Accused of being a paedophile!!!

[Mystery Machine]

Right, here is something that really pi$$ed me off/upset me today....

I was out this morning in the park taking some wildlife shots (as can be seen on the bottom of page 163 in this thread here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=525847&page=163) While walking around the frozen pond and getting some shots of the gulls/swans I saw these two girls smashing through the ice and throwing the shards across the pond. I thought it might make a nice picture as they threw the ice in the air.

I aimed my lens at them to get a meter reading and took a 'test' shot to see if I'd got the exposure correct. While checking the test shot a woman with a very foreign accent comes marching over to me waving her arms all over the place and screaming at the top of her voice calling me a paedophile!!

As soon as she is near me she is lunging towards the camera trying to grab it off me.

I'm in shock and can see everyone around the pond staring as she continues to shout 'paedophile' at me. I try and ask her what is wrong and she starts ranting on about me photographing her kids, she wants my name & address and she's going to call the police. She wants the photo deleted and wants me to leave the park (all the time she is trying to grab my camera)

At this moment all I am worried about is my camera & lens (100-400L) getting damaged or worse ending up in the pond so I tell her firmly to back off and calm down!

She keeps insisting I have to delete the photo and that she is going to report me.....

I start walking away but she's following me and getting more aggressive (all the time her kids are left alone leaning over the icy pond!!) so I pull my phone out of my pocket and start to call the police. She immediately stops and says as long as I delete the image she won't take the matter any further....

Still mostly worried about my camera/lens I turn the camera back on and skip a few shots along to another pic before pressing delete. I show her the shots either side to 'prove' to her that the photo is gone (which it isn't - but I wasn't going to tell her that!) and she spits at my feet and walks away.

Quite shaken I head home - still with people staring at me.

I only kept the photo because I believe I did nothing wrong and there was nothing untoward with the subject matter (fully clothed kids in a public place)

I only 'deleted' the photo to try and diffuse a very awkward and possibly volitile situation and also because I felt genuinely annoyed that she had the cheek to start accusing me of what she did. Had she approached calmly, asked nicely and explained I probably would have deleted the image for real out of courtesy.....

Anyway, I've uploaded the image (which is a crap picture because it was only a test shot) and would really apprecaite your veiws if you think I was out of order to have taken the shot in the first place?? What should I have done in this situation? What would you have done in this situation??

[Pete]

Hi there. The shot you've displayed here has been removed because you don't have permission to display it here (and you didn't have permission to even take the photo, since you were asked to delete the image).

Please continue the discussion without displaying or linking to the photo. It's not relevant to see it here.

[RandyMN]

It's common courtesy NOT to shoot children without permission... Perhaps the lady was out of line, but with all the wierdo's out there I'd just be sure to avoid the issue in the future.

You can thank the real pedaphiles for making everyone more cautious with children!

[FlyingPhotog]

<Subscribing Out Of Curiosity Over This Subject>

[Willid1]

Oh dear

My first post on here and it's to defend the OP and ask the moderator to be sure of his facts before he goes ground removing pictures.

Weather it was sensible in todays paranoid climate for the OP to take the photo in the first place it is nonetheless a fact that unless the children were under some kind of child protection order then he was totally within his rights to photograph anyone he wants in a public place (with reservations as to how he displays the images with regard to defamation etc - only really applies to celebs).

I admit I would probably been relucatant to take the picture myself - however photogenic they looked, but would defend the OP's right to do so.

Just another sad story of missinformed people cursing photographers.

I read one story of someone on Merseyside being called a peadophile while photographing a shipwrecked boat on soe mudfalts, with not a child in sight - very sad.

David

[Wilt]

Not to say who was right and who was wrong, but I am genuinely distressed at the many reports of photographic perverts and photographic pedophilia that the women of Great Britain seem so frequently able to find in their parks and gardens and on the streets and now mudflats. Cover those ankles ladies! all those photographers waving about their phallic symbols of worship! :rolleyes: Make sure they use them with some 'protection' (filter or hood), ladies, lest innocents catch something untoward! On the positive site, OP, she didn't accuse you of taking pictures of her butt with that long lens, like a lady did to someone trying to take macro shots of flower blossoms in a public garden!

[Pete]

David. I appreciate your concern here, but the basic facts are that the child's mother strongly objected to the fact that the OP photographed her children. Therefore, it follows that she hasn't given permission for the photograph to be displayed here publicly.

Those are the facts.

[12mnkys]

I think that she is out of line, but i had a similar instance happen with me. I took my Cam and tripod to the park with my wife and kids (to get photos of my kids playing) and everyone else was looking at me all strange. Later my wife told me what she overheard and I was incredibly irritated, and quite frankly a little humiliated! I mean to even have that P word thrown around at you is enough to make you feel uneasy. Quite frankly, you get more with sugar than vinegar, and if she really had a problem, she should have come up to and stated it politely and like an adult. Approaching me the she did you would have set me into a frenzy and I probably would have called the police my self and had her for harrassment.

[FlyingPhotog]

While checking the test shot a woman with a very foreign accent comes marching over to me waving her arms all over the place and screaming at the top of her voice calling me a paedophile!!

Could there be a cultural angle to this as well?

[tiziano]

The world is going the wrong direction.

[doctorgonzo]

I really don't understand this. How could he be taking photos of a prurient nature? I'm assuming the kids were not playing naked on a frozen pond. So how can taking pictures of bundled-up kids make you a pædophile?

If you take your kids out in public, then you really can't have an expectation of privacy. Besides, doesn't the government in the UK have like 8 million surveillance cameras in public these days? Why doesn't she accuse the government of being a pervert?

[Mystery Machine]

So is this the law - was I breaking the law??

I don't understand - I read everywhere on this site that 'candid' photography is allowed, that in public places it's perfectly OK to get pictures without permission etc....but you're saying that this isn't so? Please can someone just clarify this for me?

I have no 'interest' in photographing children and this shot was taken with good meaning and intention. Where is the line drawn "legally" where you have to delete an image if someone asks?? Or "legally" on what you can & can't take a picture of in a public place?

Like I said before, the image holds no significance to me and I would never have used it in any form (like 99% of my shots) because it wasn't a nice picture anyway. I only raised this point because of the way the woman immediately started trying to attack me. As said, if she had approached nicely and asked nicely, I wouldn't have hesitated in following her request.

Did I break the law then by not deleting the photo?

It has certainly made me not want to take photos in public places anymore. Randy, you're comment about being more cautious around children...I reckon I'll be feeling paranoid and afraid now, yet there is no malice, ill intention or anything sinister with what I do!

My god - it makes me wonder what the world is coming to! (I am not trying to spark a war, but would just like some clarification on this situation please if someone is able to?)

[Mark_Cohran]

I can't speak to the UK, but in the US it is perfectly legal to take photos of anyone in a public place and publish them in an editorial context.

[12mnkys]

You know if you wanted to get really petty, you could have just started waving your arms in the air and started yelling terrosist, terrosist...same discrimination...

[Wilt]

So is this the law - was I breaking the law??

I don't understand - I read everywhere on this site that 'candid' photography is allowed, that in public places it's perfectly OK to get pictures without permission etc....but you're saying that this isn't so? Please can someone just clarify this for me?

I have no 'interest' in photographing children and this shot was taken with good meaning and intention. Where is the line drawn "legally" where you have to delete an image if someone asks?? Or "legally" on what you can & can't take a picture of in a public place?

Like I said before, the image holds no significance to me and I would never have used it in any form (like 99% of my shots) because it wasn't a nice picture anyway. I only raised this point because of the way the woman immediately started trying to attack me. As said, if she had approached nicely and asked nicely, I wouldn't have hesitated in following her request.

Did I break the law then by not deleting the photo?

It has certainly made me not want to take photos in public places anymore. Randy, you're comment about being more cautious around children...I reckon I'll be feeling paranoid and afraid now, yet there is no malice, ill intention or anything sinister with what I do!

My god - it makes me wonder what the world is coming to! (I am not trying to spark a war, but would just like some clarification on this situation please if someone is able to?)

Citizens have a right to privacy, the question really is how much privacy when in a public setting! While the loo (toilet to us Yanks) even though it is a public place, privacy is expected. But out in the open in a public park, that makes me wonder about what legal right, if any, there is. Certainly a photographer is NOT to obtain monetary benefit nor benefit for his/her business enterprise thru the commercial use of a photo unless the identifiable persons in that photo give permission. But 'editorial' use is not protected; one wonders if POTN is not actually 'editorial' in content (for the betterment of those practicing photography) -- worth pondering, Moderator!

[Croasdail]

The brits have gone nuts, and I am related to one of them... a brit that is... not a nut.

For her to publicly make charges like that, I would have called the police myself. My honor and reputation would being battered around like that, I would have defended myself to the fullest extent. I do understand her part, to an extent. You want to be able to bring your children to a park and not be harassed by photographers. It is a public place, but still. Had she reasonably requested that her children not be photographed, no issues at all. But charging someone as a pedophile because they photographed children at play in a park... the brits have gone nuts.

