Sparrow
Veteran
I did, what convinced you his abductor was a photographer?
Do you have children?
Would you feel perfectly at ease if a stranger took photos of them without your permission and posted them on various forums, Flickr, and/or other online sites?
Whether or not it is actually something that could lead to danger to the kids, it's pure rudeness and disregard for my privacy.
Like I said, I am strongly in favor of less restrictions for photographers, but this is not an inherent "right". Photographing buildings, bridges, department stores, parking lots.....that is a totally different situation than photograhing someone's children.
If you can't comprehend that, then there's no need for further discussion.
Would you feel perfectly at ease if a stranger took photos of them without your permission and posted them on various forums, Flickr, and/or other online sites?
Whether or not it is actually something that could lead to danger to the kids, it's pure rudeness and disregard for my privacy.
Like I said, I am strongly in favor of less restrictions for photographers, but this is not an inherent "right". Photographing buildings, bridges, department stores, parking lots.....that is a totally different situation than photograhing someone's children.
If you can't comprehend that, then there's no need for further discussion.
1) A child running into a frame is completely different than deliberate photographing of the child.
2) I didn't say a photographer kidnapped Patz. I'm using that as an illustration of the dangers of a random nut taking too much of an interest in someone else's kid. These days there are quite a few of them, whether they are equipped with cameras or not.
2) I didn't say a photographer kidnapped Patz. I'm using that as an illustration of the dangers of a random nut taking too much of an interest in someone else's kid. These days there are quite a few of them, whether they are equipped with cameras or not.
PS: Some people could care less if you shoot photos of their kids, and that's fine. But when someone asks you not to do it, and you refuse, then you are way over the line.
I'm not talking about crowd scenes, I'm not talking about a kid running into a frame, I'm talking about specifically concentrating on and shooting the children of a person who is not in the "public domain".
I'm not talking about crowd scenes, I'm not talking about a kid running into a frame, I'm talking about specifically concentrating on and shooting the children of a person who is not in the "public domain".
BillP
Rangefinder General
Not in a public place it isn't.
Yes it is.
Yes.
I have no right to stop them in a public place.
You have no "right" to privacy in a public place.
Yes, it is.
It is clear that you neither understand your own rights nor those of others. Instead you choose to apply your own moral and ethical standards as if they are the writ of law. There is nothing to "comprehend" - this is not a subjective discussion. You cannot pick and choose. You do not have a right to privacy in a public place. Live with it.
Regards,
Bill
Well, I won't argue with you. You live in the UK, where the State feels it needs to monitor every public space with millions of cameras.
Enjoy being programmed into having all your rights stripped away methodically.
I like to believe I am a human being who has certain rights that should be respected by other civilized humans, including the right not be continually recorded.
.
Enjoy being programmed into having all your rights stripped away methodically.
I like to believe I am a human being who has certain rights that should be respected by other civilized humans, including the right not be continually recorded.
.
Last edited:
BillP
Rangefinder General
Jack, you do not have that right in a public place, either in the UK or, as I understand it, in the US.
Regards,
Bill
feenej
Well-known
Some of the best gallery photos ever posted on this forum are street photos of children (e.g. Beniliam). I doubt if any of them were taken with permission etc.
Once I ask you to stop photographing my children, that's where your right to do so ends, in my opinion.
I would respect another persons wishes in that regard, I would like to have my wishes respected as well.
My wishes supersede your "rights" in a civilized, respectful world. Of course, we live in a madhouse with close to 7 billion selfish lunatics as inmates, so of course I might be guilty of utopian thinking.
I would respect another persons wishes in that regard, I would like to have my wishes respected as well.
My wishes supersede your "rights" in a civilized, respectful world. Of course, we live in a madhouse with close to 7 billion selfish lunatics as inmates, so of course I might be guilty of utopian thinking.
I'm talking about a situation where a photographer is specifically asked not to photograph specific children.
That's it.
If you're asked to stop, stop.
Is that hard to comprehend?
That's it.
If you're asked to stop, stop.
Is that hard to comprehend?
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Uh, in the US you are constantly 'under surveillance' I live in the middle of nowhere in rural VT and there are cameras at every gas station, every cash machine, every bank, the grocery, and in every store and hallway in our (s)mall. It is inescapable. When my speedpass died I was presented with a printout from the security camera of me pumping gas when I next stopped in the local minimart- in a village with a population of 50 tops. Is it better or ok to be photographed secretly? Your kids are photographed every time you shop like it or not.
I usually just offer to call the police for the harasser these days, it seems to work pretty well- they just decide that it isn't worth their time waiting around for the cops to show. Truth be told I've only done this twice- and I started this tack after a long drawn out interaction with a security guard at Vassar who was literally hopping mad and shouting. My friend (another photographer) and I managed to stayed calm.
