Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bob,
Read what I say, and you'll see that I said exactly the same thing.
If someone asks politely, I respond politely. I'll even give them the benefit of the doubt and answer politely if they're a bit aggressive at first. This is, I think 'acting decently'.
After that, if they refused to be civil, and assaulted me, I would do my very best to see them in court. I don't think that would be hard with a doorman, though I'ver never felt any great need to visit places where they have hired thugs on the door. If necessary, I'll do my best to fight back. On the very rare occasions when I have had to do that, I've been the one that walked away.
You've put lots of people in hospital and are proud of it? Well, bully for you. I've managed to avoid any fights over this topic. Or indeed any others, for quite some time now.
What does this tell us about which of us is better at avoiding aggression?
Go back to the original post. It was to the effect that it was sad that a worthwhile exercise -- swimmers and trainers giving up their time to save lives -- could not be photographed because of absurd fantasies about paedophilia.
Do you disagree with that?
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I've been on vacation (and still am - going back home today) but having taken photos of children at a number of events and with friends/family I would like to comment regarding the original question posted by Steve in Melbourne.
I think there are, at least, a couple of ways of looking at this.
1) From the "I've got my rights dammit !!"
point of view
and
2) From the "Don't you dare take a photo of MY child" point of view
Regarding viewpoint #1: There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking photos of children out in a public space - if it is public that is - there are many "public" spaces in our world these days that are, in fact, private or, at least, privately owned. The street, for example, is public space however that park over there may be privately owned but available for public usage. The photographer's ability to shoot anyone/thing that is in a public space should still be upheld however once it crosses the line into private space then it's a different matter and the subject's request to respect their privacy be taken into account. To further complicate this particular viewpoint is the fact that the photographer may be able to "argue" (i.e. in court), depending on the law of the land for where one is engaged, that they have the ability to remain on public property (i.e. the street) and shoot into publicly used private space (i.e. the park). This does not mean that the photographer can shoot from public property into privately used private space (i.e. through the windows of a building or home).
So to look at Steve's question regarding this particular point, there's absolutely nothing wrong with shooting children at the beach imho as long as the beach is a public beach and not a private one; which of course could be argued depending on how Melbourne's beaches are labeled. (I never made it to Melbourne on this trip, maybe next time around)
Regarding Viewpoint #2: A parent's natural instinct (in most cases) is to protect their children. Yes, there are the occasionally bizarre incidents (i.e. The old man from Austria) where abuse occurs to the extreme and yes, there have been many cases of physical and sexual child abuse at the hands of a parent however I would think that the general "rule of thumb" as it were was that parents naturally want to protect their young.
With that in mind, a single man carrying a camera and taking photographs of children (I would guess that we're talking pre-teenage and younger) sets off alarm bells in the minds of some or many parents.
Why is this the case?
Information travels at the speed of light these days. The internet has made this possible. Do you think the problems on the world's markets would be happening so quickly, so drastically, if the internet (and specifically the web) had not been available? The ability for perverts to trade in kiddie porn is out there and parents know it. They may not know how it is done or if anyone they know does it but they know it's out there. As a result, they take the sometimes vigilant method of denying any and all photos to be taken unless it is a) under their supervision (i.e. they hired you for a portrait or know you as a friend/relative etc.) or b) shot by the parent themselves.
Now, is this an "over the top" reaction by parents? Some say "yes" and some say "no" - I personally don't have children but I can sympathize with those that do so each parent will have a different opinion of this as will each single photographer/person will.
Add to both these viewpoints the fact that, sometimes, a single guy, walking around, carrying a camera and taking random photos of strangers and specifically children at a beach is going to be "weird" in the minds of people outside of this forum. Here, most of us if not all of us, understand that it's "street" photography but to parents/people who've never heard of HCB, Winogrand etc. they think it's a weird thing to do. This is probably why one of the trainers said what he did to Steve; and that's even AFTER Steve had mentioned why he's taking photos. Some folks just don't "get" it.
As a photographer you shouldn't expect people to understand what you are doing and since we, as photographers (hobbyist or pro or what have you) have to co-exist with the rest of the world a little "give and take", and this is only my opinion, should be allotted on both sides of the equation.
I know Bill had asked "How does taking a photograph of a child harm the child?" It doesn't, as long as the "child" does not comprehend what is being done. It may harm society as a whole depending on what the image is of or how it pertains to the child in question but as long as the child does not comprehend the reason for the photo or what a photo is/can do, then it does not harm the child itself.
Cheers,
Dave
st3ph3nm said:
I think there are, at least, a couple of ways of looking at this.