I too had an instance like this though. I was shooting many years back in a park in Seattle some stock travel photos. There was the wonderful park on the edge of the lake, and the kids there playing made for great subject matter. I shot for a few minutes, when I was approached by a life guard. He reported that I was making some of the parents there uncomfortable. I told him who I was working for, but that I would return later when it didn't cause any issues. At that time, I wish I had my cards with me, I would have gladly given them to the parents and explained my intentions. But at that time, it was just easier to come back. I did so, this time introducing myself to a parent first, asked it I could shoot some shots of her kids, and everything worked out.

That all said, your reputation is everything. If there is ever a shadow of doubt what your doing and your intentions, you could be done for. While in the UK, I always get a permit if needed for a public place, and make sure I am really clear what I am doing and why. Sometimes I am told no... and it is what it is. But I would never let someone label me a pedophile publically like that. I may be an American, but I would have sued her ass off for making a false charge like that.

Mod... I think you are wrong here. You would have to delete the how street photography section if permission were required. You don't have to have permission to take some ones picture nor post it here - unless you can make the case in the UK that in doing so your are harassing them. I would love to have seen if the picture was of the kids, or if it was a picture with kids in it.

[Wilt]

Mad Cow Disease is apparently spread in epidemic proportion to the females of Britain...the Mad Cow is the woman, not the cow!

[Croasdail]

Citizens have a right to privacy, the question really is how much privacy when in a public setting! While the loo (toilet to us Yanks) even though it is a public place, privacy is expected. But out in the open in a public park, that makes me wonder about what legal right, if any, there is. Certainly a photographer is NOT to obtain monetary benefit nor benefit for his/her business enterprise thru the commercial use of a photo unless the identifiable persons in that photo give permission. But 'editorial' use is not protected; one wonders if POTN is not actually 'editorial' in content (for the betterment of those practicing photography) -- worth pondering, Moderator!

Actually, there are kids parks in the UK where if you want to bring a camera in, you have to have a kid there, and only shoot pictures of your kids. Rules are different... stupid... but different.

[soccersnaps]

Here in the uk it is quite legal to take photos of children in the park with or without permission, youve stated that in 99% of the cases you would not use the image and yet youve done so here, now that clearly needs permission from the parent/guardian of the children. The normal course of action is to approach the supervising adult to seek permision and maybe even get a signiture on a model relaese form.
In the first instance (image capture) youve not broken the law (UK), in the second instance (posting here) you have.

[Wilt]

Mod... I think you are wrong here. You would have to delete the how street photography section if permission were required. You don't have to have permission to take some ones picture nor post it here - unless you can make the case in the UK that in doing so your are harassing them. I would love to have seen if the picture was of the kids, or if it was a picture with kids in it.

One point strongly in support of the Moderator's action is the fact that the legal guardian of the child explicitly denied permit to photograph. Just to pose the preposterous, the child might have been the legal heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Iran (explaining the woman's accent), who lives in exile and in danger of assassination by those opposed to the return to monarchy. And a photo could give strong clues about where to find this child!

[soccersnaps]

wilt........uk law is quite clear........you dont need permission to photograph in a public place, on that youre quite right, however your wrong on the point of posting here, under uk law that clearly needs permission.

[doctorgonzo]

One point strongly in support of the Moderator's action is the fact that the legal guardian of the child explicitly denied permit to photograph.

I think a valid legal question is whether it is possible to deny permission to photograph your children when you are in public. If so, then I deny permission for red-light and speeder cameras to take my picture!

[number six]

If I were attacked as the OP was, in a public place, I'd call the cops and get them down to sort the matter out. And insist that she stay until they got there. If she grabbed the kids, shoved them in a car and left, I'd shoot the action and the license plate.

For my own protection.

-js

[TheHoff]

wilt........uk law is quite clear........you dont need permission to photograph in a public place, on that youre quite right, however your wrong on the point of posting here, under uk law that clearly needs permission.

Interesting because in the US and in Canada you need no such permission to post a photo taken in a public place where no expectation of privacy is given. Even if the mother did not want the photo to exist, it does not matter.

This is a matter of 'street photography' and I have consulted a lawyer on this... at least for Canadian law.

The moderation here is another business, but this point of law (for Canada -- and as I understand it, the US) should be clearly understood. No matter what the subject thinks of you taking the photo, you have the right to use it (print it, display it, sell it as art, upload it) in a non-editorial way (you cannot imply they endorse an idea or product, etc).

As a point of example, look at Bruce Gilden's Coney Island work. Do you think all of those people agreed that taking the photo was OK? His images sell very well.

[soccersnaps]

the mother had no right under uk law to deny a photographer permission to take a photo, wether before or after image capture. no law was broken in doing so.....however she had every right to seek assurances on how the image was used.

[Wilt]

I think a valid legal question is whether it is possible to deny permission to photograph your children when you are in public. If so, then I deny permission for red-light and speeder cameras to take my picture!

They've got you on that one...breaking the law is the exception to your denial rights!

[thebishopp]

OP needs to post that pic on a site like flickr as "editorial" if he wants us to see it.

On another note, I am not aware of the laws in the UK. Is taking such a picture considered "illegal"? (wow lots of posts since I stared typing lol - this question, I believe was answered in subsequent posts prior to my hitting "post").

It's not illegal here in the U.S. and I do not support fueling the paranoia by supporting that lady (either in spirit or practice).

[Pete]

To clarify my action here. I did not remove the photo because it was taken illegally. It's a permissions issue that I was acting on here.

If someone takes a photo of someone in a studio (whether it be for money or not) and the subject explicitly said that they did not want the photo displayed on the internet, there would be no question that the photographer would respect those wishes.

[Wilt]

wilt........uk law is quite clear........you dont need permission to photograph in a public place, on that youre quite right, however your wrong on the point of posting here, under uk law that clearly needs permission.


The attorneys on POTN will have to call this one...photographed in the UK, yet published on a worldwide media form, rather than a UK-specific publication. What right, what law prevails?

[soccersnaps]

hoffs statement stands true here in the uk also with the exception of where minors are concerned. An area where street togs have to be both careful and considerate.

[_aravena]

I think something most interesting is that she assumes so quickly that you took a photo of her kids if those were her kids. Gosh, lets worry about some guy getting his jollies off more than their lives as they play on thin ice. :rolleyes: Could have been a friend or babysitter.

+1 for members -1 for mods

Sorry, but the facts are not known here and I don't like assumptions. You must only guess and state as such. Next, I've taken photos of things behind,beside, above, below, and wherever is near people and only had one problem in which after the disturbing look and advancement I showed my camera to a friend and pointed at the bird shoot I just took. They looked and saw but I would have loved nothing better than for them to try and start something. People are so presumptuous these days and it is a bit sad and pathetic.

The OP did nothing wrong. If it was crap I would have deleted it then...maybe. I'm stubborn so I may have kept it then deleted it later. As for posting, nothing wrong but who knows, the kids could be under protection. Or kidnapped and that photo shows that a couple of missing children are alive and well.

+1

:D

[Croasdail]

One point strongly in support of the Moderator's action is the fact that the legal guardian of the child explicitly denied permit to photograph. Just to pose the preposterous, the child might have been the legal heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Iran (explaining the woman's accent), who lives in exile and in danger of assassination by those opposed to the return to monarchy. And a photo could give strong clues about where to find this child!

I see where you are coming from... and yes, the childrens identity should have been protected. The photo could have been posted obscuring their identity.

[MJPhotos24]

I see these type of shots in the local paper all the time, random kids or adults just doing there every day thing. From the description I'm sure it's something that the photog of the local rag would take in a heart beat...but he has a purpose, the paper, and probably wears a media pass. It's in public you can shoot what you want and noone outside a judge in a court of law can tell you to delete an image.

EDIT: Whoops, I left this here and didn't hit publish for 42 minutes of responses and missed all the ones after David.

[andrew748]

hoffs statement stands true here in the uk also with the exception of where minors are concerned. An area where street togs have to be both careful and considerate.

how so?

[thebishopp]

I think something most interesting is that she assumes so quickly that you took a photo of her kids if those were her kids. Gosh, lets worry about some guy getting his jollies off more than their lives as they play on thin ice. :rolleyes: Could have been a friend or babysitter.

+1 for members -1 for mods

Sorry, but the facts are not known here and I don't like assumptions. You must only guess and state as such. Next, I've taken photos of things behind,beside, above, below, and wherever is near people and only had one problem in which after the disturbing look and advancement I showed my camera to a friend and pointed at the bird shoot I just took. They looked and saw but I would have loved nothing better than for them to try and start something. People are so presumptuous these days and it is a bit sad and pathetic.

The OP did nothing wrong. If it was crap I would have deleted it then...maybe. I'm stubborn so I may have kept it then deleted it later. As for posting, nothing wrong but who knows, the kids could be under protection. Or kidnapped and that photo shows that a couple of missing children are alive and well.

+1

:D

I think this is a valid point. Many assumptions are being made here. One of them is indeed that the picture in question was in fact of her kids. How many mothers would of left their kids playing on an icy lake while she walked away to scream and yell at a photographer who was, presumably, a fair distance away? What if the ice broke, could she of made it back in time to save them? Perhaps she was not thinking this because those were not her kids.

Another point which no one seems to of touched on.

Why did she suddenly back down when the OP pulled out his phone to call the police?

Sounds fishy to me... you'd figure she'd want the police, I mean, wasn't she shouting at him that she was going to call them herself?

