Photographing children

[bmattock]

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.

We are not comparing one right versus another right. We are comparing a defined civil liberty and a parent's concern. They are not analogous. You say "a parent's right," but you have no legal right to infringe on the rights of photographers to take photographs in public. You want there to be a right to do so, but there isn't one. I'm sorry.

To take it a step further, not only is your 'right' not a right, it is a responsibility - yours. Not mine, and not that of the myriad of ugly fat old bald sweaty scary photographers dripping cameras from their Domke vests and wandering the streets of Manhattan day and night, humming Jethro Tull's "Locomotive Breath" to themselves as they search for the photogenic child whose parent they can horrify and torture whilst they snap away in glee.

Put the responsibility where it belongs, parent - on you. If you cannot 'protect' your child by forcing others to give up their civil liberties, then it is your responsibility to protect your child by other means - by which I mean take the kid and leave. That's your job. Why would you hold me responsible for doing your job?

As was mentioned above, the Golden Rule seems applicable here; but I must be wrong, judging by the length of this thread.

I think the people who keep invoking 'The Golden Rule' have not actually read it lately.

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."​

That works for me. I like the Golden Rule. I do not ask others to give up their civil liberties to assuage the fears, real and imagined, that I have for the safety of my young relatives. And likewise, I would ask that of others - don't ask me to give my rights because of your fears. Is that not the Golden Rule?

 

[bmattock]

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.

Nor would I, and I like to make that clear from time to time. Whenever we have this discussion, it is often assumed that I must be some sort of monster, searching out and photographing children against their parent's wills, while taunting them and doing some sort of neener-neener dance.

If a parent asks me what I'm doing, I tell them. If they ask me not to, I stop. That is common courtesy - mine. I do it because I am courteous, not because I have to.

What I do not usually respond well to is demands to stop, threats, demands to delete images, display images, hand over my camera, etc. Many are mistaken about their legal right to prevent me taking photos in public. If they wish to summon the law, I am generally willing to wait.

Imagine if everyone sat at only the lunch counter they were told to sit at - because parents were made nervous because of them sitting at the 'wrong' lunch counter. Rights do occasionally have to be asserted, or they cease to actually be rights.

 

[eli griggs]

I am wary of photographing children, though I still do if I think a good shot is there, ever since the early 80's when I took what were perhaps the best kids shots I've ever done. I was visiting my cousins apartment as I often did at the time and I was well known to the neighbors as a photographer that always had a bag full of gear ready to use at the slightest opportunity. Over the course of a year or so, I'd photographed many of them and their kids without any trouble, partly because I'd bring back contacts and prints of good shots and share them around, making prints for anyone that asked. I was always up-front about taking pics and never, ever photographed kids without some of the parents about.

There was a nice little fenced-in play area with monkey bars and other climbing fixtures, in addition to a few swings, at one end of the row and one late afternoon, when the area was evenly lit by good skylight, I saw a great opportunity to try out a nice Canon zoom lens, a 20-35 'L' seres, IIRC, that was taking a turn as my 'prime' that week. I shot about a dozen b&w frames at the widest setting and the kids were great. They even stopped playing for a few moments at the end when I asked them to and everyone was distributed through out the shot in just the right way, looking at the camera and postures perfect. I've since seen more than a few professional models that couldn't interact half as well with each other and the camera as these kids did, all so natural and relaxed. I took the shot and even as the shutter close, I just KNEW that I had something special.

Latter, when I took the film from the tank, dripping with Photoflo, the negative confirmed the exposure was spot on and the prints I pulled were perfect. I happily spent about an hour or two making extra nice FB prints for the parents and my portfolio and had these in hand the next time I visited.

I took photographs around to each of the kids apartments, talking to the parents who were grateful for such a nice picture, their attitudes were positive and I was on top of the world when one of the mothers held up her print to her nose and squinted hard. It seems that one of the kids, a girl about 8-9 years old, wearing a little tank top and hanging by one arm from the monkey bars, showed most of one areola as her shirt was pulled to one side by her posture. How she spotted it I don't know, I sure didn't when I made the prints, the image covered so much area, relative to what was catching her attention, but she did. The woman didn't make a fuss or anything even though it was her daughter, and she was still quite happy with the photograph, but a few comments by some of the other folks that day, not even parents I believe, when their attention was directed to the 'offending' area, caught my ear and I wasn't too happy about what I heard.

After that day, I took fewer shots of kids and though I regret being 'gun shy' that way, I just figure there are plenty of other things and people that I can photograph without the hyper-vigilance our American phobias demands for this type photography.

By-the-way, I never added that shot to my book, though I regret it now, more than 25 years later. The negatives were destroyed in a break-in a few years latter and I have no print of it to share.

Eli

 

[Papercut]

Invoking the Golden Rule to go after photographers assumes that we would object to others photographing us and our loved ones -- a baseless assumption, in my case, at least.

In any case, the Golden Rule as stated in the Christian tradition is impossible to apply consistently: we all would like people to treat us in ways that we are not about to follow in our dealings with others. (Who wouldn't want to have strangers give them money for no reason? And how many of us actually walk around giving strangers $100 bills?)

Confucius' dictum is far better: Do not do unto others as you would not have done to yourself. Subtly, but profoundly, different formulation and one FAR better suited to a rights-based polity as it implies freedom of action right up until the point where it would harm someone else.

And, like bmattock, I have never taken a photo of anyone (adult or child) after being asked to stop, but neither do I feel like I must ask for permission in deference to nonexistent "rights". I am not responsible for anticipating the unfounded fears and paranoid delusions of people, though if someone asks me what I'm doing I am happy to talk and explain what I am doing and give them my contact info in an attempt to assuage their concerns.

 

[bmattock]

Bill,

Do you have a big collection of kiddie photos?

Actually, none, but isn't that amusing? Do people suppose that I support the rights of photographers because I have some vested interest in taking surreptitious photos of children which are not mine?

But here's what I do have:



Now, how would it be if I could not take such photos, because I did not have the personal written permission of each and every parent of each and every child in the photo? How would it be for the photographic world at large?

And what should I do if a parent approached me as I took that photo and demanded to examine my camera, to scroll through it to see if their little Johnnie was one of my subjects, or demanded that I delete his photo if they found one, or attempted to confiscate my camera or memory card/film, or threatened to call the police?

What I like to do, is to take photos. I find my rights to take photos to be increasingly infringed by well-meaning blatherskites who do not know the first thing about the law, but believe that their fear trumps any nasty old civil liberties anyway - or ought to.

So if I put my 2 cents in regarding public photography of children - then it means what? I'm some sort of pervert? Shame to anyone who thinks it.

 

[maddoc]

What strikes me most is the attitude towards photography of strangers (especially children) in countries like India, Cambodia, in African or South American countries on the one hand and countries like US, Australia, Canada, and the European countries on the other hand.

Nobody seems to have a problem with photos taken in the first group of countries, a photo of a group of kids playing soccer in the streets of New Deli (example) is usually praised as "documentary" work but if the same photographer tries to take the same kind of photo at a playground in NY (example), he automatically is categorized being a pervert meaning ill... Some kind of double standards ?

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . "If a parent asks me what I'm doing, I tell them. If they ask me not to, I stop."

That's what I would advocate. It's just that some (ie Hicks) would push it much further.

Rubbish, Richard. That is completely untrue and a gratuitous insult. You should withdraw it immediately and apologize. Not that you will: you seem to be conducting a personal vendetta.

On those (very rare) occasions that a parent -- or even a passing interfering busybody -- has given the slightest indication that they are not happy about my photographing their children, I have immediately stopped.

