Photographing children

[bmattock]

Your use of "often" tells us that sometimes the danger is real. How do you tell the difference before "damage" is done?

It would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine all risks that will result in actual damage. The concept of prior restraint is anathema in the USA except under the most extreme of circumstances (not to be confused with 'Prior Restraint' as a legal definition, which applies to publications).

This is part of the downside of living in a free society, where no one's liberty is restrained on the basis of what they might do wrong, but only if they have indeed done something wrong. It is not the best of worlds for a victim, who has then been injured, but how would it be if we imprisoned people based upon their likelihood to commit this or that offense (using whatever futuristic method might be imagined to do so).

With regard to parental vigilance and photography, I have no objections to parents keeping a very close eye on photographers who appear to have an interest in photographing their children, nor even with parents who approach and question a photographer who is taking such photos. I draw the line at demands to see the photos, delete the photos, leave the area, stop photographing their child, etc. I am happy to await the police if they wish to call for them - or I'll be happy to do so myself.

Parents have the right and the responsibility to protect their children from danger, but not danger as they perceive it. Since prohibiting a photographer from photographing their child in public is not legal, if they still feel there is a real danger, then their responsibility is to remove their child from public view.

Parents have the right to protect their children. That does not include the right to require others to modify their legal activities to make the parents feel better.

 

[bmattock]

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?

Probably competition. I have seen similar signs in stores selling very expensive Amish quilts. A photograph of a design by a particular artist can be rapidly knocked off by quilt factories and the artist's copyright is stolen thereby.

The artist cannot stop a thief from buying the quilt (or the cupcakes) in question and then photographing them in the privacy of their own home or studio, however. The problem is never the actual photography, but what use it is later put to.

 

[ruby.monkey]

Your use of "often" tells us that sometimes the danger is real. How do you tell the difference before "damage" is done?

Well, if you wish to remove the most likely threats, then start by arresting all the child's close male relatives.

But if the child is unharmed by the taking of, and subsequent use of, the photograph, then the photographer's motives are irrelevant.

 

[David Goldfarb]

Probably competition.

If it were a particularly high-end bakery, I'd think so, but they sell basically the same things that all the other little Italian family-owned bakeries sell around here.

 

[bmattock]

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;

But there is no right to privacy while in public in the US. No court has ever held that there is that I am aware of. The exceptions are nearly always (there is one I'll explain presently) limited to surreptitious photographs taken of normally-hidden body parts, such as the notorious 'upskirt' photographs.

If there were such a right, I'd be quick to defend it on your behalf. But this is a right you WANT to exist - and it just doesn't.

and that a parent/guardian/coach has a responsibility to enforce that right.

A parent has an absolute right to protect their child from all dangers that they perceive, even dangers I don't agree actually exist.

However, the flip side of that is that they do NOT have the right to impose their viewpoints about danger on others, including restricting THEIR liberties.

Therefore, the responsibility of a parent who perceives danger in a person photographing their child is to remove said child from public view.

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.

And what laws are broken thereby? What harm is done to said girls? In what way were anyone's rights infringed? Same guys who enjoy such things may also enjoy looking in clothing catalogs for young girl's fashions and underwear, modeled by the very same young ladies. How would you propose to restrict them from doing so? How are the models damaged by what use the readers of clothing catalogs make of them?

What you're saying is, "Some pervert may take a photo of my daughter in a way that gratifies him sexually, and I don't like it." I agree - I would not like it either. Gross and creepy to say the least. But I must ask - what law has been broken? The only damage done is that done to your composure, in your own mind. There is no physical damage done at all. I know it can be hard to reconcile the two at times.

Now, the exception that I mentioned before exists in Texas. They have a law on 'improper photography', which restricts photography done for prurient purposes. In other words, in Texas, if you sneak around taking crotch shots of girls at a public swimming pool, you are indeed committing a crime.

http://www.photoattorney.com/2007/10/photography-can-be-crime-in-texas.html

However, even in Texas, despite a few arrests and prosecutions of such creepy folks, it seems to have settled down to a dull roar - mostly, it seems that the law is being used as it was actually intended by legislators, prosecuting those who put video cameras in bathrooms and drill holes in shower walls, etc. A strict interpretation of the Texas law would have Sports Illustrated photographers in the clink for providing bathroom fantasy fodder for millions of Texan men.

 

[Ruvy]

Did you never have children Roger?

I can speak only for myself-not for roger. I had two kids. They are grown up now. I have also two grandkids. Last I have seen them they were running naked on the beach very happy and harmonious with nature. There were many people on the beach - someone might have taken a picture of them.... I don't know but I am proud of my daughter and her husband for leaving and letting live normal healthy life for their kids/my grandkids as do many other around here.

 

[Sparrow]

“that’s one of them “photographers”………….there were lots of them about when I was your age”

 

[Todd.Hanz]

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.

"Rights" aside, I agree to a point, though some arguments aren't worth the price of admission IMHO, YMMV 😉.

Todd

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I occasionally can't resist photographing kids on the street, though usually I stick to my own kids. It would be a real drag not to photograph kids in public--they're so unguarded, the emotions are manifest on their faces at all times. Unfortunately I'm sure this is exactly what attracts pedophiles, too, but you know...do you want to rule the world according to the sinister desires of a miniscule minority, or a healthy majority? Here in the US we've been cowering like infants for 8 years from a handful of violent assholes who live halfway around the world, and personally I don't think it's gone very well.

Anyway, here are a couple of favorite anonymous kid pics. The first two shot from the hip on a DSLR I'm afraid...the last two a Contax G1 w/90mm lens.

 

[rover]

I do not think this is about freedom, it is simply about being rude. I should not have to explain to anyone why I do not want my photo on their website, I simply do not, should be enough. Of course I cannot stop them, unless they in some way they ridicule or comment on me, but still I should be respected. Of course I am not always respected - such is life.

So well said. Unfortunately some folks clearly feel their right to be rude and judgemental is more important than just being respectful to others. Pretty sad really.

 

[gns]

I don't think it is necessarily rude to take someone's photo in public. I think you can be rude while doing so (say by pushing a camera right up in someone's face maybe), but that is something a little different. I also disagree that it is disrespectful. I certainly don't feel disrespected if someone takes my picture in public. Could care less, really.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[bmattock]

So well said. Unfortunately some folks clearly feel their right to be rude and judgemental is more important than just being respectful to others. Pretty sad really.

I'm sorry, I dislike the way you speak in public. I'd like to ask you to stop speaking.

Now, if you refuse, you're being rude.

Or am I the one being rude, for making such a request?

Same thing for parents who demand that photographers cease and desist in their legal pursuits in favor of their presumed (but non-existent) parental rights to control who takes a photograph of their child.

I agree that rudeness is bad. I disagree about who is being rude to whom.

 

[chippy]

frankly the argument is (no did a long time ago) becomming rediculous......were you not taught pragmatics as a child.

do you aspire to be a paparazzi photographer?

the first post may of been beautifully phrased as Roger said, but it is based on repeated false premises, speculation (that ironically is the same you are acussing the parents of) and is a non secular argument.

if it was just that post a person could get the overall feel of the points made, ignoring all the inacuracies, which would give one pause to think about the rights of all concerned (photographers too).

but it seems someone does protest TOO much

no point mentioning respect for others as it will go unoticed....

sheeze give it a break!!!!

 

[Sparrow]

I'm an older photographer I take pictures of lots of things including kids, I'm never rued, weigh around 10 stone and wouldn't be seen dead in a photo vest.

I'm not sure stereotypes are useful in any context, except rhetoric and propaganda

 

[dave lackey]

Ha! Fred, your description of the old, fat photographer just caused me to spray my coffee all over the desk! 😀

Jeez, I know what you mean about having your photo taken sometimes. Everybody is different and, for some reason, I have never liked having my photo taken, ever...but that's just me.

Rights, laws, who cares? Whatever happened to the "Golden Rule", a basic and simple way to conduct one's self on a daily basis.

Oh, well, enough said about that. Hey, can we talk about KEH again?😛

 

[wray]

I'm an older photographer I take pictures of lots of things including kids, I'm never rued, weigh around 10 stone and wouldn't be seen dead in a photo vest.

I'm not sure stereotypes are useful in any context, except rhetoric and propaganda

Well said, Stewart!

 

[gns]

You venture out into public space, you have to expect to put up with others' behavior to the extent that it is legal and otherwise socially acceptable. I guess the definition of both of those terms is always in flux. But if I'm acting in a legal and acceptable fashion, do I have to be concerned with the unfounded "Feelings" of everyone and anyone else out there?

Cheers,
Gary

 

[usagisakana]

To the OP, just for reference in case you haven't seen it before:
http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php

it's a great discussion of the relevant laws regarding photography in australia. Basically no one has a right to privacy in public areas (assuming no commercial use in advertising or endorsement), unless it is inappropriate (eg upskirts etc)- or at least that is my understanding.

However I often avoid photographing people and especially children, in situations where I fear backlash. I am not so much concerned about my legal rights, but about physical harm and/or the hassle of people claiming I've commited a crime. I wish there was better education about the privacy laws in australia, for some reason a lot of people think that it's illegal to take photographs in public.

In relation to the overprotection of kids, I can see that the protection of children is important, but as has been so eloquently stated by Bmattock, I fail to understand what they are being protected from by preventing them from being photographed.

 

[mrb]

I'm surprised that so many people here believe their right to photograph children in public trumps a parent's right to protect their children from the unwanted attention of strangers. As was mentioned above, the Golden Rule seems applicable here; but I must be wrong, judging by the length of this thread.

 

[usagisakana]

I'm surprised that so many people here believe their right to photograph children in public trumps a parent's right to protect their children from the unwanted attention of strangers. As was mentioned above, the Golden Rule seems applicable here; but I must be wrong, judging by the length of this thread.

Well legally it does... there is no legal right for people to stop others photographing their children in public (provided it isn't indecent- at least here in australia). However common sense prevails- personally (and as I believe most people in this thread are intending) I wouldn't photograph someone's child if they were protesting.