BUT when the OP says he's going to call them, then all of a sudden (this person who was saying she was going to call the cops) there is no need for calling the police she was just threatening to call and that she'll drop the issue if he deletes the picture?

Again, sounds fishy to me.

[soccersnaps]

how so..........you can take any picture you like...........but you have to get permission from the parent/guardian for its publication.

[andrew748]

how so..........you can take any picture you like...........but you have to get permission from the parent/guardian for its publication.

only if you're using it for promotion surely

[Wilt]

Why did she suddenly back down when the OP pulled out his phone to call the police?

Sounds fishy to me... you'd figure she'd want the police, I mean, wasn't she shouting at him that she was going to call them herself?

BUT when the OP says he's going to call them, then all of a sudden (this person who was saying she was going to call the cops) there is no need for calling the police she was just threatening to call and that she'll drop the issue if he deletes the picture?

Again, sounds fishy to me.

Just to add to the speculation and drama...bw!

She is an illegal alien (as are her children) living in UK having snuck in without a visa (or a Visa or Mastercard) and therefore in fear of being discovered and removed from the UK.

[soccersnaps]

no not just for promotion, i shoot for several local papers here in the uk and for a good few sporting clubs and if i wish to use an image that i have captured for either press or even my own web site, then i need the parent/supervisors permission. Model release forms are essential!!!!!.

[thebishopp]

Just to add to the speculation and drama...bw!

She is an illegal alien (as are her children) living in UK having snuck in without a visa (or a Visa or Mastercard) and therefore in fear of being discovered and removed from the UK.

Lol, then she better be more worried about the video cameras I hear are posted every where then some random photographer in a park.

[TheHoff]

no not just for promotion, i shoot for several local papers here in the uk and for a good few sporting clubs and if i wish to use an image that i have captured for either press or even my own web site, then i need the parent/supervisors permission. Model release forms are essential!!!!!.

That may well be just the policy of those papers and clubs. I used to string for papers in the US and the policy was always to get the name of the person -- which implies permission as you tell them for whom you're shooting... nothing signed was necessary. And that again was probably just a policy to protect the paper. If you want to use that photo as "art" you are free to do so whether or not you obtained permission.

I've shot kids "from the hip" while doing street work and obtained no permission. It is legal to post said photo, print it, display it, sell it as art, etc., here in Canada.

[soccersnaps]

no its not the policy of just those clubs and papers.

[andrew748]

no not just for promotion, i shoot for several local papers here in the uk and for a good few sporting clubs and if i wish to use an image that i have captured for either press or even my own web site, then i need the parent/supervisors permission. Model release forms are essential!!!!!.

cool ty for the clarification

[swanseamale47]

David. I appreciate your concern here, but the basic facts are that the child's mother strongly objected to the fact that the OP photographed her children. Therefore, it follows that she hasn't given permission for the photograph to be displayed here publicly.

Those are the facts.
That doesn't alter the LAW! if he's in a public place they are fair game. You don't need a model release because it,s not for commercial use.
I would have stuck to my guns, called the police and had her arrested for breach of peace, by censoring this you are giving in to these people and making the situation worse for us all. Wayne

[TheHoff]

no its not the policy of just those clubs and papers.

Right, as this is a worldwide forum, we should expect those differences. It is a tough spot for a moderator to take on the policies of every country that people log-in from.

And I wouldn't want to be a street photographer in the UK now; I'm sure I'd be branded paeodphile or terrorist.

[400dabuser]

Right, here is something that really pi$$ed me off/upset me today....

I was out this morning in the park taking some wildlife shots (as can be seen on the bottom of page 163 in this thread here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=525847&page=163) While walking around the frozen pond and getting some shots of the gulls/swans I saw these two girls smashing through the ice and throwing the shards across the pond. I thought it might make a nice picture as they threw the ice in the air.

I aimed my lens at them to get a meter reading and took a 'test' shot to see if I'd got the exposure correct. While checking the test shot a woman with a very foreign accent comes marching over to me waving her arms all over the place and screaming at the top of her voice calling me a paedophile!!

As soon as she is near me she is lunging towards the camera trying to grab it off me.

I'm in shock and can see everyone around the pond staring as she continues to shout 'paedophile' at me. I try and ask her what is wrong and she starts ranting on about me photographing her kids, she wants my name & address and she's going to call the police. She wants the photo deleted and wants me to leave the park (all the time she is trying to grab my camera)

At this moment all I am worried about is my camera & lens (100-400L) getting damaged or worse ending up in the pond so I tell her firmly to back off and calm down!

She keeps insisting I have to delete the photo and that she is going to report me.....

I start walking away but she's following me and getting more aggressive (all the time her kids are left alone leaning over the icy pond!!) so I pull my phone out of my pocket and start to call the police. She immediately stops and says as long as I delete the image she won't take the matter any further....

Still mostly worried about my camera/lens I turn the camera back on and skip a few shots along to another pic before pressing delete. I show her the shots either side to 'prove' to her that the photo is gone (which it isn't - but I wasn't going to tell her that!) and she spits at my feet and walks away.

Quite shaken I head home - still with people staring at me.

I only kept the photo because I believe I did nothing wrong and there was nothing untoward with the subject matter (fully clothed kids in a public place)

I only 'deleted' the photo to try and diffuse a very awkward and possibly volitile situation and also because I felt genuinely annoyed that she had the cheek to start accusing me of what she did. Had she approached calmly, asked nicely and explained I probably would have deleted the image for real out of courtesy.....

Anyway, I've uploaded the image (which is a crap picture because it was only a test shot) and would really apprecaite your veiws if you think I was out of order to have taken the shot in the first place?? What should I have done in this situation? What would you have done in this situation??

If you are in the public domain, she has no right to tell you to delete picture(s) or even touch your equipment, she has the right to complain to the police though, if she has reasonable proof that you are taking inappropriate pictures of children

You don't even have to show her your pictures that you have taken, you shouldn't really to give into the unreasonable demands for her to see the photos. End of.

[andrew748]

is it ok for me to be laughing at the irony some of your names and the thread title?

400dabuser and swanseamale47 did we just become the seedier side of craigslist lmao

[soccersnaps]

Hoff the uk is an okay place for a street tog, you just gotta make sure youve got the paperwork if you wish to publish, be that both personal or for gain. the biggest problem we have is with the police who get heavy handed with anybody who likes like a pro tog, all of the points made here are valid from the origional posters thread regarding image capture........nobody can stop it, its our right to take images anywhere in a public place of whoever, be they adult or minor, however we have laws in place that protect minors and part of that is how we use images we capture. i have to undertake police disclosure checks for all of my photographic activities associated with juniors, but thats the way it is.

[TheHoff]

did we just become the seedier side of craigslist lmao

:D :D


Hoff the uk is an okay place for a street tog, you just gotta make sure youve got the paperwork if you wish to publish, be that both personal or for gain...

That is a huge difference. So you could not publish a book of street photography as art unless you have model releases for those identifiable, minor or adult, in the photos? Can you imagine any iconic street photography book that could be made under those rules? I can't.

[Wilt]

Hoff the uk is an okay place for a street tog, you just gotta make sure youve got the paperwork if you wish to publish, be that both personal or for gain. the biggest problem we have is with the police who get heavy handed with anybody who likes like a pro tog, all of the points made here are valid from the origional posters thread regarding image capture........nobody can stop it, its our right to take images anywhere in a public place of whoever, be they adult or minor, however we have laws in place that protect minors and part of that is how we use images we capture. i have to undertake police disclosure checks for all of my photographic activities associated with juniors, but thats the way it is.


ah, yes, the Mad Cows have taken charge of the country

[soccersnaps]

minors.............

[HSK]

You know what mystery machine, you've just got to be very careful in this day and age, even if your intentions are good or completely innocent there can be problems as you came across. I think it's best to just try and avoid a potential situation, or seek permission, or shoot with people that hold your trust and there is no worries. I mean, I recently got shouted at just for taking pics of a guy! so i can imagine how protective parents must get.

[soccersnaps]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release_form

[soccersnaps]

from the above link.............................................. .................................................. ...Minor Release: This variant of the model release contains language referring to the model (who is a minor) in the third-person, and required signature by a parent or other legal guardian of the model. A release which is not signed by a parent or guardian affords no legal protection to the photographer.
maybe important........maybe were just mad.

[TheHoff]

At my eye, no permission:

http://i37.tinypic.com/2ziydnc.jpg


From the hip, no permission:

http://i37.tinypic.com/jakfue.jpg


From the hip, no permission... I don't think he was getting releases either :D

http://i33.tinypic.com/sphzqp.jpg


I don't post these to make the moderation harder, but this is a classic example of street photography, where in North America, you are free to do with these images as you wish, no matter what the subject might say.

[tstowe]

The world is going the wrong direction.

Amen

[_aravena]

They're just so photogenic and adorable
http://www.lastshotphotography.com/img/v6/p274240096-4.jpg

http://www.lastshotphotography.com/img/v5/p375637177-4.jpg

[soccersnaps]

especially here in the uk amen

[Mystery Machine]

Well, I certainly wasn't expecting this level of response! I've been downstairs sipping a glass of wine or four while all this has been going on!