The first time this happened was in NYC around 20 years ago, but I can't remember the last time it happened. Not in years, that I can recall. It certainly isn't a result of my changing the frequency with which I photograph children, but then, I don't live in England any more, and I have not been to the United States since my mother-in-law died two or three years ago.

Children are not a subject I go out of my way to photograph, any more than I go out of my way to photograph (let us say) gargoyles, or cats, or flower arrangements, but there are some occasions in the year when I take quite a lot of photos of children; for example, during the Festival de Musique Verte et Bricolée, Bastille Day, and various other local festivals and fairs. I've also photographed kids in much of Southern, Central and Eastern Europe and in India (though looking back on it, not many in China; just didn't see many I felt like photographing, I guess).

Maybe I don't get any trouble because I don't look like A Photographer, with a huge SLR and a camera bag. Maybe it's because I actually do try to do as I would be done by. Maybe it's because I'm a nice guy who smiles a lot and generally gets on with people, despite the conviction of some on this forum (who of course have never met me) that I am some sort of arrogant rampaging monster. Or maybe it's just because the great majority of the world isn't paranoid and refuses to live in fear.

Roger

 

[Sparrow]

Here in the UK the population is being increasingly photographed by both companies and the authorities, while being discouraged from taking photos by those same institutions.

This is just one part of that trend and I, like Bill, feel it is necessary to maintain what rights I still have hopefully without being rude, threatening or unreasonable.

Unfortunately the propaganda that’s banded about has shifted the more paranoid among us to reconsider what is rude, threatening or unreasonable so it has reached a “use it or lose it” response from some

 

[bmattock]

it really depends who's taking the picture - if I see my next door neighbor who is a convicted felon, on the sex offender registry for aggravated rape, and is a complete jerk pointing cameras anywhere near my daughter, there's going to be issues...

If it's someone with a generally creepy vibe, there's issues...

If it's a friend, I don't care -- if it's another parent at montessori, good for them...

you have to assess the situation properly

Well within your rights as a parent.

However, your 'rights' to stop him or her from photographing your daughter consist of removing your daughter from that photographer's view.

This is the core of the problem. You seem to feel you have the right to determine what the law is, on a case-by-case basis. You don't.

However, as to "assessing the situation properly..." most people suck at it when it comes to determining real threats to their children's well-being.

As has been pointed out - your instincts (everyone's instincts, not just you personally) are generally wrong. More children are sexually assaulted by family members and close associates of the family than by strangers - by a huge margin. You fear the 'creepy looking guy' down the street, and your own relatives could be the real problem - but you're ok with that.

 

[dave lackey]

As far as my discussing the "Golden Rule", I did not mean to mention a religious connection...only that we should respect others, especially our fellow photographers. If that was taken in any other way, then I apologize. I care not to get involved in any religious discussion.

Back OT, Memphis said it well by mentioning the context. It all DEPENDS.

BTW, who can blame a parent for wondering about just anyone pointing a camera at children, especially if he knows something about that particular person?

I try to wear an ID around my neck with a business card , and try to dress appropriately when I am out shooting just to let people know that I am indeed a "photographer" and that is what I do. Never had a problem...Sometimes the little things like your demeanor and or dress go a long way. Sometimes it just helps to have my wife along and/or the grandchildren.

I just finished a professional shoot for a fundraiser bicycle ride and two of the photos on the CD were shot by my grandson, 3.8 years old! The response was amazing. Talk about turning the tables!

 

[dave lackey]

Well within your rights as a parent.

However, your 'rights' to stop him or her from photographing your daughter consist of removing your daughter from that photographer's view.

This is the core of the problem. You seem to feel you have the right to determine what the law is, on a case-by-case basis. You don't.

However, as to "assessing the situation properly..." most people suck at it when it comes to determining real threats to their children's well-being.

As has been pointed out - your instincts (everyone's instincts, not just you personally) are generally wrong. More children are sexually assaulted by family members and close associates of the family than by strangers - by a huge margin. You fear the 'creepy looking guy' down the street, and your own relatives could be the real problem - but you're ok with that.