1) From the "I've got my rights dammit !!"
point of view and
2) From the "Don't you dare take a photo of MY child" point of view
Regarding viewpoint #1: There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking photos of children out in a public space - if it is public that is - there are many "public" spaces in our world these days that are, in fact, private or, at least, privately owned. The street, for example, is public space however that park over there may be privately owned but available for public usage. The photographer's ability to shoot anyone/thing that is in a public space should still be upheld however once it crosses the line into private space then it's a different matter and the subject's request to respect their privacy be taken into account. To further complicate this particular viewpoint is the fact that the photographer may be able to "argue" (i.e. in court), depending on the law of the land for where one is engaged, that they have the ability to remain on public property (i.e. the street) and shoot into publicly used private space (i.e. the park). This does not mean that the photographer can shoot from public property into privately used private space (i.e. through the windows of a building or home).
So to look at Steve's question regarding this particular point, there's absolutely nothing wrong with shooting children at the beach imho as long as the beach is a public beach and not a private one; which of course could be argued depending on how Melbourne's beaches are labeled. (I never made it to Melbourne on this trip, maybe next time around)
Regarding Viewpoint #2: A parent's natural instinct (in most cases) is to protect their children. Yes, there are the occasionally bizarre incidents (i.e. The old man from Austria) where abuse occurs to the extreme and yes, there have been many cases of physical and sexual child abuse at the hands of a parent however I would think that the general "rule of thumb" as it were was that parents naturally want to protect their young.
With that in mind, a single man carrying a camera and taking photographs of children (I would guess that we're talking pre-teenage and younger) sets off alarm bells in the minds of some or many parents.
Why is this the case?
Information travels at the speed of light these days. The internet has made this possible. Do you think the problems on the world's markets would be happening so quickly, so drastically, if the internet (and specifically the web) had not been available? The ability for perverts to trade in kiddie porn is out there and parents know it. They may not know how it is done or if anyone they know does it but they know it's out there. As a result, they take the sometimes vigilant method of denying any and all photos to be taken unless it is a) under their supervision (i.e. they hired you for a portrait or know you as a friend/relative etc.) or b) shot by the parent themselves.
Now, is this an "over the top" reaction by parents? Some say "yes" and some say "no" - I personally don't have children but I can sympathize with those that do so each parent will have a different opinion of this as will each single photographer/person will.
Add to both these viewpoints the fact that, sometimes, a single guy, walking around, carrying a camera and taking random photos of strangers and specifically children at a beach is going to be "weird" in the minds of people outside of this forum. Here, most of us if not all of us, understand that it's "street" photography but to parents/people who've never heard of HCB, Winogrand etc. they think it's a weird thing to do. This is probably why one of the trainers said what he did to Steve; and that's even AFTER Steve had mentioned why he's taking photos. Some folks just don't "get" it.
As a photographer you shouldn't expect people to understand what you are doing and since we, as photographers (hobbyist or pro or what have you) have to co-exist with the rest of the world a little "give and take", and this is only my opinion, should be allotted on both sides of the equation.
I know Bill had asked "How does taking a photograph of a child harm the child?" It doesn't, as long as the "child" does not comprehend what is being done. It may harm society as a whole depending on what the image is of or how it pertains to the child in question but as long as the child does not comprehend the reason for the photo or what a photo is/can do, then it does not harm the child itself.
Cheers,
Dave
bmattock
Veteran
How does it harm the child if the child does comprehend that their photograph is being taken?
If one can quantify a harm against society, then one stands at least a reasonable chance of banning the otherwise-lawful activity in question.
It is very difficult to mount such challenges. Some have tried - arguing that gay marriage, mixed-race marriages, integrated education, and so on do harm to the woof and warp of society and therefore ought to be banned.
Generally, challenges like this fail because the 'damage' claimed turns out not to be quantifiable. If you can't point to it and prove that the activity in question caused it, you haven't made your case.
I have not yet seen any cause to believe that society is damaged by photographers taking photographs of children who are in public.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
<Rogering>Dear Bill, </Rogering>
I incorrectly quoted your question - I neglected the "public" portion of it; my apologies.
To answer your points;
Regarding your (and my) second point wrt the harming of society; I was specifically referring to photographs that would be used by child pornographers. I neglected to refer to the "public" portion of your original quote so that point I made may not hold water however you mentioned the following:
[quote="bmattock']If one can quantify a harm against society, then one stands at least a reasonable chance of banning the otherwise-lawful activity in question.[/quote]
Perhaps it can stand a chance of being banned - you mentioned gay marriage and that recently went to a vote in California during your election did it not? and did that not get repealed? There are always "opportunities" to instill a ban on something that others may consider lawful. Until, of course, they re-write the law.
Cheers,
Dave
P.S. (Roger, I'm just joshing you by using your initial address here.. no harm or insult was actually meant by it)
P.P.S. Out of curiosity, we're all so up in arms about being able to shoot other people, I've noted that so many of us here have NO photos of ourselves in our avatars..... interesting isn't it???
I incorrectly quoted your question - I neglected the "public" portion of it; my apologies.
To answer your points;
That depends. We are now venturing into areas of hypothetical situations; I don't have any court cases to state regarding this and even if I did it likely wouldn't be U.S. cases only Canadian ones and even then the laws of the land would be different. That said, if a child does comprehend the photo being taken they may not "like it"; that is, they may have had a bad experience with it, maybe they have low self esteem and feel that they don't want their photos to be taken? Have you ever come across the shy child that feels that they do not want to sit still for a photo or even have a camera pointed at them? It can be pretty hurtful I would think. And there is the "harm" per se. Sure it's not "murder" or such but it harms the child.bmattock said:
Regarding your (and my) second point wrt the harming of society; I was specifically referring to photographs that would be used by child pornographers. I neglected to refer to the "public" portion of your original quote so that point I made may not hold water however you mentioned the following:
[quote="bmattock']If one can quantify a harm against society, then one stands at least a reasonable chance of banning the otherwise-lawful activity in question.[/quote]
Perhaps it can stand a chance of being banned - you mentioned gay marriage and that recently went to a vote in California during your election did it not? and did that not get repealed? There are always "opportunities" to instill a ban on something that others may consider lawful. Until, of course, they re-write the law.
Cheers,
Dave
P.S. (Roger, I'm just joshing you by using your initial address here.. no harm or insult was actually meant by it
) P.P.S. Out of curiosity, we're all so up in arms about being able to shoot other people, I've noted that so many of us here have NO photos of ourselves in our avatars..... interesting isn't it???
Gumby
Veteran
Not quite yet. There are a number of factions that are working to disregard the "will of the people" for whatever reasons they may have.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,
Quite. The only harm that could come is if the child is fed alarmist drivel about photographers, by adults who should know better.
Even then, it might not matter. Children are often quite tough and cynical, and discount a lot of the nonsense that adults tell them.
Cheers,
R.
bmattock
Veteran
Generally, we regard 'harm' in this sense as physical. However, when a person is put into a state of fear due to the actions of another, then the person who caused the fear may have committed a crime, such as 'harassment'.
The problem with crimes such as these is that one must generally prove a) intent and b) that a 'reasonable and prudent man' would feel the same way.
So while my beard has been known to frighten children, I commit no crime by wearing it. I have no intent to frighten them, and a reasonable adult would not be frightened by it. Same for photography.
That is an entirely different kettle of fish. Child pornography is illegal, and rightfully so. A photograph taken of a child in public that remained unaltered would scarcely be pornographic, one would think. If such a photo were altered to be pornographic by some freak, then that would indeed be a crime. But note - the crime is in the pornography - not the photograph-taking. Otherwise, every photographer who has taken a photo of a model would be breaking the law when someone else later glues the face of their model onto a body of a porn actress and puts it online.
What you are describing is the 'harm which is done by the manner in which a photograph is used'. This is true. It is a separate activity from the taking of a photograph.
That is why I can take a photograph of an identifiable person who is in public, but I cannot sell that photograph for commercial use without a model release. It's not the photo, it is how it is used.
Very true. However, the taking of photographs has been long deemed to be one of our Constitutional rights (the 1st Amendment, to be precise). No plebiscite can override that - only an amendment to the Constitution.
In California, the question now before the courts will be whether or not gay marriage is a Constitutional Right. If so, then the will of the citizens will be overturned. If not, then it will be law.
One can change a law with another law. One cannot change a Constitutional Right with anything other than a countermanding Constitutional Amendment.
Gumby
Veteran
At the risk of "acting like a dick"... Bill, it might not be your beard that is scary, it is more likely the scowl.
gns
Well-known
Dogs are a nuisance and dangerous!
Bicycles are a nuisance and dangerous!
Cigarettes!
The unkempt guy on the bus!
Cell phones! (Yikes, they might even be cameras!!!).
OMG!!!
It's the public people. Come on.
Bicycles are a nuisance and dangerous!
Cigarettes!
The unkempt guy on the bus!
Cell phones! (Yikes, they might even be cameras!!!).
OMG!!!
It's the public people. Come on.
Gumby
Veteran
Re: post 81.
Where I live the only thing you list that isn't regulated is the unkempt guy on the bus. Can't ahve a dog that isn't neutered, licensed, and leashed; can't ahve a bike that is ridden on the sidewalk or operated at night without reflectors and lights; can't talk on a cell phone while driving. Hmmm...
Where I live the only thing you list that isn't regulated is the unkempt guy on the bus. Can't ahve a dog that isn't neutered, licensed, and leashed; can't ahve a bike that is ridden on the sidewalk or operated at night without reflectors and lights; can't talk on a cell phone while driving. Hmmm...
