| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/14/2010 01:18:54 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by CNovack:
As a photographer and a mother I can see both sides of the issue. One side artistic freedom and the other the need to protect.
|
Originally posted by tanguera:
It's the extreme to which I'm reacting. I'm not a parent, but if I was, I'd want my child to be protected. But you just had to be there to see the panic!! |
What exactly would you protect children from?
If you don't want your kids in photos taken by other people, don't take them outside in public.
What about surveillance cameras? Do you equally object to your child being recorded on them? How about your kid going through the new TSA body scanners or would you rather have a TSA worker fondle them in the name of "Homeland security"? |
|
|
|
11/14/2010 01:27:19 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by raish:
I've certainly had this sort of thing reported to me as fact, and not through journalism or gossip (I work/worked in education). |
What was it that was reported to you? No specifics of course, keep any information you feel you have to to preserve the safety of those involved, but what happened as a result of a photograph being taken?
Originally posted by raish:
Just to be ornery, if someone asks you not to take pictures and you think something about you having a camera or being the great artist or investigative reporter or whatever it is you having going on with that thing in your hand, is a reason to ignore the request, then there is a problem right there, I say. |
When I hear about parents being told they can't take photographs of their children on a theater stage, or on an athletic field because other children might be in the picture, yes, I would ignore the request, because it is arbitrary and has no legal standing. When something takes place in public, when anyone off the street is welcome to come watch, then anyone ought to be able to take images. There is no special power to a camera but to fix what is seen in time. If something is private, then of course stealing images of a private event is a bad thing to do; however in public, banning photography as if it is an evil is just plain wrong.
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain. F. Herbert |
|
|
|
11/14/2010 01:40:07 PM · #28 |
I think a simple request like "I have important reasons for not having my child's picture posted on the internet" would 99% of the time yield a response of "OK -- I won't post any which include you child" (could also crop/blur them out) and leave everyone satisfied without making (literally) a Federal case out of it.
However, that you don't want your child in a picture (taken in a public place) should not trump my right to take a picture of my child -- if you don't want your child photographed in a public place, then don't go there. |
|
|
|
11/14/2010 02:03:03 PM · #29 |
To me its a bit like peanut allergies. If a kid in the class has peanut allergies, then we all skip the Skippy, because there is a real threat to someone's safety; but banning all peanut products because the might be an allergic person in the group is stupid. If there is one of the one percent of allergic persons in the group, we modify our behavior. If not, then not.
Here is a nice thread from Australia about a ban on photographing children's sports because of the shocked reaction to a fine arts show of Bill Henson's work in a gallery. How studio images of nude 13 year olds (whatever the legal and artistic merit) relates in any way shape or form to parents being banned from photographing their children while playing on a public field, is a sign of how illogical we have become on this issue.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2010 02:14:29 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by raish:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
But has it actually ever happened? |
I don't have any first-hand experience available to report and if I did I just might not tell you. A lot of the specifics are, rightly or wrongly, shielded from public domain. I've certainly had this sort of thing reported to me as fact, and not through journalism or gossip (I work/worked in education).
Just to be ornery, if someone asks you not to take pictures and you think something about you having a camera or being the great artist or investigative reporter or whatever it is you having going on with that thing in your hand, is a reason to ignore the request, then there is a problem right there, I say. |
So, you're saying, in effect, that we should all be willing to give up our rights to make others feel a tad more comfortable?
I say that's 100% wrong.
I'm not ignoring their request because I think I'm a great artist, or because I happen to own a camera... No, indeed, I ignore their request because they, by making the request, are attempting to deny my right to take a photograph of a public place..
I argue that the proper response is to continue to photograph them, allow them to call the police, and then have the police explain the situation to them, so hopefully they'll just stay at home and not bother everyone next time...
And, just for argument's sake, do you really think a predator will be openly shooting photos of you and your child, in a manner that is noticeable? Not only are there excellent quality super small spy cameras you wouldn't notice, there are also some very nice long lenses out there, ones that can resolve incredible detail and great distances, and the cityscape is full of hidey holes you can shoot from... Get real, if you can see them taking pictures, they are no threat.. |
|
|
|
11/14/2010 03:38:42 PM · #31 |
Without pointing at anybody and their response, I think this conversation highlights the tension between individual rights and group rights. It also highlights that in the US this struggle strongly favors individual right. If one had to locate the US on some continuum from 1 to 100, I would submit it would be in the 90s favoring individuals. This position, interestingly, shows up in many interesting ways and can predispose us to some unique problems. The state of our health care would be one of them.
In another country, like Singapore, hearing someone make the argument that their individual rights trump other people's group rights would be viewed as odd. |
|
|
|
11/14/2010 03:47:18 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by zencow:
Originally posted by mike_311:
the church had an incident and now bans photography, they allow pictures after the ceremony is over. |
So... what was the nature of this "incident"? What would lead to the banning of photography of your own children and your own memories? Actually, I just remembered that I attended a memorial service a few years back, where the wife of the deceased asked me to take some pictures, but when we went inside, the priest said they didn't allow pictures during the memorial.
This paranoia is growing in so many areas, not just photography. The laws in California have gotten pretty ridiculous over the years, but that's a digression. |
the incident was that two parents freaked out when another parent took pictures that included their baby. They made a huge stink and the church decided in order to avoid that in the future they would not allow pictures during the service. |
|
|
|
11/14/2010 06:30:45 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by zencow:
Originally posted by mike_311:
the church had an incident and now bans photography, they allow pictures after the ceremony is over. |
So... what was the nature of this "incident"? What would lead to the banning of photography of your own children and your own memories?
..snip.. |
the incident was that two parents freaked out when another parent took pictures that included their baby. They made a huge stink and the church decided in order to avoid that in the future they would not allow pictures during the service. |
Wow... I'm bothered that policy is created because somebody "freaked out". It sounded like there was some real consequence as a result of a picture being taken. Even if there *can* be a consequence like that, we shouldn't let a few real or imagined incidents dictate policy. Following that kind of logic, automobiles should have been banned long ago, but they're not (and shouldn't).
I'm kind of with Cory on this topic. My knee-jerk reaction to hearing this: kick the freaked out parents out of the church, as *they* are the disruptive influence on those around them. They need to find a new sanctuary, if they don't feel safe where they are.
However, in the same light, if someone asks me to not take their picture, I simply won't. I haven't yet been in a situation where interests were in conflict. I tend to avoid taking pictures of people, but I'm trying to get over my own inhibitions. It doesn't mean I will be rude or pushy to others.
I've seen people avoid being in my shot, and thinking back, I've done the same. I'm not sure exactly why I have, but it's probably a self-esteem issue. I hope to get over that.
--
edit: fixed typo
Message edited by author 2010-11-14 18:31:33. |
|
|
|
11/14/2010 07:11:56 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by zencow:
kick the freaked out parents out of the church, as *they* are the disruptive influence on those around them. They need to find a new sanctuary, if they don't feel safe where they are. |
Absolutely. What happens when they take issue with the sermon? Do we ban the preacher or just skip over it? This is being a little too accommodating. I have a feeling these particular parents write a nice check each week...
Message edited by author 2010-11-14 19:13:44. |
|
|
|
11/14/2010 07:34:18 PM · #35 |
| Johanna, let's see the photograph! I'm sure you can still recover the image. |
|
|
|
11/14/2010 07:53:26 PM · #36 |
Though the issue of child abuse/kidnapping/stalking is very real and tragic, the situation depicted in Kindergarten Cop happens to such an infinitesimal percent of the population as to be statistically insignificant. But that is the fear behind this knee jerk, extremist reaction. Plus all the CSI/L&W/etc. which would have us believe there are pedophiles lurking everywhere. If people are THAT paranoid, they should be home-schooling their children, not inflicting their paranoia on the majority of sane parents, and subjecting everyone to illogical social engineering experiments. Our children (in fact, all of us) are being photographed and filmed on a daily basis, everywhere we go, not only on streets, but in stores, government buildings, schools, public transportation, etc. Just because we can't see the camera/photographer doesn't mean our picture isn't being taken.
Further, most sexual abuse of school children is committed by their teachers. Not by photographs posted on the internet.
@ Ben: LOL. I guess I could recover it. You would all just collapse with incredulity. |
|
|
|
11/14/2010 08:07:45 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
You would all just collapse with incredulity. |
The first (and only) time I collapsed with incredulity, stupefaction came home from work unexpectedly and I had to defenestrate myself.
R. |
|
|
|
11/14/2010 08:16:15 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by tanguera:
You would all just collapse with incredulity. |
The first (and only) time I collapsed with incredulity, stupefaction came home from work unexpectedly and I had to defenestrate myself.
R. |
LOL!!!! |
|
|
|
11/14/2010 08:32:27 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by tanguera:
You would all just collapse with incredulity. |
The first (and only) time I collapsed with incredulity, stupefaction came home from work unexpectedly and I had to defenestrate myself.
R. |
I had a similar incident...it so depressed me that I threw myself out the window, hoping to end it all. Sadly, I live in a basement apartment at the time. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 04:51:37 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by tanguera:
You would all just collapse with incredulity. |
The first (and only) time I collapsed with incredulity, stupefaction came home from work unexpectedly and I had to defenestrate myself.
R. |
Ever the euphemist, Robert. Stupefaction was sent home from work and well you know it. |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 06:51:38 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Does anyone have knowledge of a specific example where something bad happened to a child because a photograph was taken? I sure don't. |
Michael Jackson, for example - He made sure his kids had veils over their faces when they went out. Not to protect them from pedophiles, but to protect from the media.