When in public we have no privacy beyond what our clothing conceals. If you ask me not to photograph your kid nicely I'll happily comply. If you jump down my throat about it I'll also stop, but I'll just as likely call the cops on you for assault. Get a grip. Picture Paranoia indeed. What do you think is going to happen should a picture of your kid appears online?
(this is my kid not Jack's)
Last edited:
Well, you sound like a model citizen. Ever hear the word "meshugana"?
(Which Face of Eve is voicing these opinions? The Genius or The Moron?)
(Which Face of Eve is voicing these opinions? The Genius or The Moron?)
Uh, in the US you are constantly 'under surveillance' I live in the middle of nowhere in rural VT and there are cameras at every gas station, every cash machine, every bank, the grocery, and in every store and hallway in our (s)mall. It is inescapable. When my speedpass died I was presented with a printout from the security camera of me pumping gas when I next stopped in the local minimart- in a village with a population of 50 tops. Is it better or ok to be photographed secretly? Your kids are photographed every time you shop like it or not.
I usually just offer to call the police for the harasser these days, it seems to work pretty well- they just decide that it isn't worth their time waiting around for the cops to show.
When in public we have no privacy beyond what our clothing conceals. If you ask me not to photograph your kid nicely I'll happily comply. If you jump down my throat about it I'll also stop, but I'll just as likely call the cops on you for assault. Get a grip. Picture Paranoia indeed. What do you think is going to happen should a picture of your kid appears online?
(this is my kid not Jack's)
Last edited:
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Yep. So we've devolved into name calling when presented with a rational statement? How very RFF.
Anyone else getting a whiff of someone familiar?
Last edited:
Krosya
Konicaze
Well, you said it yourself - its your opinion! No more no less. Has nothing to do with legal rights.
momus1
Established
I know how you feel. I don't like it either. Seems many countries, especially this one, are becoming police states being policed by petty little dictators. But even Ansel Adams commented many years ago before everyone got so paranoid that one should ask permission before photographing on private property. It's their place and they make the rules, just like I do at my place.
Actually, you don't need anyone's permission to photograph them when in public. The courts have ruled on this one in favor of photographers. There is no expectation of privacy when you're out in public.
Actually, you don't need anyone's permission to photograph them when in public. The courts have ruled on this one in favor of photographers. There is no expectation of privacy when you're out in public.
Last edited:
Krosya
Konicaze
Here is a thought - shouldn't Wal-Marts, Malls, etc. have a clear posted signs " No Photography" if they dont want people taking pics there? Shouldnt their security and management be able to produce that policy in writing to prove that they are not just making it all up?
I know I have seen those some places - clear and simple. Cause if I'm ever stopped and told that I cant take a photo - my first question would be -can you show me where it says that and in plain view, so I'm aware of it?
I know I have seen those some places - clear and simple. Cause if I'm ever stopped and told that I cant take a photo - my first question would be -can you show me where it says that and in plain view, so I'm aware of it?
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Interestingly, that's not where you started:
Your initial problem wasn't whether you'd asked someone to stop and they'd refused (a matter of manners, which is the position you've retreated to). No, your original position was that, by hook or by crook, deliberate or not, taking photos of childeren was and is wrong.
Given your refusal to defend your original position, perhaps you'll care to tell me why, by way of example, it is wrong to have taken this photo and to have posted it on the internet (something which appears to be one of your particular bugbears):
Tell me the harm. Tell me why taking the photo, printing the photo or posting the photo to flickr is wrong. Be specific, and tell me in particular what the specific harm is.
...Mike
raindog61
Established
Perhaps the initial complaint to security wasn't about you and your camera. Perhaps it's the fact that your car was occupying the handicapped parking space and they didn't see your need for it (at the time) since your were out photographing and not shopping.
Just a gut reaction...
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I especially like the "gut reaction" part. My mother has terminal lung cancer. Of a slow-growing kind, a metastasis from an earlier cancer of the tongue. While Mum suffers from shortness of breath, she hasn't used disabled parking spaces until recently. That has followed from her recent surgery to remove a tennis-ball sized carcinoma in the left frontal lobe of her brain. Recovery from that (for someone in her mid-70's) has not been swift. On the one hand Mum likes to, still, be able to shop. On the other hand, she's become somewhat disheartened by the reaction of so many people who loudly disparage her when Dad parks in a disabled parking space (to which she is perfectly entitled) and she has the ill-grace to walk rather than use a wheelchair.
After all, your "gut reaction" is right: all disabled people drive themselves (they never have carers) and all people with any kind of disability always need a wheelchair.
...Mike
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
EDIT
...perhaps you'll care to tell me why, by way of example, it is wrong to have taken this photo and to have posted it on the internet (something which appears to be one of your particular bugbears):
EDIT
...Mike
That chap in the top left looks like he might have a camera, so he must be a pedo or a terrorist?
:angel: