Poll: Candid photography involving children

[robmiller]

I honestly think thats completely fair.
But what about if you didnt see them do it, if you never even knew that anyone had taken a picture - obviously as you dont know you wouldnt care, but ignore that minor fact, and tell me if you think that it would be a problem for you?
And knowing that people can, and do take pics of others in public places like that, would you refrain from going to the park again to safeguard yourself from it?

Why would you delete at the request of an ordinary member of the public perfectly reasonable and legal photographs that you'd taken openly in a public place?

 

[Jokester]

I don't know what the law is in England but you could conceivably fall foul of Breach of the Peace laws in Scotland if you cause sufficient distress to a parent.

 

[Munkeh]

I honestly think thats completely fair.
But what about if you didnt see them do it, if you never even knew that anyone had taken a picture...

So your basically saying that you can disregard the wishes of an individual as long as you do it secretively? Now you are getting into a whole other kettle of fish...

 

[james.miller]

i saw the tread were the issue was raised. i cant remember the name of the guy who did, but he was treated very heavy handedly. it was obvious from where im sitting that he was only pointing out the possible implications, i dont believe he ever said he didnt approve of it.

i dont see any problem with the images that helium-junkie posted, but i for one would be asking permission first, because id expect to be asked if it were my children. i wouldnt have my children being used for any imagery what so ever without my consent.

 

[Helium_Junkie]

Why would you delete at the request of an ordinary member of the public perfectly reasonable and legal photographs that you'd taken openly in a public place?

Only out of coutesy, not out of any duty or requirement.

I don't know what the law is in England but you could conceivably fall foul of Breach of the Peace laws in Scotland if you cause sufficient distress to a parent.

You would have to commit an act of harassment (which doesnt include taking someones photo in a public place) for there to be any implications for law.

So your basically saying that you can disregard the wishes of an individual as long as you do it secretively? Now you are getting into a whole other kettle of fish...

No, I never mentioned secrecy or covert photography - but what if you were in a photo and you didn't know it - for example you are walking down a street as someone quite openly and plainly, in no way hiding the fact, snaps a picture of the street, and you're in their shot but for some reason don't notice (you're looking the other way, reading a text....) - are you outraged? Do you now avoid streets altogether?

 

[Irish_Tom]

I was faced with this the other day and thought a lot about it before HJ's thread yesterday.

Last Wednesday I went into Bournemouth to take candids of people enjoying the sunshine as part of a uni project. It must have been half-term because there loads of little ones about.

I made a point of only photographing adults and avoided any shot where a child was even close to being in frame.

Now I don't necessarily agree with the above but I did it any way to avoid any trouble.
I would like to be able to go out and take photos of anyone without feeling like a perve or a criminal but that is the current social climate.

As a side note, don't get me started on asking people to take candids. It completely invalidates the point of a candid.

Panzer

 

[Munkeh]

You misunderstand my use of secretively and assume I mean hiding in the bushes. If you knew that person did not want to be photographed and yet you do so without them knowing (i.e. secretively) then it is still against their wishes is it not? Yet there would be no problem doing it in your eyes?

If you knew I did not want to be photographed and you wanted a photo of the street surely you would either wait, or ask me to move out of frame?

 

[Helium_Junkie]

Sorry Munkeh, I think we're getting crossed here
I never said that the photographer knew that the subject didnt want to be in a shot, or particularly didnt want people in his shot, I mean, how would you know that and yet it still be a candid? What I mean is simply that through no covert or secrecy of the photographer, the subject doesnt realise they have had a photo taken of them. Since we know that this happens - should we take steps to avoid it?

 

[robmiller]

You cannot go out in public and maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy, it's impossible If you have concerns in that area I think the amount of CCTV cameras in the UK would be a more realistic concern than the comparatively minuscule number of photographers doing candid street shots.

 

[todd flanders]

i saw the tread were the issue was raised. i cant remember the name of the guy who did, but he was treated very heavy handedly. it was obvious from where im sitting that he was only pointing out the possible implications, i dont believe he ever said he didnt approve of it.

