, or have their child in a picture there's the rest of the world to photograph. Why would I want to make someone uncomfortable?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

Don't get me wrong if my kids are getting in the way of a photographer taking their photo of something else, I will move them, no problem at all. Its when the photographer chooses to turn the camera to my kids in the scenario I described previously, I would be curious to know why. It doesn't have to be a confrontation, I would be curious that's all, then I can decide to let it go on, or ask him/her to not take anymore, or remove my kids from the area in question.
The photographers can explain or he can have the "you can't stop me attitude". The latter is will in most cases escalate the matter.

I believe that the photographer you describe is a very small minority. I imagine that if you asked politely, without even giving a reason, that a photographer will cease to take anymore pictures of your child. They may even delete the images and apologise for making you feel uncomfortable (which will probably make you feel more uncomfortable :P)

Parent: Hi.
Photographer: Hey.
Parent: I noticed you were taking pictures of my children playing. I feel a little uncomfortable, can I ask you kindly to please stop?
Photographer: Oh, i'm sorry about that. I didn't realise I was causing you discomfort. I have children of my own, I just think they make great subjects. This is my favourite hobby. Do you want to see the pictures I took of your child?


Now that's the polite way. I imagine it would go a different way if the parent approaches the photographer in an aggressive manner, like some parents suggested they would do (I understand it's easy to claim you will do something on a discussion board, but in fact you wouldn't do this in reality).

Parent: What do you think you are doing?
Photographer: Huh? Sorry, is there something wrong?
Parent: You are taking pictures of MY kids, it's illegal, you didn't ask for my permission. DELETE THEM NOW!
Photographer: Sorry, but we are in a public place and I don't require permission to take pictures of anybody.
Parent: I don't give a damn what you think, delete them pictures now or you and your camera and going to be in pieces...

Change the text as you see fit, the parent may be less aggressive, the photographer may be a smug twat, but you get the point.

liamo wrote: »

The reasonable and human thing to do is to try to understand where the parent is coming from and think that perhaps acceding to a parent's request to desist from behaviour where his child is concerned is not such a hard thing to do.

For me, the reasonable and humane thing to do would be to accept the decision of the photographer.

Instead, these attempts to explain the parent's point of view have been subject to mockery and ridicule, accusations of paranoia, of thinking all photographers are paedophiles, and so on and so on. Anything but address the simple, basic point - "I'd rather you didn't take pictures of my child. Would you please mind not doing that?"

It has been addressed in detail, this statement also indicates that the retorts from the photographers here (regarding the law) has been disregarded. Regarding the paranoia, it really is paranoia (unjustified suspicion and distrust of other people, irrational fear). That's where the discomfort comes from. It's far from unusual but that's an issue which you must learn to deal with and not impose on others.

The answer to that question is usually more questions such as "where is the threat?", "are people known to the family not more likely to be paedophiles?", "why should the feelings of the parent trump my legal rights?"

These are legitimate questions. I don't think they have been answered in most posts. One poster made 4 points in relation to "Where is the threat" which I found to be a great retort (even if I didn't agree with them all).

Frankly, I suspect that a lot of the bluster and posturing by some posters in this thread bears little resemblance to what would happen in real life.

I don't believe anybody has said "if you asked me to stop taking pictures, I wouldn't do it, lol" or something to that effect. I may have missed some of the posts so apologies if that's the case.

That is, if a photographer is taking photos of my child I will approach him and ask him nicely to stop. I rather suspect that very few, if any, of the oh-so-concerned-about-their-rights posters here will actually refuse to accede to my request when facing a real-life parent.

I think this view point has been explained numerous times too. The majority of photographers, here at least, will respond to your request. I just wouldn't go about it with an attitude of entitlement. I think that's where most people have an issue.

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

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.

Well that could be deemed as harassment. Likewise when a photographer is right up in your face continuously taking pictures, but nobody is suggesting they have the right to do that

liamo

Zara Massive Verdigris wrote: »

Parent: Hi.
Photographer: Hey.
Parent: I noticed you were taking pictures of my children playing. I feel a little uncomfortable, can I ask you kindly to please stop?
Photographer: Oh, i'm sorry about that. I didn't realise I was causing you discomfort. I have children of my own, I just think they make great subjects. This is my favourite hobby. Do you want to see the pictures I took of your child?

