Photographing children

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

st3ph3nm

Guest
Currently the local trader's assocation is running a photography competition, the winners of which will have their photos used in the traders directory pamphlet (along with a cash prize). Now, our suburb is on the beach, so I thought it'd be good to take some beach shots. I was planning on doing that today. Yesterday, as I walked along the beach on the way to go shopping, the local surf life saver's club was having a training session, with teenage kids practicing surfski race starts. I approached the adults there, told them who I was and why I'd like to take some photos of them. Interestingly, at first they were wary, but soon got the idea (the photo competition was a great icebreaker, actually). As this hadn't been planned, I only had my XA in my pocket with about half a film on it - which quickly got used up. I asked them how long they'd be there for, but they were about to finish. One of the trainers said "We've got a session this afternoon, but it's the littlies, so probably not appropriate". I nodded and thanked them, and I'll probably get more shots of the training soon (even without the competition there's some great ideas I've got).

It wasn't until later I thought "Why isn't it appropriate to take photos of children training surf life saving skills on the beach?" Obviously I know the answer, but this terrible fear and over-vigilance is kind of sad.

Cheers,
Steve
 
We could debate the issue till the cows come home, take it for what it is and move on. I'd be glad to shoot teens, great expressions and such. Take the camera you plan to use next chance and get some good pics, good luck.

Todd
 
I am with Todd. Think of this too, without a signed release from a parent or guardian I bet you couldn't enter the photos in the competition anyway.
 
Todd.Hanz said:
We could debate the issue till the cows come home, take it for what it is and move on. I'd be glad to shoot teens, great expressions and such. Take the camera you plan to use next chance and get some good pics, good luck.

Todd
Click to expand...

Dear Todd,

Sound practical advice except that 'move on' is all too often synonymous with 'give in' or 'surrender your rights'. If we keep 'moving on' each time a bit of our liberty is nibbled away, sooner or later we will have nowhere to move. And taking pictures in a public place IS a right.

Cheers,

R.
 
Seems that people take pains of imagining what could arouse a pedophile. In these Case the equation seems to be Children + beach = seminaked young bodies = children pornography.
Interstingly some of us strted to develop an inner censor (me included) which results in weeding out many opportunities of taking good and perfectly harmless pictures.
 
I photograph what I like. But I don't mind a little hassle if someone objects. In the US, you can legally photograph children in public. If someone wants to object to my doing that, I'm ultimately going to win.

Now, if you don't like threatening looks from parents or the sometimes attention of misinformed law or security folks, then put your camera away. I've been told I couldn't photograph a group's horses in a public parade, before, so everybody has a beef, it seems. Wal-Mart even threatened me for a photo of the front of one of their stores that was barricaded during a hurricane and ran in a newspaper, even though I wasn't on their property when I took the photo.

Shoot what you want if it's in a public place. Well, in the US, anyway.
 
Steve, I feel same as you do its sad and its crazy. There is nothing that comes close to the beauty, and innocence and hope children have in their eyes, faces, and bodies dressed, half naked or naked...
Children always need to be protected - no question but but the media has created a panic far exceeding the real problem... While I fully understand parents protecting their kids I too feel sadness for this situation and wonder when will we need to go everywhere with an attorney attached to protect us from doing the most basic things were 100% legitimate less than 1/2 a generation ago... I agree with Roger - there should be a limit to how much loss of freedom we are willing to tolerate.

st3ph3nm said:
Currently the local trader's assocation
It wasn't until later I thought "Why isn't it appropriate to take photos of children training surf life saving skills on the beach?" Obviously I know the answer, but this terrible fear and over-vigilance is kind of sad.

Cheers,
Steve
Click to expand...
 
Fred, I agree with Roger that you are just setting yourself up for disappointment if you think parents should have some absolute right over how the world treats their kids, which may be saying it too broadly, but you neither have the legal right nor should, in my view, have the expectation of protecting kids from some guy's D700 exploits. I was also going to comment on your use of the word "bum," which is extremely politically incorrect, especially for someone living in NYC. Lastly, I'm curious as to whether you really have experienced people taking your picture in public. Are you some kind of celebrity? If anyone took my picture in any public setting, I'd be curious if not mystified. But then again, I don't have a very interesting face!
 
So, I guy walks up to me while I am shooting this and asked me, in a very menacing way, what I was doing. I told him I was taking a picture and went back to what I was doing. He aksed me again. Now, I have been down this road many times before with these paranoid lunatics and it has gotten to the point that I do not tolerate this BS anymore. I turned to him and told him, literally, to mind his own damn business and to take a hike.