James, I was the person that initially raised the concern about the subject matter. After reading some of HJ's reactions to people I think he's just a tad niave and immature. Personally I love a good candid photo and my flickr is full of shots of the laydeez

 

[Munkeh]

Now I must ninja edit.... too much posting too quickly.... argghhhh!

 

[Munkeh]

I think its fair to say that based on this thread, and the other, that most parents would want a photographer to assume that their child should not be a subject of a photo unless given express permission to the contrary?

 

[ichabod crane]

This thead was to discuss the matter and not have a go at another member, in all honesty this section of the forum is becoming quite dire! with pointless petty arguments rather than enjoying the photography.

"Id take pictures of children, yes. Not on their own though, if they are with older people there, similar to Helium Junkies' pictures, yes i would."

this is the most sensible comment raised so far and hits the nail on the head there is nothing wrong in photographing any subject matter but there is a way each should be approached differently!

 

[Helium_Junkie]

James, I was the person that initially raised the concern about the subject matter. After reading some of HJ's reactions to people I think he's just a tad niave and immature. Personally I love a good candid photo and my flickr is full of shots of the laydeez

You and Rhys only seem able to debate by insulting others, could you at least try to make a reasonable contribution, rather than relying on playground taunts? So far you've only shown that you're here to cause drama, fuss and to personally harass me.

So far you've not done given anything here except a blatant disregard for the forum rules:
We also expect members to behave respectfully and not launch personal or abusive attacks on other members. Those who post for the sole purpose of causing trouble are not welcome here and will be dealt with accordingly.

 

[Tripnologist]

I honestly think thats completely fair.
But what about if you didnt see them do it, if you never even knew that anyone had taken a picture - obviously as you dont know you wouldnt care, but ignore that minor fact, and tell me if you think that it would be a problem for you?
And knowing that people can, and do take pics of others in public places like that, would you refrain from going to the park again to safeguard yourself from it?

Well, if I didn't know they were doing it, there's no way it could bother me.
Knowing that people do take pictures of people, it would never stop me from going to a park or anything like that.

Also, if someone was in a park taking completely random pictures, I probably wouldn't be too bothered. It would really only be someone taking mutliple shots of the same group of children I would find creepy.

The best I saw was in London during Canada day at Trafalgar Square. There was a photographer taking candid pictures of people including children. He then went up to the people and handed them a card giving his name, contact information and website url.

 

[james.miller]

You and Rhys only seem able to debate by insulting others, could you at least try to make a reasonable contribution, rather than relying on playground taunts? So far you've only shown that you're here to cause drama, fuss and to personally harass me.

when he originally raised the issue he did nothing of the sort.

 

[Helium_Junkie]

I have ordered a box of business cards for that same purpose, not out of any feeling of obligation or guilt, but just because I think some people might be interested in the photos. I don't think everyone in the public has the same view about photographers as some of the people here.

 

[Helium_Junkie]

when he originally raised the issue he did nothing of the sort.

I never said that he did, I said he has in this thread - which is the debate I am referring to:
"he's just a tad niave and immature"

Can we stop hurling abuse at me and discuss the issue instead? I'm honestly trying to keep this on topic and not rise to the bait that a few members are throwing at me, I haven't returned any of the numerous insults, nor been rude in this thread to anyone - so can that please be the end of it.

 

[Munkeh]

I'd be interested to see a similar thread in the GD forum to see what most non-photographers think on the matter. Although personally insulting someone for something they think, whether you consider them right or wrong, is not healthy and I think they mods should clamp down on it.

 

[james.miller]

I never said that he did, I said he has in this thread - which is the debate I am referring to.

Can we stop hurling abuse at me and discuss the issue instead? I'm honestly trying to keep this on topic and not rise to the bait that a few members are throwing at me.

im not abusing you in any way eitherand no, todd flanders, who raised the issue, hasnt attacked you in this thread either. i also dont think you'll see many people here objecting to candids of children as long as permission is given from the parents. theres a whole world of difference is doing that and using children for your own gains, without permission. because thats what it boils down to isnt it? your gains. that, and parents being naturally protective of their children. and who is a photographer to go against their wishes and use photos of their children?