I fully understand why the mods have removed the image - even if it is OK for me to have taken it etc....there is too much to risk by keeping such a 'questionable' image on a public and open forum. I have no problem with it being removed.....I only posted it to pose the question of "is this an inappropriate shot" in response to the labelling of paedophile by the supposed mother.

Because I don't want to break any code/rules (legal or not) regarding the showing of the original photograph, I have uploaded an image of my little nephew (with permission) just to show those that have not seen the image in question how 'innocent' the original shot was.

I've put the image up because it is the nearest 'representation' I could find to the image taken this morning at the park. The amount of clothing worn is about the same (giving both shots were taken on frosty mornings) but my nephew is much larger in the frame and his face is a lot more visible. My GF and her sister (mother of the boy in the photo) were so outraged at what happened today that they wanted me to put this photo up to demonstrate how 'harmless' the original image was (in relation to be being branded a paedophile) and I guess I am only putting it up to justify the awkward & uspsetting feeling I have of being branded one in a public place.

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i251/bruceholder/Canon/Snow08018.jpg

Is a shot like this really illegal to take in the UK? If so, then I'll not be able to take any public shots in future for fear of there being a child somewhere in the background possibly...

[advaitin]

This is important! The European laws are different than in the US. I believe UK law now is in accord with the EU. I took many photos of people with no expectation of using the images in a commercial sense. In one case I shot a child playing with cars on a tile floor who was using a line of black tiles as his roadway--very cute and with interesting composition. I had to calm the parent down after he saw me taking the images and convinced him that I would not be publishing the image or put it up for sale, but that I might display it as an example of my craft.

The EU allows for you to take the image as someone else has said, but you cannot use it to publish in any way--profit or nonprofit--without the express permission of the subject or their legal guardian.

In the US, it is different. Our laws allow for shooting anyone in public and publishing that image editorially. Where we must have caution is when that image may be used as commercial advertising. For instance a man may be shot as part of a scene of busy pedestrians for a story that illustrates sidewalk rush hour, the photographer might even sell that image as a print for someone to hang on their wall, but if the photographer subsequently sells the image to a bank and they run an ad with the man shown prominently, then that person has recourse to litigation.

Now, dealing with angry parents. Doesn't matter where you are or what you are doing, there is always the possibility that you will be accused of pedophilia if there are children around when you are shooting--even if they aren't your subject. It's the times we live in.

I was shooting at an annual event here in Daytona called the Children's Expo, where many dance schools give a mini-recital. I came because my grandkids were performing and also shot each child that performed so that the instructor could have a DVD of the event. Then I followed my own two about and shot them riding rides and playing games. When they reached a rock-climbing wall and I was waiting for their turn to climb, a mother approached me and angrily asked what I was doing because she had "seen me doing nothing but taking pictures of little girls."

Fortunately she was a ballet mom, so by mentioning for whom I had shot all the dancers and pointing out my granddaughters, she was mollified. But before we got there she was already at "I'm calling the police..."

This is the knee-jerk reaction these days, but when you consider how many true perverts are out there, you have to have some understanding. Certainly, when I was working and shot kids at any activity, I always made sure I had either the parent's or the school's permission before using the images in the newspaper, just a courtesy thing.

I don't suppose that many perverts carry around big expensive camera and lens combinations. Someone on another topic said those guys probably use point and shoots. But I have noted that if I am wearing my Domke vest, I never get the pervert question. People assume I'm working for a publication. When I was accused at the Children's Expo, I was without vest!

[gjl711]

... Approaching me the she did you would have set me into a frenzy and I probably would have called the police my self and had her for harrassment.We as photographers have to draw the line somewhere and in this case the way it went down she clearly stepped over it. I love street photography and candids are one aspect of that. I love to shoot at the beach and sometimes there are kids playing in the sand and surf.

If we let these frantic moms get away with this type of harassment we stand to loose a lot of photo ops. I've never run into this type of situation but if I do I hope I have the presence of mind to calmly dial 911 and report that I am being attacked by a out of control mom. Someone other than me needs to educate her that taking pictures in a public park is still legal and not every male is trying to assault her kids. I would hope I have the stones to pressed charges.

[octospit]

when taking pics out in public, i usually wait for people to pass or try to frame people out of the shot. you can never know what's going to happen like in Mystery Machine's case. if a lady came at me the same way, then i'd most likely give her the same attitude. "treat others as you would like to be treated." come on be an adult about it. but then again anything can happen.

[soccersnaps]

mystery machine............once more, its not illegal in the uk to take such a shot.......however as its an image of a minor, permission is needed for use other than personal.

[_aravena]

So what about a photo taken in the UK and brought to the US and then put on a website? Law are so interesting. Thing is, none of them apply until the photos are discovered.

[Pekka]

Yes, the law in most countries allows publishing photos taken in public place, in editorial use, without subject's permission. But what Pete did was in my opinion a good moral choice. If subject specifically says do not publish or show this photo, then a photographer should not hide behind law and publish it "because I can", even if the subject was way out of line with her methods of saying "shooting my kids is not ok". We as photographers deal with people daily, this is a social art form. If you act like Paparazzi, then you may have a standard response Paparazzi's have. In most cases you can bring yourself to a situation, present yourself, take contact to people and in the end get to shoot photos of them in such a way that they will not think you're malicious in any way. People and social skill is an art form we need to practice as much as f-stops and framing.

[gjl711]

...but when you consider how many true perverts are out there, you have to have some understanding. ...But that's the thing, there are not that many out there, not if you compare it to the general population. The media has mom's everywhere convinced that every male is a pervert just looking for the opportunity.

[soccersnaps]

and boy was he discovered

[picturecrazy]

But that's the thing, there are not that many out there, not if you compare it to the general population. The media has mom's everywhere convinced that every male is a pervert just looking for the opportunity.

Sad, but true. That's like New Zealand Air... every man is considered a pedophile and is not allowed to sit beside an unaccompanied child. Guilty until proven innocent? Not even! Guilty with no chance of proving innocence!!

It's pretty lame how paranoid people are getting. It's a very small % of people that are weirdos, but the media and activist groups make it FEEL like half the population are psychos.

[Mystery Machine]

Yes, the law in most countries allows publishing photos taken in public place, in editorial use, without subject's permission. But what Pete did was in my opinion a good moral choice. If subject specifically says do not publish or show this photo, then a photographer should not hide behind law and publish it "because I can", even if the subject was way out of line with her methods of saying "shooting my kids is not ok". We as photographers deal with people daily, this is a social art form. If you act like Paparazzi, then you may have a standard response Paparazzi's have. In most cases you can bring yourself to a situation, present yourself, take contact to people and in the end get to shoot photos of them in such a way that they will not think you're malicious in any way. People and social skill is an art form we need to practice as much as f-stops and framing.
I fully understand, but I didn't even have chance to take breath before being accused, threatened and nearly attacked...and I certainly wasn't acting like paparazzi....

As said from the beginning, I certainly had no bad intentions (I was actually out shooting wildlife ffs!) and didn't really have chance to react much under the torrent of abuse and flailing arms! The one and only reason actually I kept the damn photo was so that I could use it to ask opinion on wether it was 'paedophilic' material and therefore grounds for the reaction of the parent?

As I said before, it really makes me wonder if I ever want to shoot anything outside of my own home again for fear of a 'minor' being present in the background!

[FlyingPhotog]

Sad, but true. That's like New Zealand Air... every man is considered a pedophile and is not allowed to sit beside an unaccompanied child. Guilty until proven innocent? Not even! Guilty with no chance of proving innocence!!

It's pretty lame how paranoid people are getting. It's a very small % of people that are weirdos, but the media and activist groups make it FEEL like half the population are psychos.

People are crazy. They act like socially unacceptable behavior started when digital photography started.

I guess there's no chance that perverts ever used to exchange prints or Polaroids, huh?

[Wilt]

Sad, but true. That's like New Zealand Air... every man is considered a pedophile and is not allowed to sit beside an unaccompanied child. Guilty until proven innocent? Not even! Guilty with no chance of proving innocence!!
.

OTOH there are multiple stories of female teachers who slept with their students, even giving birth to their offspring. So what makes men such pariah on the NZ airplanes?! Oh, they admire such behavior in female teachers, I guess! :rolleyes:

[FlyingPhotog]

OTOH there are multiple stories of female teachers who slept with their students, so what makes men such pariah on the NZ airplanes?! Oh, they admire such behavior in female teachers, I guess!

A solution in search of a problem... :rolleyes:

[soccersnaps]

mystery machine..........shoot it, just dont publish it without permission..........get it?

[ryant35]

I wouldn't have photographed someone else's kids in the first place. When I am photographing my kids in a public location I'm sure to make it known who my kids are and that I am photographing them.

And if I was confronted my a mom, if I did take the pictures I would delete them quietly and show her that I didn't even point my camera at them.

And if a responding officer doesn't know the law or decides you are causing a disturbance you can get yourself into some trouble. I know these charges won't stick and you could sue, but who wants to, volunteer to be a martyr and fight the man? You still have to get arrested, booked, and SEARCHED:shock:!

This woman assaulted you, and assaulted you with bodily fluids by spitting on you. At least in the US she broke the law not you. But is it worth it if the cop may side with the poor old woman and her 2 kids over the guy carrying a few thousand dollars worth of gear in the park.

[Bill Roberts]

Yes, the law in most countries allows publishing photos taken in public place, in editorial use, without subject's permission. But what Pete did was in my opinion a good moral choice. If subject specifically says do not publish or show this photo, then a photographer should not hide behind law and publish it "because I can", even if the subject was way out of line with her methods of saying "shooting my kids is not ok". We as photographers deal with people daily, this is a social art form. If you act like Paparazzi, then you may have a standard response Paparazzi's have. In most cases you can bring yourself to a situation, present yourself, take contact to people and in the end get to shoot photos of them in such a way that they will not think you're malicious in any way. People and social skill is an art form we need to practice as much as f-stops and framing.


Mostly I agree with what you say Pekka, and it's quite a balanced viewpoint, but there certainly is a danger that we just give in too easily to this kind of thing.

Taken to it's logical conclusion candid photography would be a thing of the past. And that would not be a good thing.

[Mystery Machine]

mystery machine..........shoot it, just dont publish it without permission..........get it?
Soccersnaps, yeah I heard you the first time.

So what you're saying is every single photo taken of mine that has a child (minor) in it somewhere within the shot is not allowed to be shown anywhere except to myself on my computer in my own home? Is that really the bottom line?? (unless I have written consent of the parent/legal guardian of that minor/those minors in the background of each and every single shot ever taken by me)

[Wilt]

Soccersnaps, yeah I heard you the first time.

So what you're saying is every single photo taken of mine that has a child (minor) in it somewhere within the shot is not allowed to be shown anywhere except to myself on my computer in my own home? Is that really the bottom line?? (unless I have written consent of the parent/legal guardian of that minor/those minors in the background of each and every single shot ever taken by me)

Are the colonies sounding better and better all the time? :D

[soccersnaps]

or prints are okay for your own use. when i tog kiddies soccer games for example,if 1 parent objects, i cannot tog the rest in case the one gets in the background......its tough, but thems the rules

[Mystery Machine]

I wouldn't have photographed someone else's kids in the first place. When I am photographing my kids in a public location I'm sure to make it known who my kids are and that I am photographing them.

And if I was confronted my a mom, if I did take the pictures I would delete them quietly and show her that I didn't even point my camera at them.

And if a responding officer doesn't know the law or decides you are causing a disturbance you can get yourself into some trouble. I know these charges won't stick and you could sue, but who wants to, volunteer to be a martyr and fight the man? You still have to get arrested, booked, and SEARCHED:shock:!

This woman assaulted you, and assaulted you with bodily fluids by spitting on you. At least in the US she broke the law not you. But is it worth it if the cop may side with the poor old woman and her 2 kids over the guy carrying a few thousand dollars worth of gear in the park.
Well if I ever thought that taking a shot like that would ever end up like this then I would never have tried in the first place. After all it was an innocent shot of some kids having fun!

I certainly wasn't trying to be a martyr and certainly wasn't trying to stand up for my 'rights as a photographer' in a public place....but was simply trying to diffuse an aggressive and very unexpected situation.

All it has left me with now is a feeling of sheer despondency and disillusion towards what was a passion for photography (albeit quite a new passion for me)

[Mystery Machine]

Just as a side-note to all this:

I have just looked at my FlickR page and noticed I have received more 'views' in the last few hours than at any time before by quite a long way (a very long way!!)

The photo in question was never posted there and never will be. I suspect the high number of visits is from people wanting to see the photo for themselves, but in the light of this whole 'publication' thing, I have luckily never put it on there.....

[ryant35]

Just as a side-note to all this:

I have just looked at my FlickR page and noticed I have received more 'views' in the last few hours than at any time before by quite a long way (a very long way!!)

The photo in question was never posted there and never will be. I suspect the high number of visits is from people wanting to see the photo for themselves, but in the light of this whole 'publication' thing, I have luckily never put it on there.....


You need some of those Google ads that pay your for clicks the next time you start some heavy conversation.

[Wilt]

Well if I ever thought that taking a shot like that would ever end up like this then I would never have tried in the first place. After all it was an innocent shot of some kids having fun!

I certainly wasn't trying to be a martyr and certainly wasn't trying to stand up for my 'rights as a photographer' in a public place....but was simply trying to diffuse an aggressive and very unexpected situation.

All it has left me with now is a feeling of sheer despondency and disillusion towards what was a passion for photography (albeit quite a new passion for me)


Change what you shoot. Become a dog show enthusiast of photography, as dog lovers love to get shots of their dogs, and you won't be accused of being a petophile rather than a pedophile!

[12mnkys]

Soccersnaps, yeah I heard you the first time.

So what you're saying is every single photo taken of mine that has a child (minor) in it somewhere within the shot is not allowed to be shown anywhere except to myself on my computer in my own home? Is that really the bottom line?? (unless I have written consent of the parent/legal guardian of that minor/those minors in the background of each and every single shot ever taken by me)

I think he is going overboard, and it is not only unreasonable, it is illogical.

[ryant35]

Well if I ever thought that taking a shot like that would ever end up like this then I would never have tried in the first place. After all it was an innocent shot of some kids having fun!

I certainly wasn't trying to be a martyr and certainly wasn't trying to stand up for my 'rights as a photographer' in a public place....but was simply trying to diffuse an aggressive and very unexpected situation.

All it has left me with now is a feeling of sheer despondency and disillusion towards what was a passion for photography (albeit quite a new passion for me)

I wasn't necessarily calling you a martyr, but some of the responses here are all about standing up for your rights.

[12mnkys]

I wasn't necessarily calling you a martyr, but some of the responses here are all about standing up for your rights.

And why would you not want to do that? If you don't who will? If you are not in the wrong and are going about your business in a respectful way, then for some woman to be crazy like that is absurd. I feel like there are times when people need to stand up to themselves and not be bullied away because some other person decided to discrimate you and label you a pedo, racist, terrorist, etc...

[gjl711]

...I feel like there are times when people need to stand up to themselves and not be bullied away because some other person decided to discrimate you and label you a pedo, racist, terrorist, etc... Maybe its Chicago attitude, but I feel the same way. Of course it's easy to feel like that when you don't have an irrational lady in your face.

[AndreaBFS]

Wow. No more street photography section. No possible way to know how each person would feel about their photo being published. They might strongly object, too! This is a crazy double standard I really don't understand... and would if it were somehow based in law or followed some kind of pattern with other threads posted. ::shrug::::

[soccersnaps]

12mnkys, im not going overboard, and yes our laws are illogical, okay let me state 1 or 2 things.
1/ its okay to take any photos anywhere.......okay. the way that woman reacted was really bad, ive been there a million times or more and if i had a pound for every time ive been called a pedo, i would be a rich man.
2/its not right to post photos here or anywhere of minors without permission from consenting adults..........end of,
3/laws are different in different in places but the right of those under age have to be respected.
4/mystery machines images are respectable to say the least, but when you look at his flikr acc, so few reflect the theme of this thread, so why should his love of his photography suddenly diminish due to 1 pic.
5/his pic was removed by the mod for obvious reasons

[soccersnaps]

where the hell is behind the cheddar............thats a georgeous smile

[ryant35]

And why would you not want to do that? If you don't who will? If you are not in the wrong and are going about your business in a respectful way, then for some woman to be crazy like that is absurd. I feel like there are times when people need to stand up to themselves and not be bullied away because some other person decided to discrimate you and label you a pedo, racist, terrorist, etc...

BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GET ARRESTED! That's why. I have a full time job and a family. I'm not going to get myself arrested and up my job in jeopardy so I can stand up for photographer's rights.

[Box Brownie]

Hi

I have skipped through this thread and just to put my perspective. I seriously wonder what will will happen in 25 years when the children of today ask their parents where are their kiddie pics et al. The reason I say that, & accepting that technology has and will continue to move on so pictures in the hand may become a thing of the past, the current state of affairs of mis-information and the plethora of camera phones with hardly any prints being made will mean that very few records of a childs growing up will be kept for later generations to enjoy. Somewhere in the attic I have black & white pictures of me at about the age of 2 naked on the sofa ~ gawd knows what the PC police would make of such images now??? You older folk will identify with the sort of picture your parents embarrassed you with by showing your girlfriend on about the third time you took her home to meet the folks:o

For myself I have become very cautious when taking pictures of our great nephews & niece on family outings to such an extent that when they are on playground equipment I make sure to frame carefully or cease taking if other children are in shot. I recall one occassion when I felt very self conscious of being watched by the mother of another child in the play area at the same time as our family.

I do not doubt there are some folk who are taking pictures with ill intent but it is all us 'on the level' photogs that are getting punished be it children inshot or potential for terrorist/public order 'offences'. Now I know why I like animals, cars, planes and buildings :D

[photoguy6405]

This woman assaulted you, and assaulted you with bodily fluids by spitting on you. At least in the US she broke the law not you. But is it worth it if the cop may side with the poor old woman and her 2 kids over the guy carrying a few thousand dollars worth of gear in the park.

That's the thing, even if you are in the right, due to the nature of the accusation you still lose. It sucks, it's completely boneheaded and wrong, but it is what it is.