You know what? I don't live my life in fear. I raised two kids, I have two little grandchildren and refuse to give in the fear merchants. They can basically kiss my ass. I have had enough of this crap to last two lifetimes.

For what it is worth, this was shot at my grandson's birthday party. He is the little smart-ass wearing the cap. He reminds me of me. :cool:


Friends

81426439.jpg
 
Parents wish to protect their children. This is normal, natural, and to be commended. However, one must be able to define the danger one is protecting their child from. One can certainly protect a child from physical, mental, and emotional abuse. Having one's photograph taken constitutes none of those, except perhaps in the mind of the parent, who imagines what horrible things a pervert might do while viewing a photo of their child.

So, what I believe parents who oppose the rights of photographers to take photos in public as they wish, which might include photos of their children, are saying is this:

"I feel bad when I think of what might happen if a sick person takes a photo of my child in public and looks at it later on. Therefore, the rights of all photographers must be abridged so that I don't have to feel this way."

They are not talking about protecting their children, although they phrase it that way. They're talking about protecting themselves from having horrifying mental images. While I sympathize to some extent, I cannot condone restricting public photography in order that people with overactive imaginations can feel better.
 
bmattock said:
Parents wish to protect their children. This is normal, natural, and to be commended. However, one must be able to define the danger one is protecting their child from. One can certainly protect a child from physical, mental, and emotional abuse. Having one's photograph taken constitutes none of those, except perhaps in the mind of the parent, who imagines what horrible things a pervert might do while viewing a photo of their child.

So, what I believe parents who oppose the rights of photographers to take photos in public as they wish, which might include photos of their children, are saying is this:

"I feel bad when I think of what might happen if a sick person takes a photo of my child in public and looks at it later on. Therefore, the rights of all photographers must be abridged so that I don't have to feel this way."

They are not talking about protecting their children, although they phrase it that way. They're talking about protecting themselves from having horrifying mental images. While I sympathize to some extent, I cannot condone restricting public photography in order that people with overactive imaginations can feel better.
Click to expand...

Beautifully phrased, Bill.

Cheers,

Roger
 
With regard to the damage allegedly possible when a child's innocent photo is posted on a website of dubious merit, would someone kindly explain to me in what way the child whose picture appears there is harmed? Other than the copyright of the photographer in question being infringed, I do not see a victim, regardless of what awful things sick people get up to in front of their computer monitors.

Most of us know that souls are not captured by cameras.
 
Roger Hicks said:
In any case, the control that parents exercise over their children must be proportionate. Children cannot grow up in a bell-jar created by their parents.
Click to expand...

Right. But that bell-jar is quite the fashion of this age - at a time where we have what may well be an all-time low in risks and dangers, people are still demanding even more security and safety, and are perfectly willing to abondon every liberty and human right they have (and what's more, to deny even the most basic human rights to their children), just to exclude another exotic one-in-a-million risk.

Sevo
 
Fred, you are right, but my point is that it was painfully obvious what I was doing and it was in a public place (a little amusement park) with hundreds of kids running around, and I still had some nutcase come up to me and question what I was doing. To me, that shows how paranoid some folks have become and it borders on lunacy.

However, I do understand your annoyance with some of today's modern street shooters. I do a lot of street shooting and am old enough to know that rude behaviour is just that- rude, I don't care if you are taking photos or not.
 
Today I noticed a very large sign behind the counter of one of our local little Italian bakeries prohibiting photography and video in the shop and was trying to figure out what could they possibly be afraid of. They don't seem to have obvious health violations or illegal employees. I suppose any business is concerned about burglary, but a bakery seems hardly worth the risk. If the bakery down the street wanted to steal their holiday cookie designs, they could just buy some cookies and study them at their leisure. Are there pedophiles lurking in bakeries photographing children? Could it be a mob front?
 
The problem is when two parties loudly assert their competing rights: the right to privacy versus the right to take photographs in public places. Maybe my views tip one way because I'm a parent, but I think a child has a right to privacy that nearly always trumps the right to shoot photographs; and that a parent/guardian/coach has a responsibility to enforce that right. Yes, it's true that people have gone way over the top in their efforts to prevent harmless picture-taking; but it's also true that creepy guys have been known to lurk around the public pool taking crotch shots of young girls in swim suits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom