| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/11/2005 04:34:37 AM · #51 |
I've been a photographer most of my life, a lot of that time as a professional. I started taking pictures at the age of 11 when we lived in Switzerland, and I've been doing it more or less continuously ever since, with a 10 year hiatus not that long ago.
And I've never taken photos "of" people without their express permission. The thought never occurred to me. They may show up as unrecognizable minor elements in some of what I've done, but that's all. I'm not particularly sympathetic, or approving, of people who wander around in the world photographing others unawares.
I'm tolerant of the need to do this from a journalistic standpoint, but I've never really been a photojournalist so I haven't had to do it. I did spend a couple seasons photographing the San Diego Chargers for the media, but the athletes of course have given their permission for this as aprt of their contracts with the team.
From my perspective, it's almost as if people are discussing the loss of something mythical. I don't think there ever HAS been a time when it was common and accepted behavior to photograph people unawares for personal or artistic use. It happens, sure, but I don't think it's been that common, and I see no part of the social contract that even implies we should have to tolerate it.
I think most of the photography we see is the result of an explicit interaction between photographer and subject. I think true "candid" photography involving subjects unknown to the photographer and unaware of him as well, is very rare. I see no reason why it should be somehow "protected", and I don't see that the question of whether it's children or not is especially relevant.
I'm of course aware of the possibility that images of my children, or your children, might end up being somehow morphed into something smutty, but this isn't the central issue for me. My concern is more that I believe all of us have a right to expect NOT to be photographed without our permission. So this hue and cry, however irrational it may seem to some (based as it is on a fear of having innocent children somehow demeaned by phantom photographers), nevertheless has at its core what I think is a very fundamental issue: "How dare you photograph me, or my children, without first asking me!"
Robt.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2005 06:07:04 AM · #52 |
I know what I have to start doing....Model releases and permissions.. I am always taking a look at those around me...When I was at Heritage Park 2 different occasions with my camera taking pictures of my kids, there was someone that came and sat in a bench nearby and I felt as though I was being watched...Another time a lady approched and sat on the same bench I was at..We then started to carry on small talk...As my youngest was with me and babies usually open all the doors or breaks the ice for anyone...
I am a little shy but not to shy to be apart of the community...Asking and aquiring is apart of being a photographer so its time to break out of my shell as well....
I just hope no one wants to assume because I could never, never, exploit my own kids let alone anyone elses..
|
|
|
|
06/11/2005 06:47:07 AM · #53 |
Things in my neck of the woods (London, Ontario) have gotten a little more tense as of late. Police arrested a man for child pornography and in his collection were pictures of children at a local water park. These pictures were taken without the subjects being aware and police guess they were taken from a great distance.
On a funny (or not so funny) side note; a recent article in the Economist (canadian mag) a police officer with the sex crimes unit joked that they find StarTrek and StarWars memoribilia in nearly every house they have raided. Maybe parents should be protesting sci-fi conventions.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2005 07:12:34 AM · #54 |
I took some shots at the recent parade for Liverpool FC's champions league victory. A lot of them feature kids. I didn't ask anyone for permission but then nobody noticed.
If it was blatantly obvious, then I would probably ask.
Liverpool FC Parade
Message edited by author 2005-06-11 07:12:56. |
|
|
|
06/11/2005 08:02:47 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by tolovemoon:
I know what I have to start doing....Model releases and permissions.. *snipped*
|
When I first started photographing, that is one of the first things I learned, get permission and releases. At first you might feel a little ackward about asking, but after a while, it becomes second nature. I carry a set of releases for both adult and children. One set of folders stays in my car, another set is always in my bag, with originals at home.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2005 08:12:59 AM · #56 |
Would some form of membership card from DPC as identification of belonging to a recognised group help to allay fears of people if you were challenged and is there anywhere we could get a template of release/permission forms that are legally acceptable if signed by the subject or their guardian?
Pauline |
|
|
|
06/11/2005 08:20:06 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Would some form of membership card from DPC as identification of belonging to a recognised group help to allay fears of people if you were challenged and is there anywhere we could get a template of release/permission forms that are legally acceptable if signed by the subject or their guardian?
Pauline |
a dpc card would not really help, because as big a deal as dpc is to us, it is not really known to the outside world. on the other hand, model releases that have a business-type name on them can help quite a bit more.
your best defense, though, is to be very conspicuous. keep your camera out, visible, and carry yourself with purpose. if you act suspiciously, you will be considered thusly. |
|
|
|
06/11/2005 08:43:38 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
*snipped* is there anywhere we could get a template of release/permission forms that are legally acceptable if signed by the subject or their guardian?
Pauline |
Hi Pauline, what I did, was take standard forms, tweak them for my purposes, then sent them to our family attorney to make sure that I would be covered.
NPPA has some basic forms, along with info:
//www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/releases/index.html |
|
|
|
06/11/2005 08:59:46 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by Skyarcher:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
*snipped* is there anywhere we could get a template of release/permission forms that are legally acceptable if signed by the subject or their guardian?
Pauline |
Hi Pauline, what I did, was take standard forms, tweak them for my purposes, then sent them to our family attorney to make sure that I would be covered.
NPPA has some basic forms, along with info:
//www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/releases/index.html |
Thanks I'll take a look! |
|
|
|
06/12/2005 12:15:24 PM · #60 |
  
A shooting I made last week at a public park. These were taken without express permission, and the parents wouldn't mind. Closeups in my opininon is something else. There I do ask for permission, and usually get it without a problem.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2005 01:06:42 PM · #61 |
The very act of being in public, whether for children or adults, is problematic for some people. Being in public, or being visible to the scrutiny of the people, is a problem in that, people like to go where they want and do whatever it is they want to do but they don't want other people bothering them; they don't like the scrutiny part. Well imo, too bad, you do have reasonable expectations of privacy and I would never want to invade upon them but that is only when you're in private. In regards to bedrooms, bathrooms, etc. privacy is important, but in parks and other public places you are in public; be prepared for scrutiny by other people and that includes their right to record their lives and how they see it.
edit: spelling
Message edited by author 2005-06-12 13:07:56. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 03:37:05 AM · #62 |
Felt like a criminal today in my own small town.
I wandered down to the local public park, and just enjoyed watching the kids
playing on the jungle gyms, slides, soccer activities, etc and of course, camera in hand, took a number of shots.
Seems one parent was an off-duty officer in some organization locally and called in the Sheriffs to investigate. I had taken as many pics as I wanted, was in my car, about ready to leave and got a knock on the window. After I stepped out of my car, it was then I noticed 4 squad cars around my car in the small park. I was given the third degree, being asked what, why, who, etc and was even asked to show the pics I had taken. The sheriffs were satisfied that I was a hobbiest, was not taking inappropriate pics judging by the types they saw, many/most similar to this shot:
One of the Sheriffs even remembered me from being questioned very late one night when taking the Heart challenge pics. They were satisfied I was not a predator and only did a field investigation questionaire as they are supposed to do before releasing me. I gave the officer a business card so he could pass on to any of the parents how to get hold of me, though it seems I made a few of them nervous, because while the Sheriffs were there, a few of the parents came forward to express their concerns about me taking pics of their kids.
UGH - times have changed, but do understand the concerns of the parents, and fully support the job the law enforcement has to do. I would have had no issue if a parent would have asked to see the pics, and erased them if so requested. Co-operation goes a long way here, but in the future, will get the OK 1st.
Message edited by author 2006-06-12 03:46:22. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 04:43:18 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by BradP:
Felt like a criminal today in my own small town.
I wandered down to the local public park, and just enjoyed watching the kids
playing on the jungle gyms, slides, soccer activities, etc and of course, camera in hand, took a number of shots.
Seems one parent was an off-duty officer in some organization locally and called in the Sheriffs to investigate. I had taken as many pics as I wanted, was in my car, about ready to leave and got a knock on the window. After I stepped out of my car, it was then I noticed 4 squad cars around my car in the small park. I was given the third degree, being asked what, why, who, etc and was even asked to show the pics I had taken. The sheriffs were satisfied that I was a hobbiest, was not taking inappropriate pics judging by the types they saw, many/most similar to this shot:
One of the Sheriffs even remembered me from being questioned very late one night when taking the Heart challenge pics. They were satisfied I was not a predator and only did a field investigation questionaire as they are supposed to do before releasing me. I gave the officer a business card so he could pass on to any of the parents how to get hold of me, though it seems I made a few of them nervous, because while the Sheriffs were there, a few of the parents came forward to express their concerns about me taking pics of their kids.