Gumby
Veteran
This is a tragedy. But the perpetrator may have the same tendencies whether or not he had photos of children or not. It really is a tragedy.
bmattock
Veteran
That is terrible! I can certainly understand your emotions about men who take photographs of children. I would find it hard to maintain the position I do if such a thing had happened to a son of mine. You have my complete sympathy for your family's pain.
bmattock
Veteran
What scowl?
bob338
Well-known
we haven't all agreed on anything.
i think we as photographers should take a step back and ask ourselves if being a menace to someone's child is worth defending our right to take their picture against their will.
i said it before, no picture any of us will ever take will ever make any real impression on the world. none of us will ever shoot the cover of national geographic or even the new york times, so why be so g*dd*mned self important about a right that MAY hurt other people?
bob
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bob,
How are you defining 'against their will'?
Most of us agree -- I certainly do -- that to take pictures after being requested to stop can be discourteous and will probably result in bad pictures anyway, so there is rarely any reason to to it. This is especially true if there is a child involved; no-one wants to upset a child for no reason, even when the upset is no fault of our own, but the result of parental paranoia.
But until someone has made it clear that they do not want their picture taken, surely they must be fair game. Or are you saying that we shouldn't take anyone's picture, ever, in case they object?
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
bob338
Well-known
i'm not saying that we shouldn't take pictures ever without asking permission. i'm saying that taking pictures of someone else's kid that does not know you is inappropriate. standing on the edge of a pool and snapping pictures of a strange kid is seriously creepy. if you're standing at the edge of a playground snapping away, it will doubtless make children, who have a right to be there unfettered, uncomfortable. taking pictures of children you are not familiar with for no reason is simply creepy TO ME. i don't like it and i would ask anyone taking pictures of my kid to stop. if they didn't, blah blah blah...i've already thumped my chest enough.
and why do you(not you personally, but any photographer) assume that anyone wants their picture on your website? in a newspaper article? or even just sitting on your hard drive? why is it important enough to take pictures of children that you don't even know that you're willing to make them uncomfortable or even scare them? is that really the impression you want kids to have of photographers? i think there are enough people willing to say yes to a simple request that it makes it dumb to bother with those who say no. what's wrong with asking 'gee, the light is just right, can i take your picture? i'll email you a copy.'?
and you're right about my opinion of my own work, i don't think it's worth a sh*t. and it is a rather rude way for me to make my point by saying everyone else's work is just as unimportant. but we're talking about hobbyists taking snapshots pretty much for the sake of taking the pictures. and i hear all of these people screaming that their rights are being trampled and i can't see it. i don't think you have the right to menace anyone with a camera just for the sake of satisfying whatever curiosity you have about them. i don't think this is just related to paedophilia paranoia, i think it's that i don't want a picture of my kid on your f*cking website. and it's just not that important to me to be able to take pictures of children in a park.
bob
gns
Well-known
"...i'm saying that taking pictures of someone else's kid that does not know you is inappropriate. standing on the edge of a pool and snapping pictures of a strange kid is seriously creepy. if you're standing at the edge of a playground snapping away, it will doubtless make children, who have a right to be there unfettered, uncomfortable. taking pictures of children you are not familiar with for no reason is simply creepy TO ME. i don't like it and i would ask anyone taking pictures of my kid to stop. if they didn't, blah blah blah...i've already thumped my chest enough".
Maybe the fact that you only seem able to imagine this situation in a threatening or perverse way makes you the creepy one, Bob. Did you look at my pool photo? Is that somehow "Inappropriate"? How about the photo below? Is that creepy? Maybe it is my demeanor or maybe there just isn't the level of fear out there that this thread suggests, but I have never been approached by an angry or even curious parent while taking pictures.
I have kids, and they are growing up to be aware and secure, but certainly not with this kind paranoia. I hope.
Cheers,
Gary
Maybe the fact that you only seem able to imagine this situation in a threatening or perverse way makes you the creepy one, Bob. Did you look at my pool photo? Is that somehow "Inappropriate"? How about the photo below? Is that creepy? Maybe it is my demeanor or maybe there just isn't the level of fear out there that this thread suggests, but I have never been approached by an angry or even curious parent while taking pictures.
I have kids, and they are growing up to be aware and secure, but certainly not with this kind paranoia. I hope.
Cheers,
Gary
Attachments
John Robertson
Well-known
God knows what some of these people would make of the photographs the Victorian photographer Frank Sutcliff took, much loved by the (we are not amused) Queen Victoria!!! One called Water Babies is a good example.
Very different times!!
http://www.sutcliffe-gallery.co.uk/
- Status
- Not open for further replies.