Bill, I respectfully disagree with not being able to generally assess the threat level involving our children. Yes, I understand what you are saying, but, a case in point:

Three weeks ago, my wife and I stopped at a local Publix supermarket to pick up a handful of items with the grandkids, ages 2 and 3. She had the 3-yar old in a cart and I had the 2-year old in my cart. Here I am in a busy store on a Saturday afternoon grocery shoppiing and I parked the cart at the end of an aisle and walked 10 feet to pick up a cereal box that was on sale when I saw an older man walk up to MY cart with MY grandson sitting there and he started PUSHING the cart away! I was only 3 feet away by then!

Now, I am not a small or timid person, but I immediately recognized a threat! It was not proper by any form of imaginationn for that man to be pushing my grandson away from me! I shouldered him aside and assertively made him get away immediately! Did I file a police report? No, because no law was broken and of the many things I learned in law school, I would have an uphill struggle trying to press charges at the expense of traumatizing my 2-year old grandson. It just wasn't worth it.

Now, if he had gone literally one step further, it would have been very, very ugly.

I mention this to say that a parent has the duty to assess all situations and whether this man in the grocery store was up to no good, mentally handicapped, senile, or whatever, it has no bearing...I had the obligation as a parent/grandparent/custodian to separate my grandson from this action.

I took quick, assertive and appropriate action. It did not matter whether a law was broken or not. It did not matter whether I assessed the situation correctly or not.

So, yes, I understand your "rights" stance and I commend you for that. I do however, disagree with waiting until a law is broken for a parent to step in and take action to protect his/her child. By then, it is too late in many circumstances.

Now, I am going to find more pleasant topics to discuss.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . If it's someone with a generally creepy vibe, there's issues...
. . . you have to assess the situation properly

I'd completely agree with the second part, and I'd agree equally fully with those who would take action in case of clear and present danger, or even if they were in reasonable fear of clear and present danger; but I'm enough of a lawyer to emphasize the word 'reasonable'.

I'd also suggest that self defence, or defence of a child, from a genuine threat, poses no legal problems. What Bill and I are worried about is people who invent 'rights' in response imaginary threats and fantasies.

Most of us would agree that there are some people with hyperactive imaginations, very thin skins and no self control. What happens if they get a 'creepy vibe'?

The law may not be perfect, but it's far and away the best we've got.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[climbing_vine]

What strikes me most is the attitude towards photography of strangers (especially children) in countries like India, Cambodia, in African or South American countries on the one hand and countries like US, Australia, Canada, and the European countries on the other hand.

Nobody seems to have a problem with photos taken in the first group of countries, a photo of a group of kids playing soccer in the streets of New Deli (example) is usually praised as "documentary" work but if the same photographer tries to take the same kind of photo at a playground in NY (example), he automatically is categorized being a pervert meaning ill... Some kind of double standards ?

Didn't you get the memo? Kids with brown skin aren't real humans, so nobody could ever possibly have a prurient interest in them. Same reason that National Geographic only prints brown titties.

 

[climbing_vine]

I'm going to have to agree with Bill here. Research shows beyond any doubt, at all, that "common sense" is neither common nor sensical and most people's instincts suck, whether the topic is their children or anything else. We had millions of years to evolve our threat-assessment skills on large, toothy carnivores; we've had a couple hundred to evolve our threat-assessment skills on pedophiles. If that (before that, everyone in the family often *was* a pedophile ).

This shouldn't surprise anyone. Our instincts for defending our children are, basically, pull them away from a situation, or kill the perceived threat. This is understandable, it's evolution, but it is very much not ok in a civil society. You don't get to kill me because you thought I was taking a picture of your kid when I was taking a picture of my wife and your kid just ran into the frame screaming because you aren't controlling your child (yes, this happened to me recently--though not the killing part, hah!)

