Photographing children

[Roger Hicks]

The take-away here is this. Many feel that there are situations in which their own fear overrides law, or that it should.

We use words like 'courteous', 'reasonable', and 'decency' to describe the grace with which a photographer should willingly surrender their rights in favor of a parent's fear, but the end result is the same - the photographer should surrender their rights because the parent feels uncomfortable about the exercise of the freedom of expression rights in the presence of the parent's child.

That is, in my opinion, an unreasonable request. We talk about being rude in this thread - that to me is the first rude behavior taking place in our hypothetical scenario.

Dear Bill,

We diverge fractionally here.

I won't say I'm happy to give up my right to take pictures in a public place because of paranoid parents, but equally, I'm not happy to give it up because of paranoid socialists either. Verbatim conversation:

Vendor of Socialist Worker newspaper, whose pic I had just taken: You have a right to ask my permission to take that picture!

Me: I chose not to exercise that right.

VoSWn: I don't know who you are!

Me: True.

In other words, I'm not going to ask permission first (at least, not usually) because I don't believe I need to, and I'm not going to go on shooting afterwards (at least, not usually) because I won't get good pictures -- unless, of course, the conversation has gone well (as it usually has) and no-one minds my shooting.

As you have repeatedly said, if you don't want your (or your children's) picture taken, don't go out in public (or take them out in public). If the first pic is 'reasonable behaviour', it doesn't mean (a) that the second is reasonable, at least in common decency, or (b) that the first isn't, in some curious retrospective manner.

A very great deal depends on how BOTH sides present themselves. I have never got into a fight over this, mostly (I believe) because I've always been polite and civil; but partly (I believe) because I never discount violence as a last resort, and this gives me a certain air of confidence.

Once, at university, my wife was stopped by a campus policemen who asked, "Excuse me, miss, are you carrying a CS spray?" She was a little flustered and replied, "Yes. I have a permit. Do you want to see it?" He said, "No, that's fine, it wasn't that. I had a bet with myself. You don't walk like a victim."

This is important: not walking like a victim. I have never instigated a physical fracas, but a couple of times I have ended them, because when I hit someone, all I want (in the words of an ex-Hell's Angel chum) is for them to stay down until I have legged it. Fight fair? No thanks. Anyone who starts a fight has only himself to blame if he gets hurt.

Taking pictures like a victim (or not) is the same sort of thing.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[dave lackey]

The take-away here is this. Many feel that there are situations in which their own fear overrides law, or that it should.

We use words like 'courteous', 'reasonable', and 'decency' to describe the grace with which a photographer should willingly surrender their rights in favor of a parent's fear, but the end result is the same - the photographer should surrender their rights because the parent feels uncomfortable about the exercise of the freedom of expression rights in the presence of the parent's child.

That is, in my opinion, an unreasonable request. We talk about being rude in this thread - that to me is the first rude behavior taking place in our hypothetical scenario.

Well, Bill, that is where we will always disagree.

Just because I can or should be able to do something does not mean I should do it. Everyday of my life, I give up so-called rights to do what I want because I respect other people and, after all, I am a gentleman.

That is just me.

I respect others even more than I respect myself. That is just how I was raised by loving parents, teachers and mentors.

That is just me.

Anyone who cannot balance their life in harmony with others will always have less peace in there life than I do....but

That is just me.

With that, I am really out of this discussion. I have much better things to do even though I have a right to hang in here and continue this banter. But, I respect your right to feel as you do. I just don't want to be a part of it.

Take care and don't mind me...:angel:

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Memphis, this is how I approach street shooting or shooting candids in public.

I still have some old press credentials from my PJ days. I take them with me but have never pulled them out. However, I do have plenty of business cards with me that have my phone number, website, and email on them. I hand those out all the time. If I shoot someone or something and they notice me, I smile, walk right over to them and hand them a card and tell them why I was shooting. However, if someone comes up to me in a very rude or intimidating fashion demanding to know what I was doing, then I respond in the same manner.

So far, this method works most of the time. Plus, as others have mentioned, a lot depends on how you carry yourself, how you look, and so on.

 

[Roger Hicks]

What kind of credentials is a person supposed to have to shoot a photo of a kid in a park?

Dear Rick,

Well. yes.

What interests me is that the specific example I chose -- a child enjoying herself on a swing -- has caused people to dig out really cheering, charming pictures. No-one could look at these pictures and fail to smile.

Aren't a thousand smiles worth a lot more than worrying about the faint possibility of one pervert who gets off on pictures of little girls on swings?

(I admit that I once had wildly erotic fantasies about a girl on a swing, but hell, we were both 17 at the time and her dress had ridden up at the back to give me a clear view of an inch of knickers -- it was the 1960s and dresses were wonderfully short. Come to think of it, there's not a lot to do with the opposite sex, of about the same age, that does not inspire wild erotic fantasies in 17-year-old boys.)

Cheers,

R.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Aren't a thousand smiles worth a lot more than worrying about the faint possibility of one pervert who gets off on pictures of little girls on swings?

Yes. A thousand times, yes. 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Do people only have civil liberties if they can justify their 'need' for such liberties to you? That's what I am reading here.

Dear Bill,

Quite.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gns]

Wow. Interesting that this thread is still going.

The child abduction fear thing is pretty powerful. I have kids so I know that horrible feeling when they up and disappear in a crowd. But I don't worry about abduction, scary as it is. There are plenty of other (much more likely) things for a parent to fret over.

I wonder if abductions are on the rise or if just the fear of them is. I suspect the later.

I've taken lots of pictures of people (often kids) in public. Never had any kind of problem or confrontation with a parent over it, though. Here's one that you could see might provoke some kind of reaction. Me, outside of a public swimming pool, photographing kids inside. So what do you think? I shouldn't take pictures like this even though it is harmless, because some fearful mother might get upset. And what should one do if confronted in this situation? Wouldn't simply agreeing to stop and walking away vindicate their reaction and reinforce this culture of fear?

Cheers,
Gary

 

[bob338]

Tell me to move on, and you may find a confrontation on your hands: I have as much right to be there as you or your (imaginary) daughter. Ask me politely to stop and I'll almost certainly agree, out of politeness. Of course I may take a picture of you to help with identification in the subsequent court case, either me suing you for assault or you suing me or actual bodily harm.

Cheers,

Roger

well now that someone has crossed the line into threatening territory, i guess i'll jump in.

how dare you say 'you may find a confrontation on your hands' in this context? is that a confrontation with a young mother who may just leave, or with someone like me that will beat you senseless? if you made me slightly uncomfortable in front of my kid, i can promise you your last thought would be about getting a picture of him.

roger, you seem to look for a fight on every issue that involves anyone's rights and it's getting old. NO ONE on this forum is ever going to take a photograph of any child that will ever amount to a hill of beans. so why ruin someone's day? is it really worth it? has anyone here ever taken a single photograph that was worth getting the **** beaten out of them for? i doubt it. you act like your photographs are important, but they're not, just like mine aren't. no one with time to post on a forum like this is ever going to have a retrospective at the whitney. we're all just hobbyist and or low level pros, not f*cking magnum photographers.

ughhh. such a tired topic. you could apply half of these comments to the idiot gun owner forums. just having a right doesn't mean you have to ruin someone's day.

bob

 

[Roger Hicks]

well now that someone has crossed the line into threatening territory, i guess i'll jump in.

how dare you say 'you may find a confrontation on your hands' in this context? is that a confrontation with a young mother who may just leave, or with someone like me that will beat you senseless? if you made me slightly uncomfortable in front of my kid, i can promise you your last thought would be about getting a picture of him.

roger, you seem to look for a fight on every issue that involves anyone's rights . . .

Dear Bob,

Let's not take bets as to who might beat whom senseless.

If you bothered to read anything else I said in this thread, you would see that I have never had a fight over this sort of thing, nor have I sought one. This is, I suggest, because I have always been civil and polite; and, amazingly enough, this has elicited the same behaviour from those with whom I have spoken.

All I'm saying is, if you decide to assert 'rights' you haven't got, and push your luck to the point of physical violence, you'd better be able to defend them in court, because that's where it's going to end up, whether (as I said) I sue you for assault, or you sue me for ABH, because if you hit me, I'm going to do my best to ensure that you stay down until I'm out of there. If someone's making you 'slightly uncomfortable' really seemed to you to be good grounds for violence, you'd probably be behind bars already. Talk is cheap, especially on the internet.

It is precisely that I am NOT looking for a fight -- and it may be news to you, but a confrontation is not necessarily a knock-down fight. I know that you, and some others, see me as ever looking for a fight. Has it occurred to any of you why I don't find them? It is because I behave reasonably, but equally, I'm not afraid of fools, braggarts and those who assert 'rights' that don't exist; I refuse to be a victim of either verbal intimidation or physical intimidation.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[gns]

Well, thankfully, there are very few people who would harm a child... or beat someone senseless for taking a picture. Even though reading this thread could make you wonder.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[bmattock]

Still no one answers...

How does taking a photo of a child in public harm the child?

Anyone?

 

[gns]

Bill,

Everyone knows that it does not.

 

[bob338]

Dear Bob,



If you bothered to read anything else I said in this thread, you would see that I have never had a fight over this sort of thing, nor have I sought one.

you seem to be the guy yelling names at the tiger through the bars at the zoo. it's probably not illegal, but it'll definitely get a response. and when you get the tiger to respond, you want someone to do something about that awful tiger for defending his right to not be yelled at.

i don't know if people give you slack because of the book you wrote or for fear of being bounced out of the forum, but i'm not afraid to say that i think you act like a dick when these topics come up. you sound like any other blow-hard yelling about his rights that may or may not have been trampled. yes, you have the right to photograph anyone in public. but is it worth photographing people who don't want to be photographed? you can never sell it without a consent, and who wants to look back at their pictures and remember 'oh yes, right after i fired the shutter, the dad punched me in the face'? not much fun.

bob

 

[bmattock]

Bill,

Everyone knows that it does not.

Then there is no reasonable basis to demand a photographer desist.

 

[gns]

Bll,

On the basis of irrational fear. Maybe engrained since cave days. I don't know.

 

[gns]

People should look up the definition of public.
Like I said earlier...You go out in public, you put up with others.
I don't like Harley Davidson motorcycles. Those really loud ones. Every time one goes by, that noise is like giving the finger to everyone on the street. I don't like it, but I can't say it is hurting me. So I put up with it. That's just how it is and I accept that.


Cheers,
Gary

 

[Roger Hicks]

you seem to be the guy yelling names at the tiger through the bars at the zoo. it's probably not illegal, but it'll definitely get a response. and when you get the tiger to respond, you want someone to do something about that awful tiger for defending his right to not be yelled at.

i don't know if people give you slack because of the book you wrote or for fear of being bounced out of the forum, but i'm not afraid to say that i think you act like a dick when these topics come up. you sound like any other blow-hard yelling about his rights that may or may not have been trampled. yes, you have the right to photograph anyone in public. but is it worth photographing people who don't want to be photographed? you can never sell it without a consent, and who wants to look back at their pictures and remember 'oh yes, right after i fired the shutter, the dad punched me in the face'? not much fun.

bob

Dear Bob,

I love your command of diplomatic language: 'a dick'.

Actually, I've written about 35 books on photography, and a dozen on other subjects, but that doesn't have much to do with this thread either.

Again, read what I say, and you'll see that I don't photograph people who don't want to be photographed. On the other hand, I not going to be intimidated into never taking pictures of people who might not want to be photographed. because I fear being attacked by someone with a short fuse and a tenuous grasp on reality. As I say, the fact I haven't been attacked yet may indicate that I'm nothing like as aggressive as you are. Who is the blowhard?

You are also wrong about selling pictures without consent, because assaulting anyone while they are going about their lawful business is clearly newsworthy; and quite apart from that, editorial photography does not, in most cases, require consent of the subject. Stock photography is another matter.

Tigers, I might worry about. Attacks such as yours, no.

Put it this way. Your cries of agony and rage are not going to change the way I take pictures -- or that Simon or Rick take pictures. If you choose to live in fear, that is your choice. Others make another choice; and I hope that a modest display of logic and backbone may rescue others from a life of fear.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Gumby]

People should look up the definition of public.
Like I said earlier...You go out in public, you put up with others.
I don't like Harley Davidson motorcycles. Those really loud ones. Every time one goes by, that noise is like giving the finger to everyone on the street. I don't like it, but I can't say it is hurting me.

Who ever said that "hurt" was the sole criteria for laws, regulations, or restriction of rights? Where I live loud H-Ds are "outlawed" because they are considered a public nuisance and degrade the quality-of-life... whatever they are.

But where I am they are trying to pass an anti-paparazzi law restricting those picture takers from being within some certain distance of the entrances of hospitals, schools and, I believe, airline terminals.

 

[Gumby]

I love your command of diplomatic language: 'a dick'.

Please don't try telling us that this is the first time you've heard this. 😀

EDIT: I meant "heard the term 'dick', not someone's opinion."

 

[bob338]

Dear Bob,

I love your command of diplomatic language: 'a dick'.

Actually, I've written about 35 books on photography, and a dozen on other subjects, but that doesn't have much to do with this thread either.

Again, read what I say, and you'll see that I don't photograph people who don't want to be photographed. On the other hand, I not going to be intimidated into never taking pictures of people who might not want to be photographed. because I fear being attacked by someone with a short fuse and a tenuous grasp on reality. As I say, the fact I haven't been attacked yet may indicate that I'm nothing like as aggressive as you are. Who is the blowhard?

You are also wrong about selling pictures without consent, because assaulting anyone while they are going about their lawful business is clearly newsworthy; and quite apart from that, editorial photography does not, in most cases, require consent of the subject. Stock photography is another matter.

Tigers, I might worry about. Attacks such as yours, no.

Put it this way. Your cries of agony and rage are not going to change the way I take pictures -- or that Simon or Rick take pictures. If you choose to live in fear, that is your choice. Others make another choice; and I hope that a modest display of logic and backbone may rescue others from a life of fear.

Cheers,

Roger

roger,

i calls a ***** a *****. if you don't like my command of english, put me on your ignore list.

if we're pulling them out for comparison, i haven't written any books, but in my former profession as a doorman and tour manager, i've put more people in the hospital than i can remember. and i've never been arrested or sued by anyone for anything.

i'm not living in fear of anything, i just don't want hack photographers putting pictures of me or my family on their flickr page. this isn't really a matter of law, it's a matter of decency. if you don't act decently after people ask you to, you deserve to be treated accordingly. what that treatment entails depends on where you are at the time.

is this debate really worth talking into the ground any further? none of us are going to change our minds. if you want to act like a creep, some of us in the general public are going to treat you like a creep.

bob