So my advise is to use face-veils when taking your children out in public. Don't let them appear on Oprah to discuss it, and exercise caution when arranging sleep-overs with 40-year-old pop stars. |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 07:08:57 AM · #42 |
| Has it crossed your mind that maybe these kids were being held against their will and you were on the verge of cracking a huge abduction ring until the "security guard" made you delete the photo? Could happen. I bet that's what was up. |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 07:17:09 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by zencow:
kick the freaked out parents out of the church, as *they* are the disruptive influence on those around them. They need to find a new sanctuary, if they don't feel safe where they are. |
Absolutely. What happens when they take issue with the sermon? Do we ban the preacher or just skip over it? This is being a little too accommodating. I have a feeling these particular parents write a nice check each week... |
to add, i had my son christened last year and the same church now holds the christenings after the main service is over, and each family gets their own christening service.
I'm not sure if it stems from same the incident from way back.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2010 08:55:12 AM · #44 |
There are laws covering photographer rights regarding what you can and can't take pictures of. Every photographer should take the time to find out what they are BEFORE they are confronted. You can download and read a couple .pdf documents covering the subject here:
Andrew Kantors "Legal Rights of Photographers"
Attorney Bert P. Krages "The Photographers Rights"
I've also heard it is a good idea to ask permission before taking pictures. Its radical but I'll have to try that approach some time. ;)
|
|
|
|
11/15/2010 08:58:58 AM · #45 |
What bothers me the most is how ill informed the most vociferous of these stalwarts who would protect everyone from us dangerous photogs. They have no knowledge, or care, as to whther what they're demanding is on any level permissible, or even legal.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2010 09:31:59 AM · #46 |
My biggest pet peeve isn't cops or guards or anything like that (I've never had that issue), but parents that say I can't take their child's photograph..."IT'S AGAINST THE LAW UNLESS YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION!!!"
Now I'm not saying I'm going out and taking pictures of random kids...these are kids that were on a soccer team with my daughter and I was taking photos to give to the parents after the season was over (I did it each year my daughter was on the team). I was even told by one parent I couldn't post a team portrait on my facebook page (with my daughter in the photo) because it had her kid in it....This is the same photo that about 15 other people took standing around me...and was even posted in the local newspaper for everyone to see.
While I respect other people's privacy...telling me I can't publish a photo with my own kid and her WHOLE team is irritating.
This same parent then asked me "politely" not to take photos of her kid...so I stopped including her child in any photo I took. However, there was one day that the child ASKED me to take her photo with some friends...I told her that her mother didn't want me to...the kid went home and told mom...mom then sent me a pissy email saying what right did I have to tell her kid that I wouldn't take her photo!!! HOLY CRAP WOMAN MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!!
|
|
|
|
11/15/2010 11:07:06 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by NathanWert:
My biggest pet peeve isn't cops or guards or anything like that (I've never had that issue), but parents that say I can't take their child's photograph..."IT'S AGAINST THE LAW UNLESS YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION!!!"
Now I'm not saying I'm going out and taking pictures of random kids...these are kids that were on a soccer team with my daughter and I was taking photos to give to the parents after the season was over (I did it each year my daughter was on the team). I was even told by one parent I couldn't post a team portrait on my facebook page (with my daughter in the photo) because it had her kid in it....This is the same photo that about 15 other people took standing around me...and was even posted in the local newspaper for everyone to see.
While I respect other people's privacy...telling me I can't publish a photo with my own kid and her WHOLE team is irritating.
This same parent then asked me "politely" not to take photos of her kid...so I stopped including her child in any photo I took. However, there was one day that the child ASKED me to take her photo with some friends...I told her that her mother didn't want me to...the kid went home and told mom...mom then sent me a pissy email saying what right did I have to tell her kid that I wouldn't take her photo!!! HOLY CRAP WOMAN MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!! |
Hahaha, I love the jackassery, it makes me laugh! :-D
|
|
|
|
11/15/2010 12:25:47 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by NathanWert:
This same parent then asked me "politely" not to take photos of her kid...so I stopped including her child in any photo I took. However, there was one day that the child ASKED me to take her photo with some friends...I told her that her mother didn't want me to...the kid went home and told mom...mom then sent me a pissy email saying what right did I have to tell her kid that I wouldn't take her photo!!! HOLY CRAP WOMAN MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!! |
Hahaha, I love the jackassery, it makes me laugh! :-D |
Heheheheh! Yes! Thank you for the wonderful laugh I just had reading that before heading off to work on a Monday morning. |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 01:27:51 PM · #49 |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 01:44:49 PM · #50 |
Hmmmmm...as I read this thread and examined my own feelings on this topic, this issue sprang right out of the realm of legality and the importance of individual/group rights and straight into the realm of common sense.  Yanko's thought "Intimacy breeds authenticity" rang true to me because authenticity indicates an agreement of mutual trust.
In the case of buildings/property and children, when does my right as a photographer entitle me to skip the step of permissibility? Is this step important? Why or why not? Hmmmmm...
Really, I have no answer to this topic other than to listen to what my own horse sense may tell me at the level of sensitivity and awareness required of my presence as a photographer...within different environments.
Johanna...a thought provoking post! |
|