UGH - times have changed, but do understand the concerns of the parents, and fully support the job the law enforcement has to do. I would have had no issue if a parent would have asked to see the pics, and erased them if so requested. Co-operation goes a long way here, but in the future, will get the OK 1st. |
it is sad bradp, that some minority have caused teh majority these kind of problems.
do you know if you were a female this wouldn't happen ( no im not a feminist or anything like that, just truthfull) i sat at the beach one day taking pics of pretty much everything ( teenagers in bkinis' galore, although i didnt' take photos of them, but no one was to know that) i sat in the same spot, i didn't move. On the television the night before came an annoucment that cameras on Bondi Beach would be banned. i sat there on Newcastle Beach shooting for about 2 hours with a long zoom lens, and the security guard, who stood only 5 meters of me for ages, didnt' come up to me once. I commented to my Husband when he came back to sit down after a swim about nothing being said to me, he said ' give me the camera, i bet he comes straight over'.. i handed my hubby the camera, he didn't even put it up to his face, and the security guard stood over closer with his eye on us...
it's a dam shame, i personally think pedophiles should be shot on the spot... never to be givin a second chance, would make more of them think twice before living out their lives in public & with innocent kids/teens...
You poor buga, i really feel for you, and yet like you say, can also fully understand how the parents feel..i am surprised though they didn't approach you, i as a parent would've approached you within minutes of you pointing that camera at my child, and more than likely after seeing your photos, would've bought prints...lol.....
OH OH.. edited to add.. Stunning photo by the way, parents would love it...!
Message edited by author 2006-06-12 04:46:52.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 08:02:28 AM · #64 |
So just because there are some perverts out there that take inapropriate photos of kids, people think it should be illegal to take away photographers' rights to take photos...
This is like saying that because there are people who break the law and steal cars, it is going to be illegal to leave your car unattended. Or since there are people who steal from stores, it will be illegal to wear clothing inside any store from this point forward.
-----
Not to mention, look at history...look at all the famous photos from street shooters in the past with children in them, they are some of the most story-telling photos there are.
-----
How about this...if you're going to commit a crime in public, just bring your kid with you, no one will be allowed to take your picture. If you're the president and you don't want your photo taken, just bring a kid with you and anyone who takes your photo will be breaking the law.
There *has* to be some fine lines here between restricting what a person can and can't do and just outright blatently taking away our rights. If something like this went through, I'd say it would be a definate outrage.
Message edited by author 2006-06-12 08:21:50.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 11:07:28 AM · #65 |
I think that true candid shooting is one of the very best genres within photography. As a community of photographers we should be encouraging to it's practitioners, and on guard against those you would abuse it as a shield for immoral activities. With regards to photographing well-known adults at least, the paparazzi that society finds so despicable have, in a way, done a service for the rest of us photographers by forcing a line to be drawn. We may not like the place where that line is drawn but we can all take advantage of the shelter it gives us. For photographing people who are not famous, there is the evolving concept of a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Here, the issue is again being forced by people and activities that society would consider undesirable, such as those who sneak cellphone cameras into the locker rooms at the local fitness club.
Expecting photographers to get permission to take shots of children in public places is absurd. More reasonable would be to force parents to clothe their children whenever the children are in public places. What ever happened to that old photographer about whom this thread was started? And was anything ever done, or even said, to the parents of the nude children?
If photographers needed to get permission to shoot kids in public I would not have been able to get this:
or this:
or this:
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 11:57:46 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by BradP:
Seems one parent was an off-duty officer in some organization locally and called in the Sheriffs to investigate. |
What about the outcry over abuse of power.... oh forget it.....
It's pretty pathetic the extremes are pushed whenever something horrible occurs. I often wonder why this rubbish gets mileage when, say, a ban on all cars is not sensible when tens of thousands or more are killed and hurt every year around the world. It's the same thing, 99.99+% of people with cameras are just that and not any sort of terrorist or preditor or whatever word is been used this week out to do "evil" in the world. Maybe they should spend more resources on catching the sickos that do this stuff to kids rather than somebody who has a camera.