All this bluster about using your second amendment rights strikes this lifelong hunter, gun owner, and unfortunately wielder of a shotgun in self-defense, as a whole lot of dangerous BS that just confirms the fact that people's response to perceived threats to their children is almost always wrong, because it has been taken out of its evolved context.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . a normal rational person (which everybody would profess loudly that they are) . . .

That is indeed a creepy story about the nurse, but that's where I'd say you had, indeed, a reasonable fear of danger.

But the bit I quote above is the nub of the problem. I suspect (I don't know) that the less rational someone is, the greater the risk that they may think they're being rational.

A possible test of rationality is for someone to look at a proposed course of behaviour (or even at something they have already done), and ask, 'Is that legally defensible?'

Most things that are reasonable -- including killing another person in the right circumstances, especially self-defence -- are also legal. There are curious exceptions -- what is the interest of the state in banning either polyandry or polygamy, if truly consensual? -- and there are local and inexplicable decisions, such as owing a duty of care to a burglar and paying damages if he falls through your skylight. Even so, as I say, the law is the best we've got.

Of course the law can be an ass, but to deny the validity of law in general (which is what people are doing when they invent 'rights' that don't exist) is surely pretty irrational.

Anyone who takes either a completely legalistic viewpoint ('I don't care about anyone else's feelings, ever, 'cos I GOT MY RIGHTS') or a completely subjective viewpoint ('I don't care about the law, 'cos I KNOW BETTER) is surely missing the point.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Three weeks ago, my wife and I stopped at a local Publix supermarket to pick up a handful of items with the grandkids, ages 2 and 3. She had the 3-yar old in a cart and I had the 2-year old in my cart. Here I am in a busy store on a Saturday afternoon grocery shoppiing and I parked the cart at the end of an aisle and walked 10 feet to pick up a cereal box that was on sale when I saw an older man walk up to MY cart with MY grandson sitting there and he started PUSHING the cart away! I was only 3 feet away by then!

This has nothing to do with photography.

And you wanted 'a handful of items' and took two carts...?

 

[climbing_vine]

The only one I mentioned shooting was a known convicted felon on the sex offender registry for aggravated rape who has, by his own admission, committed several robberies in his lifetime - shooting is the last and final resort...

Fair enough. What you actually wrote made it sound as if you would shoot him for trying to take a picture of your daughter in the front yard; if that's not the case, I don't think we have much of a beef.

 

[climbing_vine]

you've evidently never tried to manage a 2 and 3 year old in the grocery store...

Heh. My mom and every mom I knew did it without two carts...

 

[climbing_vine]

This particular man, given his violent past, his trend of behaviour over the neighborhood since may... combined with him being in my front yard... Yes, I would....

If he were not in my yard, i would call his PO and get him sent to jail and then would be prepared for when he gets out... The man has already repeatedly said he would kill our neighbor on the other side because of an imagined beef...

Come on, you can't shoot someone just for being in your yard no matter what the history. That's the kind of thing that, besides being morally repulsive, is guaranteed to get that gun of yours outlawed and you thrown in jail... how much good are you doing your daughter by going to prison for life for something that very likely wasn't necessary? Be serious.

If he's on your property, he's going to jail. Seems like that's enough.

 

[dave lackey]

This has nothing to do with photography.

And you wanted 'a handful of items' and took two carts...?

Nothing to do with photography? When the whole thread has degenerated to rights, laws and parents unable to perceive threats to their children? Re-read the thread. Memphis should not have to wait for a law to be broken to be concerned about a convicted sex offender next door. Nor should I have to wait for a law to be broken. We both act according to our convictions as to what our duty and obligation is as pareny/custodian.

Yes, 2 carts! My wife has a bad back and cannot carry either child. It is so much easier to push a cart with each child confined to a seat and under control. Children that young are difficult to manage whilst shopping in a 50,000 square foot supermarket crowded with shoppers.

Like I said, it's time to think of more pleasant things like getting a job.

Cheers,