A nice example of how to make reasonable request and respond in a similar fashion.

magicbastarder

one argument which is regularly mentioned which i find bemusing is the one of 'how do you cope with pervasive CCTV if you don't like having your photo taken?'; apart from the fact that CCTV is very generally a passive recording of your image (so it's not a fair comparison with more 'active' photography), it's also using what most people would regard as a negative thing, to justify your hobby, and as such, i don't think serves the purpose those using that argument intend.

it's setting a poor baseline for the debate if you're arguing 'well, what i'm doing is comparable to something society already has a not-too-fond relationship with already'.

CelticRambler

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's setting a poor baseline for the debate if you're arguing 'well, what i'm doing is comparable to something society already has a not-too-fond relationship with already'.

The CCTV defence is relevant in the context of (paranoid) parents using the argument that a picture of their child may be re-distributed without their consent. Extending that argument logically (which obviously does not apply in case of paranoia) means that these parents should never walk their child down any street or through any store/shopping centre where CCTV is in use.

CCTV and hidden cameras are well known to be used by paedophiles, stalkers and other miscreants (there's a story in the French news today about a head teacher being caught with hundreds of secret "locker room" photos on his computer) - so making reference to it highlights the nonsense of the parental argument.

liamo

CelticRambler wrote: »

The CCTV defence is relevant in the context of (paranoid) parents using the argument that a picture of their child may be re-distributed without their consent. Extending that argument logically (which obviously does not apply in case of paranoia) means that these parents should never walk their child down any street or through any store/shopping centre where CCTV is in use.

CCTV and hidden cameras are well known to be used by paedophiles, stalkers and other miscreants (there's a story in the French news today about a head teacher being caught with hundreds of secret "locker room" photos on his computer) - so making reference to it highlights the nonsense of the parental argument.

Forget any context of parents (paranoid or not) making any argument of the sort. You're missing the point that's been made again and again.

"Strangers photographing my child makes me uneasy. I would appreciate your understanding and co-operation in this matter. Please stop."

Simples.

CelticRambler

No, that's precisely the point - do you, and every other "uneasy" parent make a point of asking every CCTV owner and every school photographer and every one else taking pictures unsupervised of your child to stop? If not, why not?

amdublin

liamo wrote: »

Forget any context of parents (paranoid or not) making any argument of the sort. You're missing the point that's been made again and again.

"Strangers photographing my child makes me uneasy. I would appreciate your understanding and co-operation in this matter. Please stop."

Simples.

"Uneasy? Uneasy?? What are you on about? I'm taking general landscape shots which happen to have some children in it, I've no clue which one is your child, the light is going down, I will be finished in 20 minutes, but in the meantime feel free to move your child out of my shot to settle your CARAZY unease"

amdublin

Hey I am just thinking something, my last post got me thinking. When your child is in dangerous situation you tend to remove the child from the danger rather than the other way round. E.g. if there was a person with a knife in the playground you wouldn't walk up and say "hey there person with a knife that's making me uneasy would you mind putting that away", no you'd remove your child asap. Why if a photographer is so dangerous to your child do you not just take the child away asap.

CabanSail

Below are some good examples of real life encounters. Not exactly but the tone is correct.

Zara Massive Verdigris wrote: »

Parent: Hi.
Photographer: Hey.
Parent: I noticed you were taking pictures of my children playing. I feel a little uncomfortable, can I ask you kindly to please stop?
Photographer: Oh, i'm sorry about that. I didn't realise I was causing you discomfort. I have children of my own, I just think they make great subjects. This is my favourite hobby. Do you want to see the pictures I took of your child?


Now that's the polite way. I imagine it would go a different way if the parent approaches the photographer in an aggressive manner, like some parents suggested they would do (I understand it's easy to claim you will do something on a discussion board, but in fact you wouldn't do this in reality).

Parent: What do you think you are doing?
Photographer: Huh? Sorry, is there something wrong?
Parent: You are taking pictures of MY kids, it's illegal, you didn't ask for my permission. DELETE THEM NOW!
Photographer: Sorry, but we are in a public place and I don't require permission to take pictures of anybody.
Parent: I don't give a damn what you think, delete them pictures now or you and your camera and going to be in pieces...

I have been in these situations and the first definitely outnumbers the second. The most common encounter, in my experience, would be along the lines;

Parent: Hello.
Photographer: Hi.
Parent: Are you taking photo's for the paper?
Photographer: No, I am taking photo's for myself.
Parent: Why?
Photographer:Just for my own use. If any are good maybe a competition somewhere. Are they your kids?
Parent: Yeah, the little boy in blue is mine.
Photographer: Would you like me to send you a copy of some of the photo's?
Parent:Yeah, that would be nice, do you have a card?
Photographer:Yes. Send me an email and remind me of where we were and I will forward some.
Parent: Cheers, thanks
Photographer:Bye.

The the reason I do not usually ask permission first is that when you do so the behaviour changes and people pose for the camera. The essence of what was trying to be captured evaporates. The moment is lost. Likewise taking photo's of people who are not comfortable with being in them is generally not going to make good images either. I would cease for that reason alone.

I will admit that sometimes I have continued taking photo's when someone is not comfortable just for that reason, but it has never involved children. The most recent example was when I was shooting and found myself feeling unwell due to tobacco smoke (I am allergic) when in an area where smoking is illegal. I politely pointed out the law and asked them to stop. They refused saying it was none of my business. Quite incorrect, it is my business as I was in a safe area and their smoking was impacting on me. They still refused, so I took some photo's of them. They then told me I could not do that as I did not have their permission, which is again false. I knew that if they tried to damage gear that they were on the dreaded CCTV and the gear was insured. They wanted to know why I was taking them. I said as evidence. They went away muttering. However I would not make a child feel uncomfortable even if their parent is a twat.

liamo

CelticRambler wrote: »

No, that's precisely the point - do you, and every other "uneasy" parent make a point of asking every CCTV owner and every school photographer and every one else taking pictures unsupervised of your child to stop? If not, why not?

That's called "Reductio ad absurdum" and doesn't warrant a further response.

amdublin wrote: »

"Uneasy? Uneasy?? What are you on about? I'm taking general landscape shots which happen to have some children in it, I've no clue which one is your child, the light is going down, I will be finished in 20 minutes, but in the meantime feel free to move your child out of my shot to settle your CARAZY unease"

The point has been made multiple times that this is not about a landscape shot in which a child happens to be (and I have no problem with that) but it is about a photographer making a child the subject of the shot.

amdublin wrote: »

Hey I am just thinking something, my last post got me thinking. When your child is in dangerous situation you tend to remove the child from the danger rather than the other way round. E.g. if there was a person with a knife in the playground you wouldn't walk up and say "hey there person with a knife that's making me uneasy would you mind putting that away", no you'd remove your child asap. Why if a photographer is so dangerous to your child do you not just take the child away asap.

Ridiculous point. Up there with the crazy talk of parent's thinking everyone's a paedo and family members being more dangerous than strangers.


Again, your're all missing the main point that I and others have tried to make. This is not about a photo in which my child happens to be. It's about a stranger taking shots of my child.

Time for another example encounter (with thanks to Iamxavier for the idea):

"Hi. That's a nice camera. I do a bit of photography myself, you know. Look, I know you're perfectly within your rights to photograph anyone in public but I'd really rather you didn't take photos of my child. Do you mind? Much appreciated."

GG66

I don't see why this has resorted to a conversation about paedophelia. While it's perfectly legal to take someones photo in public I simply prefer not to have my photo taken and used randomly, much less my childrens'.

I prefer to have some control over the use of photos of me and prefer to let my kids decide on their own privacy rather than assume they're going to me ok with me plastering their photo all over social media.

So why would I grant strangers the freedom to do so without questioning how they intend to use it.

Aside from in public, at wedding recently the photographer decided to go ahead and take photos without asking, same photographer who retains rights to their photos and rights to sell them. How is that cool?

It's polite to ask for permission. Don't be surprised if people object or say no. Violence is over the top.

CabanSail

GG66 wrote: »

I don't see why this has resorted to a conversation about paedophelia.

It's because parents bring that up as their concern.

GG66 wrote: »

While it's perfectly legal to take someones photo in public I simply prefer not to have my photo taken and used randomly, much less my childrens'.

I prefer to have some control over the use of photos of me and prefer to let my kids decide on their own privacy rather than assume they're going to me ok with me plastering their photo all over social media.

So why would I grant strangers the freedom to do so without questioning how they intend to use it.

In that case you will need to get the law changed or avoid public spaces where photography is taking place. There is no Privacy in Public.

GG66 wrote: »

Aside from in public, at wedding recently the photographer decided to go ahead and take photos without asking, same photographer who retains rights to their photos and rights to sell them. How is that cool?

It's polite to ask for permission. Don't be surprised if people object or say no. Violence is over the top.

At a wedding it would be a private space and as such the rules concerning photography are controlled by the venue and the host. A wedding photographer will be commissioned to take images of the event. That is their job. If you have an objection then raise it with the people who invited you prior to the event. They can then instruct the photographer not to include you in any images.
The rights to the images will be covered in the contract, so that can vary.

Poncke

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

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.

Bold part, no one is implying that that would be our response, in this thread it has been clarified it IS our right, however, I will not sum up the law if being asked nicely, I will sum up the law when a parent tells me that is illegal to take photos of their kids, or whatever. Context.

Poncke

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

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.

Why should you obstruct the photographer or play a game of football near his camera (to break it or scare the photographer?) What is it with this behaviour of parents bordering harassment. What if the photographer sticks his lens in your face when you are picnicking? You would probably call the guards. But the other way around is all legit behaviour. I dont get it why parents need to get aggressive towards photographers, it is hypocrite to say the least.

challengemaster

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

Instead response like, "its my right", "its a public place you cant stop me", "its not against the law" are not helping anyone.

Because the attitude of "I'm a parent so my opinion should outweigh anyone else's rights or opinion" is definitely helping yeah? Realistically it's the latter which brings about the former.

On another note - I'd be curious as to how much age/gender/appearance would play into how the paranoid parents approach the photographer.

Poncke

Zara Massive Verdigris wrote: »

I believe that the photographer you describe is a very small minority. I imagine that if you asked politely, without even giving a reason, that a photographer will cease to take anymore pictures of your child. They may even delete the images and apologise for making you feel uncomfortable (which will probably make you feel more uncomfortable :P)

Parent: Hi.
Photographer: Hey.
Parent: I noticed you were taking pictures of my children playing. I feel a little uncomfortable, can I ask you kindly to please stop?
Photographer: Oh, i'm sorry about that. I didn't realise I was causing you discomfort. I have children of my own, I just think they make great subjects. This is my favourite hobby. Do you want to see the pictures I took of your child?


Now that's the polite way. I imagine it would go a different way if the parent approaches the photographer in an aggressive manner, like some parents suggested they would do (I understand it's easy to claim you will do something on a discussion board, but in fact you wouldn't do this in reality).

Parent: What do you think you are doing?
Photographer: Huh? Sorry, is there something wrong?
Parent: You are taking pictures of MY kids, it's illegal, you didn't ask for my permission. DELETE THEM NOW!
Photographer: Sorry, but we are in a public place and I don't require permission to take pictures of anybody.
Parent: I don't give a damn what you think, delete them pictures now or you and your camera and going to be in pieces...

Change the text as you see fit, the parent may be less aggressive, the photographer may be a smug twat, but you get the point.



For me, the reasonable and humane thing to do would be to accept the decision of the photographer.



It has been addressed in detail, this statement also indicates that the retorts from the photographers here (regarding the law) has been disregarded. Regarding the paranoia, it really is paranoia (unjustified suspicion and distrust of other people, irrational fear). That's where the discomfort comes from. It's far from unusual but that's an issue which you must learn to deal with and not impose on others.



These are legitimate questions. I don't think they have been answered in most posts. One poster made 4 points in relation to "Where is the threat" which I found to be a great retort (even if I didn't agree with them all).



I don't believe anybody has said "if you asked me to stop taking pictures, I wouldn't do it, lol" or something to that effect. I may have missed some of the posts so apologies if that's the case.



I think this view point has been explained numerous times too. The majority of photographers, here at least, will respond to your request. I just wouldn't go about it with an attitude of entitlement. I think that's where most people have an issue.




Well that could be deemed as harassment. Likewise when a photographer is right up in your face continuously taking pictures, but nobody is suggesting they have the right to do that

Brilliant post, fully agree

liamo

challengemaster wrote: »

Because the attitude of "I'm a parent so my opinion should outweigh anyone else's rights or opinion" is definitely helping yeah? Realistically it's the latter which brings about the former.

Ah, yes. Another imagined example of an uppity parent saying things that were never, in fact, said.

On another note - I'd be curious as to how much age/gender/appearance would play into how the paranoid parents approach the photographer.

And let's not miss another opportunity to cause offence by labelling parents as paranoid while posing a question. Very helpful, challengemaster.

Nope. You're still not getting it. Time to pull out another scenario.

"Hi. I know you're not trying to make anyone uncomfortable but strangers taking pictures of my child makes me uneasy. While respecting your right to take those photos I'm asking in a completely non-violent way for your co-operation and understanding. Can you please stop? Thanks."

Dr.Internet

If you want privacy in public put on a burka

challengemaster

liamo wrote: »

Ah, yes. Another imagined example of an uppity parent saying things that were never, in fact, said.

Yes. "Imagined".

Tasden wrote: »

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.

liamo wrote: »

Frankly, I don't care about your rights. I care about my child.

I must have a great imagination to have it alter boards database.

Whispered

CabanSail wrote: »

It's because parents bring that up as their concern.

Some parents.

Whispered

Poncke wrote: »

Bold part, no one is implying that that would be our response, in this thread it has been clarified it IS our right, however, I will not sum up the law if being asked nicely, I will sum up the law when a parent tells me that is illegal to take photos of their kids, or whatever. Context.

You can't ask fairer than that. I think it's a given that some parents will feel uncomfortable with it, for whatever reason. I guess if you respond with the same respect (or lack thereof) you're doing all anyone would expect you do to really.

Poncke wrote: »

Why should you obstruct the photographer or play a game of football near his camera (to break it or scare the photographer?) What is it with this behaviour of parents bordering harassment. What if the photographer sticks his lens in your face when you are picnicking? You would probably call the guards. But the other way around is all legit behaviour. I dont get it why parents need to get aggressive towards photographers, it is hypocrite to say the least.

I took it that he meant the parent playing ball close enough to obstruct the view of the child. As in between the photographer and child if you know what I mean.

Ha this thread has me wondering if any of the 10billion pics I've taken of my boy would be any good beyond the obvious sentimental value they have to me.

liamo

challengemaster wrote: »

I must have a great imagination to have it alter boards database.

<sigh> here's what you posted:

Because the attitude of "I'm a parent so my opinion should outweigh anyone else's rights or opinion" is definitely helping yeah?

Not an immensely helpful statement, that.

What others - including me - were saying is their discomfort was more important to them than another's right to take photos. It's not an entirely unreasonable position to take. Someone feeling like that doesn't diminish your rights in any way.

I feel another scenario coming on....

"Hi. While completely acknowledging your right to take photos in a public place, including taking photos of my child, I'm sure you would not like to cause others discomfort or unease, however unintentional. That being the case I would like to tell you that stranger's taking shots of my child - where my child is the subject as opposed to a happenstance element of the photo - causes me discomfort and unease. I would like to ask you, as a fellow human being, to respect this and to please take photos of someone or something else. Thank you. Have a nice day."

Poncke

liamo wrote: »

"Hi. While completely acknowledging your right to take photos in a public place, including taking photos of my child, I'm sure you would not like to cause others discomfort or unease, however unintentional. That being the case I would like to tell you that stranger's taking shots of my child - where my child is the subject as opposed to a happenstance element of the photo - causes me discomfort and unease. I would like to ask you, as a fellow human being, to respect this and to please take photos of someone or something else. Thank you. Have a nice day."

Sorry, no.

And then?

liamo

Poncke wrote: »

Sorry, no.

And then?

I have faith in the general goodness and reasonableness of people in general and I don't really believe that if I ask someone very politely to stop taking shots of my child that they would not be pleased to accomodate my reasonable, friendly request.

Scenario ....

"Sorry, no."
"Pretty please."
"Oh go on then."

twowheelsonly

fatherted1969 wrote: »

Haven't read through all the posts here so I'll throw this out. I'm the designated photographer in our club. On any weekend I could cover gaa and soccer matches for my local clubs. They are both fine as the pics are really for them anyway. It's just a hobby for me. Before a camera is clicked I approach both opposition managers to get permission to take pics. Have never been refused yet by anyone. Is permission like this enough

A bit long winded but.......

I do likewise for my local schoolboys/junior club and only once ever have I had an issue - and it turned out to be quite interesting afterwards.
Shooting an U14s' game I was approached by a 'Mammy' in a passive/aggressive manner and told not to take any photos of her child.
No problem says I, which one is he ? He's XYZ. Ok, no problem, do you mind if I take a reference photo of him in case he turns up in any photos afterwards and I can delete everything that he's in. She didn't want this but her friend convinced her that it made sense once I guaranteed that I deleted all the photos of him. No skin off my nose to be honest.
Subsequently, some of the others there told me that she's way OTT paranoid about her "little darling blue eyed boy" and just told me to ignore her. He's been with that particular club since he was a child and is in NO team photos, match photos or anywhere.

In the end..... 2 photos published in the local rag and the day after that I put a bundle up on my Flickr page with a link on my FB page as I normally do. Usual reaction with the youngsters delighted to see half decent photos of themselves. About 10 days later I get an email from 'The Mammy' enquiring if I had any of her fella as they were great photos and she'd love to have a few. Of course I replied No, as I'd deleted them as requested. She emailed me back to say that was a pity as the young fella was getting slagged because he was the only one not in the photos and he was at an age where he was very self conscious about it and was there any way I could recover the photos !!! Unfortunately it was a no but I felt sorry for the young fella as it struck me that his self-esteem was being affected by his mothers OTT imagined need to protect him.


I'm not really into street/park/public photography and apart from the above have never had an issue while shooting sports (though some refs will no longer let you take a shot of the underage team-sheets!!). The thing is, whilst most parents are , or seem to be, quite happy to see photos of their kids playing sports I know that some of them would lose the plot if I were to take their photos in the local park or on the street whereas to my mind there's no difference !!

Personally, if I were in that situation I'd just stop. probably mutter away under my breath about the preciousness of the parents but it wouldn't bother me to stop. I'll have another 50 to 100 thousand pictures to worry about for the year without drawing grief on myself for the sake of one

amdublin

liamo wrote: »

Ah, yes. Another imagined example of an uppity parent saying things that were never, in fact, said.



And let's not miss another opportunity to cause offence by labelling parents as paranoid while posing a question. Very helpful, challengemaster.

Nope. You're still not getting it. Time to pull out another scenario.

"Hi. I know you're not trying to make anyone uncomfortable but strangers taking pictures of my child makes me uneasy. While respecting your right to take those photos I'm asking in a completely non-violent way for your co-operation and understanding. Can you please stop? Thanks."

"Oh. I'm wondering why a stranger taking a photo of your child is making you uneasy?"

liamo

amdublin wrote: »

"Oh. I'm wondering why a stranger taking a photo of your child is making you uneasy?"

I've tried, with my perhaps-not-exactly-real-life scenarios, to defuse and remove the heat from this discussion and get away from the arguments about rights and paranoia, etc and bring it down to a simple request.

I've been trying to demonstrate that a parent asking someone nicely for some consideration doesn't have to end up as a raging row about infringement of rights or paedophilia or hostility or violence. It can be a simple request from a parent to another human (who may or may not also be a parent).

Why the parent feels uncomfortable shouldn't really matter. There are lots of activities that any of us could engage in that are perfectly legal but that would make others uncomfortable. Not making others uncomfortable or uneasy, if it is within our powers to do so, is simple good manners.