[Mystery Machine]

I'm just glad I'm not a teacher anymore! (I was a teacher for 10 years)

Lets say I was still a teacher and the police had arrived in the park to sort the situation out. Just the very accusation of paedophile could have meant my suspension with no warning or chance to explain! Following that, any label (no matter how wrong/incorrect) would stick and even returning to my post with my name cleared, there would always be a level of mistrust and rumour from others around. It's a scary thought but one that could so easily happen.....

I'm sure I'll feel a little less upset tomorrow - a new day & all that, but I still think it will taint my perception of anything I shoot publicly from now on - certainly for a while.

Bruce.

P.S. Guys & Gals, if I've got this many people veiwing my FlickR photostream (for whatever reason), please feel free to leave the odd comment or two on any photos you might happen to like/hate/feel could be improved? More people have visited tonight than they have in the four months I've had the account!

[lanno]

great thread

are there any Aussies here who could shine some light on how the OP would sit with Australian law in this regard?

ta

[Mum2J&M]

(100-400L)

Well, if you were a female, it's unlikely you would've been called a paedophile. And your lens wasn't helping you either. I always felt conspicuous when I took out my 70-200L. It is downright embarrassing hauling that damn thing around. Ashame too as it takes damn nice pictures.

I honestly think there needs to be a way to voluntarily run a CORI on yourself and be granted a license to shoot in public places. I remember working for the Boston Globe doing interviews on the street and having some guy not believe I was working for them - didn't I feel good when I was able to whip out that card and show it to him.

People are so quick to judge. And when it comes to your children, it's easy to get overly sensitive - especially when these people - like many, many people - don't understand the art of photography. Sad thing is, they don't understand that the same thing can be done with a point and shoot or camera phone by some perv. And would a perv really be carrying a 100-400L around? Um, I think not... :lol:

[gjl711]

... Sad thing is, they don't understand that the same thing can be done with a point and shoot or camera phone by some perv. And would a perv really be carrying a 100-400L around? Um, I think not... :lol: Logic and crazy people don't mix.

[nuffi]

The attorneys on POTN will have to call this one...photographed in the UK, yet published on a worldwide media form, rather than a UK-specific publication. What right, what law prevails?


Probably the law of common sense above all others, which is the line they've taken.

[chauncey]

I'm sorry but, I would have pushed it to the point of dialing the police and letting them deal with the irate, female type person.
She was the one overreacting. Would not have let her off the hook.

[doctorgonzo]

2/its not right to post photos here or anywhere of minors without permission from consenting adults..........end of,

So you essentially ARE arguing that the street scenes forum here should be taken down, or at least those pictures that include children. I can't agree with this.

If kids are in a public place, tough. I'm sick of our rights being incrementally rolled back because some people complain more loudly than others.

Here's another aspect of this: now these children have seen by example of their mother that screaming and complaining is how you get your way. That, and we are raising a generation of people who do not have the expectation of being photographed when in a public place, and so will have no problems with more thoroughly destroying that right in the future. Not to say anything about the complete ridiculousness of calling everybody a pervert in order to put forward your agenda.

We've got to consider what kind of society we want to be creating with the next generation.

[Wilt]

Hi

I have skipped through this thread and just to put my perspective. I seriously wonder what will will happen in 25 years when the children of today ask their parents where are their kiddie pics et al. The reason I say that, & accepting that technology has and will continue to move on so pictures in the hand may become a thing of the past, the current state of affairs of mis-information and the plethora of camera phones with hardly any prints being made will mean that very few records of a childs growing up will be kept for later generations to enjoy. Somewhere in the attic I have black & white pictures of me at about the age of 2 naked on the sofa ~ gawd knows what the PC police would make of such images now??? You older folk will identify with the sort of picture your parents embarrassed you with by showing your girlfriend on about the third time you took her home to meet the folks:o

OTOH, how many photos were ever taken of YOU by total strangers? I know most of the photos of myself were done by relatives and an occasional friend of my parents, usually with one of my parents (or both) present at the place where the photo was taken! So 'where are all the pictures?' is no worse now than it was when I grew up.

[Mystery Machine]

I'm sorry but, I would have pushed it to the point of dialing the police and letting them deal with the irate, female type person.
She was the one overreacting. Would not have let her off the hook.
I guess I am new to all this and was totally taken by surprise. My main concern at the time was for my £1,000 lens and £500 camera.....her main concern certainly wasn't for her kids otherwise she wouldn't have left them leaning over the edge of a large and frozen pond.

I am glad I didn't push the issue and glad I got home in one piece with my kit in one piece and not via a police station/cell which could all too easily have happened....even if it had been me that called them!

In hindsight I am convinced that I did the 'right' thing in getting away from a very confrontational and aggressive situation with the minimum of bother. It is a situation that could all too easily have got way out of hand (had I kicked off, then I am sure I would have been accused of racism as well as the 'P' word and possibly sexism too!!)

It's certainly been a lesson to me and I thank everyone on this forum for their thoughts, feedback and advice. I really do appreciate that the most.

[thebishopp]

BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GET ARRESTED! That's why. I have a full time job and a family. I'm not going to get myself arrested and up my job in jeopardy so I can stand up for photographer's rights.


But I assume you are more than willing to enjoy the benefits given to you by those who do take that risk?

I understand that you believe that these "rights" are not as important as what you perceive you will be risking. With that in mind be prepared to lose those as well as others.

Of course if you don't mind then it's ok.

[dotTif]

Honestly if you "would have deleted the image for real out of courtesy" if she had been more calm you should just delete the photo. And since in your opinion it is a "a crap picture because it was only a test shot" are you really losing anything by deleting it? Maybe photographers would have a better rep if sometimes despite what is fair, what is right and what we deserve, we were the bigger person.

[ryant35]

But I assume you are more than willing to enjoy the benefits given to you by those who do take that risk?

I understand that you believe that these "rights" are not as important as what you perceive you will be risking. With that in mind be prepared to lose those as well as others.

Of course if you don't mind then it's ok.

Exactly. And I have never been in the army so I guess I don't find my freedom very important? I support our troops, and I'd support any photographer who did stand up.

[alt4852]

1/ its okay to take any photos anywhere.......okay.

unless it's private property. (ie: a store, a shopping mall, etc)

it is your right to take pictures while you're on public property (paparazzi anyone?) but the second you step onto private property, you no longer have that right.

as for street photography, i also disagree with the idea that any picture with a child must receive permission from the parent or guardian to be published. i'm also an avid street photographer. with over 20% of our population (thanks google!) under the age of 16, it's almost guaranteed that i'll get pictures of kids in my photos. to state that i must attain written or verbal permission from parents to publish any picture with a child is simply ludicrous. did every tabloid magazine attain permission from britney spears when she was seen mishandling her baby? of course not.

[thebishopp]

So you essentially ARE arguing that the street scenes forum here should be taken down, or at least those pictures that include children. I can't agree with this.

If kids are in a public place, tough. I'm sick of our rights being incrementally rolled back because some people complain more loudly than others.

Here's another aspect of this: now these children have seen by example of their mother that screaming and complaining is how you get your way. That, and we are raising a generation of people who do not have the expectation of being photographed when in a public place, and so will have no problems with more thoroughly destroying that right in the future. Not to say anything about the complete ridiculousness of calling everybody a pervert in order to put forward your agenda.

We've got to consider what kind of society we want to be creating with the next generation.


The problem Doctor is that this is happening globally.

In the U.S., we supposedly were founded upon an ideal of individual freedoms... where such freedoms were more important than the "common good". Sadly this is no longer the case.

People use fear to push their agenda for more regulations and more control. Their arguments are rarely rational and are easily recongnized as they are laced wtih statements designed to appeal to your emotion rather than your sense of logic or even reality.

I think it's important to note we are not speaking about "courtesies" that people "should" observe.

[thebishopp]

Exactly. And I have never been in the army so I guess I don't find my freedom very important? I support our troops, and I'd support any photographer who did stand up.

Ahh, I have been in the army (91-94 active duty) and I suppose it's "nice" that you say you "support" us.
Note that I'm not trying to be mean, however I am referring to the gist of your intial posts which I will get to in a minute.

You miss the point of what I am saying.

Many people enjoy the rights that others have won for them. Rights that they would not risk themselves for but are more than willing to enjoy.

So now you are saying that you DO support a photographer standing up for his rights and as such you DO support such action regardless of the possible consequences?

I ask this because your initial posts seemed to suggest that it wasn't worth it and that no one wants to"volunteer to be a martyr". You ask if the consequences of standing up for one's rights is "worth it"?.

As an AMERICAN this answer should be obvious. It should be a resounding YES!!! Any other answer is to spit in the faces of all those who have risked and/or given their lives for such rights (regardless of how small or insignificant a particular right may be).

As a former solider I find it insulting when American citizens do not appreciate what was so hard won and appear so willing to either strip others of those rights or even advocate that standing up for them is too "hard" or "not worth it".

[zagiace]

While I am on the side of the OP I must say I would appreciate being approached and being asked permission prior to you taking pictures of my child. There are many law we as a society follow not because we are all criminals but with out them criminals have too much leeway.
While it may not be the law, it is courtesy.
how many that have posted in this thread have young children that would not care if others were photographing them and posting them online?
Approach the parents, give them a business card, offer a print or digital file. If they refuse, don't photograph them. I think often you will find parents get excited when a professional takes their child's picture.
That said, in your position i would have called the police and not deleted anything until they arrived and seen the image in question.