I was on the subway the other day and some tourist dared to take a pic of themself riding a subway - then starts the rant over the PA about absolutly NO photography....blah....blah.... security...blah....blah... As if it has anything to do with actual or even pretend security :-/
What happend to common sense? |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 12:24:13 PM · #67 |
| The discussion in this thread reminds me of an incident that occurred more than 40 years ago. I was visiting the Grand Canyon near the East entrance when I spotted two young Havasu(?) children in ceremonial costume at one of the lookout points. As I pulled into the parking area the two children ran over to my car asking if I wanted to take their pictures, only one dollar charge. I was dismayed that anyone would exploit their children in this manner. I declined their offer but gave them a dollar anyway. I learned later that this was a common practice among the local indians, very likely a result of having been exploited by photographers in the past. I saw no such activity on a more recent visit. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 12:45:02 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by tcrock41:
I knew there was a reason I prefer landscapes. Trees rarely complain. |
But if we don't fight this, soon we won't be allowed to take ANY photos in public anymore - and I really don't think I'm exaggerating. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 12:57:18 PM · #69 |
Another from yesterday.
We really shouldn't be prevented from capturing moments like this.
 |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 01:00:29 PM · #70 |
I say we just vote to have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for this country burned since they seem to have little or no merit these days anyway. Every moron activist, atheist and politician can hire a lawyer to argue their point in Federal court in front of a judge that's in some politicians hip pocket anyhow to get their way. You'd think this country and people in general would have better things to worry about than where a person can take photos, who's smoking in their cars or who's damn dog isn't wearing a seat belt.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 01:49:52 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by robs:
It's the same thing, 99.99+% of people with cameras are just that and not any sort of terrorist or preditor or whatever word is been used this week out to do "evil" in the world. |
'Evildoer' |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 01:52:15 PM · #72 |
I wonder is there really is a higher percentage of sexual deviants who are into photography.
If I see a man sitting on a park bench with kids playing on the slides should I call the police? what about the guy feeding the birds - kids like birds, perhaps he's just trying to lure them.
Oh no, they are all ok, they aren't holding up a sign that says "sexual predator" - a camera.
If you take a camera to a park you are automatically a suspected pedophile.
If you take a camera to a mall you are a suspected rapist.
If you take your camera to an airport you are a suspected terrorist.
The bigger the camera the bigger the likelyhood you are a sexual predator. wouldn't that be awesome if predators really did hold up big signs tht said "I'm a predator!". Amazingly people think they do - by holding a camera and shooting a kid, a woman or an airplane.
The vast majority of sexual crimes are done by people the vistim knows! so in truth you're probably safer letting a stranger photograph you than a relative. At least the stranger doesn't know where you live.
I say we start up a sticker campaign "photography is not a crime". I'm tired of modern day witch hunts. Preventing photography / harassing photographers will have no impact on crime rates. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 02:21:39 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
I say we just vote to have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for this country burned since they seem to have little or no merit these days anyway. Every moron activist, atheist and politician can hire a lawyer to argue their point in Federal court in front of a judge that's in some politicians hip pocket anyhow to get their way. You'd think this country and people in general would have better things to worry about than where a person can take photos, who's smoking in their cars or who's damn dog isn't wearing a seat belt. |
hell, GWB siad, and this is only a rough quuote, but the meat of it is verbatim; "hell, why all the fuss about the constitution, it's only a bit of paper" (emphasis mine)
hmmm...
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 02:42:16 PM · #74 |
I see both sides of this discussion. I've taken photos of kids I didn't know before, but I could see a parent getting weirded out by it as well. I think maybe the parent should talk to the person before calling the poilce, but I could see why someone would rather not confront someone they believe to be creepy.
I'm curious what photographers with young children think of stangers taking photos of their kids.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 03:03:36 PM · #75 |
Maybe I am prejudiced, too (in another way) but if someone was sitting in a park with his gear (photographic) obviously visible and taking photos of everyone and everything from a distance, I would either a) be OK with it, or b) stop by and ask inquisitive questions about equipment, shooting styles etc.
If someone came with a camera phone and started taking snapshots of my kids, I would most likely ask the person "why". Would not call police in either case. Maybe (as I usually have my camera with me) I would have first taken a closeup shot of him and see the reaction.
I have two kids, a girl - 3 and a boy - 6, and I am somewhat concerned, but not unreasonable. After all, what can a photo do to them? |
|