I'm no longer going to try to explain the "why" of it. It's been done to death in this thread and any engagement with an attempt - such as yours - to start that ball rolling again is not going to achieve anything so I'm simply not going to bother.

If you're trying to bait me, I'm not going to bite. If it's a genuine question then re-read this thread - the answers are all there. If, after all of that, you really don't understand the "why" of it, then further attempts to explain won't help.

It boils down to your response to a nicely worded, friendly request to stop making someone uncomfortable. That's all.

Poncke

So were back at why are your feelings trumping the photographer's feelings? I think that was never answered.

liamo

Poncke wrote: »

So were back at why are your feelings trumping the photographer's feelings? I think that was never answered.

Please re-read my post. I believe it fully addresses your remarks.

amdublin

liamo wrote: »

I've tried, with my perhaps-not-exactly-real-life scenarios, to defuse and remove the heat from this discussion and get away from the arguments about rights and paranoia, etc and bring it down to a simple request.

I've been trying to demonstrate that a parent asking someone nicely for some consideration doesn't have to end up as a raging row about infringement of rights or paedophilia or hostility or violence. It can be a simple request from a parent to another human (who may or may not also be a parent).

Why the parent feels uncomfortable shouldn't really matter. There are lots of activities that any of us could engage in that are perfectly legal but that would make others uncomfortable. Not making others uncomfortable or uneasy, if it is within our powers to do so, is simple good manners.

I'm no longer going to try to explain the "why" of it. It's been done to death in this thread and any engagement with an attempt - such as yours - to start that ball rolling again is not going to achieve anything so I'm simply not going to bother.

If you're trying to bait me, I'm not going to bite. If it's a genuine question then re-read this thread - the answers are all there. If, after all of that, you really don't understand the "why" of it, then further attempts to explain won't help.

It boils down to your response to a nicely worded, friendly request to stop making someone uncomfortable. That's all.

Look you can word things as nicely as you want. If it's a request that really has no basis "it just makes me uncomfortable ok" well doesn't matter how nicely you word it chances are its going to be refused.

Like if I politely ask the manager in starbucks if he could possibly remove espresso con panna from the board above his head he's going to refuse. Now I could be allergic to tye panna (cream) hence an irrational fear of it and "it just makes me uncomfortable".

At the end of the day as well as being adults we are human beings and as an adult I'd expect more of answer than "I don't have to give you a reason. It's just making me uncomfortable. Can you just stop ok"
"No you stop! Just take your child away if it's making you so uncomfortable".

Poncke

liamo wrote: »

Please re-read my post. I believe it fully addresses your remarks.

It doesn't. It's one way traffic. I have also explained numerous times; people addressing me to stop taking photos make me feel uncomfortable. I want to be left alone and just take my photos.

So, why are your feelings more important than mine?

amdublin

WHY is it making you uncomfortable????

Stop diverting and saying you don't have to say why, we are all adults, just say why it is making you uncomfortable.

If you confront why it is making you uncomfortable I might understand you better and see and ubderstand your reasoning or you might actually reconsider and say you know what is that something I really am uncomfortable with?
At the moment I cannot understand why you're uncomfortable.

liamo

Poncke wrote: »

It doesn't. It's one way traffic. I have also explained numerous times; people addressing me to stop taking photos make me feel uncomfortable. I want to be left alone and just take my photos.

I may not have answered your question but I have addressed it. There's a difference.

So, why are your feelings more important than mine?

They're not.

Poncke

liamo wrote: »

I may not have answered your question but I have addressed it. There's a difference.



They're not.

There is no difference at all, and thats the contradiction you make in your own post, you say your feelings are not more important than mine, but your feelings are different so I need to stop taking that photo.

liamo

amdublin wrote: »

WHY is it making you uncomfortable????

Stop diverting and saying you don't have to say why, we are all adults, just say why it is making you uncomfortable.

If you confront why it is making you uncomfortable I might understand you better and see and ubderstand your reasoning or you might actually reconsider and say you know what is that something I really am uncomfortable with?
At the moment I cannot understand why you're uncomfortable.