[lauderdalems]

Tell her you will delete the picture and you want her to get the kids out of the park so you can continue taking pictures.

[dotTif]

Ahh, I have been in the army (91-94 active duty) and I suppose it's "nice" that you say you "support" us. Note that I'm not trying to be mean, there could be sorts of reasons you haven't served, none of which are "unpatriotic" however I am referring to the tone of your intial posts which I will get to in a miinute.

You miss the point of what I am saying.

Many people enjoy the rights that others have won for them. Rights that they would not risk themselves for but are more than willing to enjoy.

So now you are saying that you DO support a photographer standing up for his rights and as such you DO support such action regardless of the possible consequences?

I ask this because your initial posts seemed to suggest that it wasn't worth it and that no one wants to"volunteer to be a martyr". You ask if the consequences of standing up for one's rights is "worth it"?.

As an AMERICAN this answer should be obvious. It should be a resounding YES!!! Any other answer is to spit in the faces of all those who have risked and/or given their lives for such rights (regardless of how small or insignificant a particular right may be).

As a former solider I find it insulting when American citizens do not appreciate what was so hard won and appear so willing to either strip others of those rights or even advocate that standing up for them is too "hard" or "not worth it".

You're totally right. I totally support the right of the woman to protect her families right to privacy and her freedom to stand up for herself and her family and say she does not appreciate the actions of another.

[thebishopp]

You're totally right. I totally support the right of the woman to protect her families right to privacy and her freedom to stand up for herself and her family and say she does not appreciate the actions of another.

She had the "right" to approach and ask him what he was doing.

He had the right to answer or or not answer her as is his choice.

She had the right to call the police if she felt threatened.

He had the right to call the police if he felt threatened.

She did NOT have the right to strike at him, or spit at him, grab his equipment, or enage him in an aggressive manner... at least not without fear of consequences for her actions.

If a threat of physical force or violence was present then both had the right to respond with the appropriate level of force neccessary to protect themselves.

Since, based on the OP's statement, there was no "immediate threat" I find it highly unlikely that the woman would be able to articulate such that justified her verbal and physical assault. Unless of course you are suggesting that his taking of a picture constituted a clear and immediate threat to the safety and welfare of either her or her children? I would love to see you try to argue that in court.

Now as far as right to privacy.

Right to privacy is limited once you place yourself in the public domain. This has nothing to do with "law" just reality (although this has already been argued in courts of law and has been accepted as a point of law in most jurisdictions). When you go outside people will see you. What you do in public is just that, public and as such subject to observation, recording, review, ridicule, criticism, praise, etc. etc. etc. Also able to be used against you in a court of law (plain view doctrine). It has also been legally determined that people and things in public or plain view do not have what is called an "expectation of privacy". Why you may ask? The answer is because IT IS IN PUBLIC VIEW.

If you don't want people seeing you or your family then keep them in your home or other private dwelling.

Your attempt to twist my original statement was both foolish and childish.

[Permagrin]

She had the "right" to approach and ask him what he was doing.

He had the right to answer or or not answer her as is his choice.

She had the right to call the police if she felt threatened.

He had the right to call the police if he felt threatened.

She did NOT have the right to strike at him, or spit at him, grab his equipment, or enage him in an aggressive manner... at least not without fear of consequences for her actions.

If a threat of physical force or violence was present then both had the right to respond with the appropriate level of force neccessary to protect themselves.

Since, based on the OP's statement, there was no "immediate threat" I find it highly unlikely that the woman would be able to articulate such that justified her verbal and physical assault.

Now as far as right to privacy.

Right to privacy is limited once you place yourself in the public domain. This has nothing to do with "law" just reality. When you go outside people will see you. What you do in public is just that, public.

If you don't want people seeing you or your family then keep them in your home or other private dwelling.

Your attempt to twist my original statement was both foolish and childish.

She also had the right to ask him not to photograph her children (albeit the way she did it was inappropriate), and he had an obligation to oblige her, in the U.S. is a moral obligation but in some countries is a legal obligation.

You are incorrect on your "right to privacy". Many nations respect the rights of a private citizen outside their home.

You pedantic insistence that the photographer is the only one with rights here is ignorant, belligerent and irritating.

[thebishopp]

She also had the right to ask him not to photograph her children (albeit the way she did it was inappropriate), and he had an obligation to oblige her, in the U.S. is a moral obligation but in some countries is a legal obligation.

You are incorrect on your "right to privacy". Many nations respect the rights of a private citizen outside their home.

You pedantic insistence that the photographer is the only one with rights here is ignorant, belligerent and irritating.

As I recall I listed some of BOTH her "rights" and the photographer's "rights" without getting into detail other rights which they may or may not have based on the legal permissions or restrictions of the particular jurisdiction they were in.

Oh, as you pointed out, I forgot to add that she had to right to ask him not to take pictures as you stated. As well as, depending on the laws of the country he was in, the possible right of the photographer to ignore this request.

Oh, let's not forget the right of the lady to leave the park with her kids. Or of her right to combe her hair, or the right to chew gum, etc. etc. etc.

I could list all the possible "rights" and actions that could be taken by either party based on those rights but I figured what I initially posted would get the point across... obviously for you, it didn't.

Does this indicate that I am stating that the photographer is the only one with "rights"?

Your pedantic insistence that is my position is ignorant, belligerent, and irritating.

Now as far as "moral" vs. "legal" . There is a big difference between the two as well as a big difference between "obligation" and "choice".

[SYS]

The OP got into a nasty situation for taking someone else's kids. I got into a couple of unpleasant situations where I was taking pictures of MY OWN kids... Yea, tell me about "what the world is coming to." :rolleyes:

[dotTif]

Your pedantic insistence that is my position is ignorant, belligerent, and irritating.

Way to:


Your attempt to twist my original statement was both foolish and childish.

[thebishopp]

Way to:

Learning from the master.

[Permagrin]

Yes, you did indicate that.

Your thoughtless statement that someone should not go out into public in order to safeguard their rights is definitely indicated that.

The question here is what should have been done. Does poor behavior excuse poor behavior? NO.

The woman should not have behaved as she did. However she does have the right to ask someone not to photograph her children. You have no idea what her history is, or why it was so frightening to her.

This bandwagon of "what are my rights" whether one SHOULD do something is disgusting.

The OP innocently took the shot. I find no fault there.

However your "stay home if you don't like it" policy wreaks of "I can do what I want to you but you have no right to react"...bogus. However I'm done with arguing with someone who will not see reason or logic.


OP, I'm sorry for what happened. She did over react. Again, probably the best thing to do would have been call the police right then and after you made your report and she spoke to them as well, never post the photos. I can guarantee that if I found photos of my children or grandchildren online, unauthorized, I would do everything in my means including legal action to have the photos removed.

[thebishopp]

The OP got into a nasty situation for taking someone else's kids. I got into a couple of unpleasant situations where I was taking pictures of MY OWN kids... Yea, tell me about "what the world is coming to." :rolleyes:

Definately a messed up situation.

Sadly though it's part of the natural progression of events.

[12mnkys]

BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GET ARRESTED! That's why. I have a full time job and a family. I'm not going to get myself arrested and up my job in jeopardy so I can stand up for photographer's rights.

Wait a second...I did not tell you to stand up and punch the woman in the face or do something that would/could get you arrested. You may have wanted to avoid the conflict. Me personally, would have stood my ground, in a public park no less, and turned the page on her. We are in a very bad way if we allow people to make ridiculous assumptions based on the camera equipment someone has. Would the lady have flipped out if you had a p&s in your hand? My guess is no. So what difference does it make?

But by packing up and getting out of dodge...you simply let a rude and out of line woman have her way with you...I would have kindly told her to phone the police and you would be happy to explain the situation to them in person.

[Shasta]

I can understand the parents concern, she was just worried for the welfare of her children and the reason she may have over reacted, but I would have apologized immediately, shown her the wildlife pics you had taken and then deleted the photos of the children. But I would have called the police to report the whole situation.

[Permagrin]

Don't you people see though that by taking that stance you'll force more litigation against photograhpers? It's already happened in other countries.

If you want MORE rights for photographers instead of increasingly less, courtesy is the rule of the day. I've seen so many photographers work with the people who initially were wary or hostile towards them. It's the militant stance that is going to make it harder and harder to photograph anything anywhere.

[thebishopp]

Yes, you did indicate that.

However your "stay home if you don't like it" policy wreaks of "I can do what I want to you but you have no right to react"...bogus. However I'm done with arguing with someone who will not see reason or logic.

.

The problem is you seem to like to insert statements from you mind into statments that I have actually made. It is important to remember that reality is what it is, not what we would wish it to be.

The reality is I never stated that she didn't have a right to REACT.

AGAIN, I listed possible "reactions" she could of made based on her "rights" as well as those of the photographers.

Out of that statement you got "stay home if you don't like it - I can do what I want to you but you have no right to react".

Who is the one not seeing reason or logic?

What I find "disgusting" is how people so easiily confuse "morality" with "law" and "obligation" with "choice". This confusion is very scary as it has been the cause of a great many attrocities done in our past, present, and no doubt future.