I'm not diverting. I'm simply not engaging.

You know what? It OK that you don't understand why. I'm not asking you to understand why and I don't mind if you don't.

Any attempts to explain will simply lead to more of the same reactions from earlier in this thread. There is simply no incentive to re-engage in that area and re-ignite the very behaviour that I'm trying to avoid.

Poncke

amdublin wrote: »

WHY is it making you uncomfortable????

Stop diverting and saying you don't have to say why, we are all adults, just say why it is making you uncomfortable.

If you confront why it is making you uncomfortable I might understand you better and see and ubderstand your reasoning or you might actually reconsider and say you know what is that something I really am uncomfortable with?
At the moment I cannot understand why you're uncomfortable.

Is that post for me or Liamo?

liamo

Poncke wrote: »

There is no difference at all, and thats the contradiction you make in your own post, you say your feelings are not more important than mine, but your feelings are different so I need to stop taking that photo.

There is no contradiction. There is nuance.

You are also attributing statements to me that I didn't not make (or sufficiently changing ones that I did make such that they do not represent accurately what I said). This is a tactic that I have seen again and again in this thread in an attempt to create confrontation where none should exist.

Poncke

liamo wrote: »

There is no contradiction. There is nuance.

You are also attributing statements to me that I didn't not make (or sufficiently changing ones that I did make such that they do not represent accurately what I said). This is a tactic that I have seen again and again in this thread in an attempt to create confrontation where none should exist.

I am going by stuff you posted in the last few comments. I have no tactics. Jaysus, this is not some game to me where I am planning my strategy on how talk to you in order to make you look bad. I am just posting replying to your comments.

You seem to get edgy when people dont agree with you or question your explanations so I will leave you alone.

PM me a photo of your kid so I know which kid not to photograph in the future.

liamo

amdublin wrote: »

Look you can word things as nicely as you want. If it's a request that really has no basis "it just makes me uncomfortable ok" well doesn't matter how nicely you word it chances are its going to be refused.

Like if I politely ask the manager in starbucks if he could possibly remove espresso con panna from the board above his head he's going to refuse. Now I could be allergic to tye panna (cream) hence an irrational fear of it and "it just makes me uncomfortable".

At the end of the day as well as being adults we are human beings and as an adult I'd expect more of answer than "I don't have to give you a reason. It's just making me uncomfortable. Can you just stop ok"
"No you stop! Just take your child away if it's making you so uncomfortable".

It's not about taking my child away. You need to re-read the many posts that have tried many times to make this point.

It's not about my child being in an area where you might be taking photos. It's not about my child happening to be a small element of a larger photo that you are taking. It's about my child being the subject of the photography.

liamo

Poncke wrote: »

I am going by stuff you posted in the last few comments. I have no tactics. Jaysus, this is not some game to me where I am planning my strategy on how talk to you in order to make you look bad. I am just posting replying to your comments.

You seem to get edgy when people dont agree with you or question your explanations so I will leave you alone.

PM me a photo of your kid so I know which kid not to photograph in the future.

I understand how it might seem that way but really that's not the case. We've all seen how hostile this thread got for a while. I just don't see the point in picking at that scab.

As for the pic of my child - you don't need one. Apparently, I'll be wearing a "I'm Paranoid" hat while screaming at anyone with a camera phone while my child will be unable to move with all the bubble-wrap I've covered her with.

Whispered

liamo wrote: »

It's not about taking my child away. You need to re-read the many posts that have tried many times to make this point.

It's not about my child being in an area where you might be taking photos. It's not about my child happening to be a small element of a larger photo that you are taking. It's about my child being the subject of the photography.

This has been said over and over and is being very conveniently ignored.

Poncke

liamo wrote: »

It's not about taking my child away. You need to re-read the many posts that have tried many times to make this point.

It's not about my child being in an area where you might be taking photos. It's not about my child happening to be a small element of a larger photo that you are taking. It's about my child being the subject of the photography.

Fair point

Dr.Internet

So no problem with taking a picture now, once the child is not the main subject.


What's stopping me from cropping the picture of your child and making it the focus of the picture if they are in the background? There's Either a real concern or there's not.