[Permagrin]

I can understand the parents concern, she was just worried for the welfare of her children and the reason she may have over reacted, but I would have apologized immediately, shown her the wildlife pics you had taken and then deleted the photos of the children. But I would have called the police to report the whole situation.

This is a great response!

[Permagrin]

If you don't want people seeing you or your family then keep them in your home or other private dwelling.

Your attempt to twist my original statement was both foolish and childish.

sir, you contradict yourself too often to be credible



Out of that statement you got "stay home if you don't like it - I can do what I want to you but you have no right to react".

[thebishopp]

Wait a second...I did not tell you to stand up and punch the woman in the face or do something that would/could get you arrested. You may have wanted to avoid the conflict. Me personally, would have stood my ground, in a public park no less, and turned the page on her. We are in a very bad way if we allow people to make ridiculous assumptions based on the camera equipment someone has. Would the lady have flipped out if you had a p&s in your hand? My guess is no. So what difference does it make?

But by packing up and getting out of dodge...you simply let a rude and out of line woman have her way with you...I would have kindly told her to phone the police and you would be happy to explain the situation to them in person.

This is a very good point.

[Mark_Cohran]

All right folks, keep the discussion reasonable, on topic and free of personal insinuations. If this thread keeps going the way it is, it will be shut down post-haste.

[thebishopp]

sir, you contradict yourself too often to be credible


Show my contradictions.

Feel free to quote me. Oh and if you want to threaten to "report" me then do so publicly.

[12mnkys]

This is a great response!

great response, yes...but in the heat of the battle, things don't always go that smoothly. In my eyes, the photog in this case was harassed, humiliated, and spat at...in public no less. For being in a place that is his every right to be at, doing what he had every right to do. The LADY was inappropriate and in the wrong here, and therefore should have been treated as such. If the roles were reversed and a man did that to a woman, let me tell you, he would have been in custody before the children even knew what was going on.

[Permagrin]

great response, yes...but in the heat of the battle, things don't always go that smoothly. In my eyes, the photog in this case was harassed, humiliated, and spat at...in public no less. For being in a place that is his every right to be at, doing what he had every right to do. The LADY was inappropriate and in the wrong here, and therefore should have been treated as such. If the roles were reversed and a man did that to a woman, let me tell you, he would have been in custody before the children even knew what was going on.

I am not disagreeing with you. She was wrong and I did say that.

My encouragement for cooler heads was to win the battle (which is that we photographers are losing liberties left and right) not the moment.

[Belmondo]

It's unfortunate that we can't have a reasonable discussion on an important subject like this.

If the tone of the thread doesn't improve soon, I will declare this a failed social experiment, and lock the thread.

Your choice, everyone.

[thebishopp]

great response, yes...but in the heat of the battle, things don't always go that smoothly. In my eyes, the photog in this case was harassed, humiliated, and spat at...in public no less. For being in a place that is his every right to be at, doing what he had every right to do. The LADY was inappropriate and in the wrong here, and therefore should have been treated as such. If the roles were reversed and a man did that to a woman, let me tell you, he would have been in custody before the children even knew what was going on.

Again, excellent point, one I have been trying to make as well.

With the exception of that last part. I didn't even consider what would of happened in that situation and I agree wtih 12mnkys.

[thebishopp]

I am not disagreeing with you. She was wrong and I did say that.

My encouragement for cooler heads was to win the battle (which is that we photographers are losing liberties left and right) not the moment.


I can agree with the call for cooler heads, though I disagree that "standing down" would help the cause.

Throughout history we have not "won" rights by not standing up. In fact much of the rights we enjoy are because people have "fought the system" of their particular times (slavery, right to vote, women's lib, etc. etc. etc.)

Anyway, I personally think we can continue this thread without hacking away at each other :-)

[Belmondo]

Anyway, I personally think we can continue this thread without hacking away at each other :-)

Good point......In fact, it's a necessity. Free and open discussion is useful, but personal attacks, veiled or otherwise, don't help at all.

[Jon]

This can be a very complex issue. I suggest that everyone review this article in The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/10/privacy_breach/) and consider what it says before continuing to argue what they wish the world situation actually was. You may wish to argue your rights (on either side of the issue), but you have no assurance that local jurisprudence will agree with you. If it doesn't, you're possibly looking at a criminal conviction which will have serious repercussions down the road, even if you don't spend time in jail. This was a no-win situation for all parties. The best approach there is to find a way to let everyone walk away from it intact.

[Mark_Cohran]

The article Jon linked is a good read. It's also very important for folks to remember that there are significant variances in statute and common law from country to country and this is a truly international forum.

[SYS]

I didn't read the whole 9 pages of this thread, but here's my take on the issue:

Having been subjected to a couple of unpleasant situations while shooting pictures of my own kids in the past, I'm now extremely careful when shooting in public. I don't, for one thing, shoot other kids unless asked by their parents. Innocently or for artistic reason or for whatever, I WON'T shoot other children. I'm too enamored with my own darling kids to have any reason to shoot other children who are not as cute as mine (okay, joke.. so don't jump on me for this attempt at humor).

Now, having said that, if anyone behaves towards me the way that wacko lady did, I wouldn't have been as nice as the OP. By the way, I also learned the hard way that when you're taking pictures in public with the long white lens, you need to be extra careful. My kids are competitive swimmers, and while I was taking pictures of them swimming at a local, highly conservative YMCA, one of the staff came to me to make sure I don't take any pictures of, in his words, "young girls in bikini." My jaws just dropped to the floor when he said that to me. I immediately offered to show him everything that I had taken up to that point on my camera LCD, but he refused, saying that he was just warning me "in case." I was outrageously insulted and humiliated, but the YMCA was his territory, not mine, so I just had to swallow the incident in one gulp and move on. What made me really upset was that, all the while this was going on, no one approached several other parents shooting at their kids swimming with their P&S with flash popping every few seconds. Why me? Because I had the 70-200 -- that sneaky zoomy white devil lens that were specifically designed for pedophile activities...

[Stealthy Ninja]

I don't suppose that many perverts carry around big expensive camera and lens combinations. Someone on another topic said those guys probably use point and shoots. But I have noted that if I am wearing my Domke vest, I never get the pervert question. People assume I'm working for a publication. When I was accused at the Children's Expo, I was without vest!

I think I was the one who said that. They also use mobile phones.

It's just the big cameras stand out. If the over-protective mothers bothered to think, they'd be more suspicious of the guy holding his mobile (cell) phone at a funny angle.

I have 2 very nice looking kids. They often have people taking photos of them. I normally don't worry because the people seem honest enough. I do, however, point my 200mm 2.8L lens at them and take a couple of shots myself. That normally stops them. ;)

I also won't take photos of other's kids generally. Unless it's a great photo moment. Then it's usually a kid I know, or some kid at my kids school or something not on the streets (I'd rather photo old people, much more interesting faces).

[bsaber]

Sad how people equate "big pro cameras" with tools of pedos and perverts. If they just stopped and thought about it for awhile they'll realized they're just incredibly stupid for even thinking that.

EDIT: And the same goes with being called or treated as a "terrorist".

[mattograph]

I didn't see the photo, but I imagine it was a very simple one -- a test image, as it were.

The story surrounding the photo, however, is quite compelling and obviously mercurial.

Heres a simple rule:

If, in the midst of a confrontation, you take a lousy photo -- dont post the photo, but entertain us with the story.

If you take a Great photo while under duress from threatening parents -- keep the story to yourself, but post the shot.

That way, we get to enjoy the best of either world.


I do posit, though, the following:

What if someone here posted this photo, with a story about how the mother of the victim INSISTED he not take the photo, nor ever publish it. Should we take it down?

http://famouspictures.org/index.php?title=Image:Vietnam_Execution.jpg

[Tbirder]

I have 2 very nice looking kids. They often have people taking photos of them. I normally don't worry because the people seem honest enough.

I used to think like that. A few years ago I was doing work for an automotive magazine. The editor/owner was in my town on an overnight photo shoot and had nowhere to stay. Seemed like a really nice, genuine guy. My wife and I invited him to stay. He slept in a room next to my son's.
A few months later he was arrested, charged and convicted (can't remeber the exact charge) for using a camera fitted in his shoe to take photos up women's skirts and publishing them on the Internet.
Thank God nothing happend to my son. There's nothing to suggest he was a paedophile, but he certainly was a pervert, and we let him stay in our house.
That was a real wake-up call.

I've followed this thread and appreciate all arguments for and against the OP, privacy laws, copyright etc. Some appears to be fact, some appears to be opinion, and that's great. But it's important to remember that some of the stuff you're reading about is aimed at protecting the kids as much as it is about human rights (and photographers' rights) in general.

[Stealthy Ninja]

I used to think like that. A few years ago I was doing work for an automotive magazine. The editor/owner was in my town on an overnight photo shoot and had nowhere to stay. Seemed like a really nice, genuine guy. My wife and I invited him to stay. He slept in a room next to my son's.
A few months later he was arrested, charged and convicted (can't remeber the exact charge) for using a camera fitted in his shoe to take photos up women's skirts and publishing them on the Internet.
Thank God nothing happend to my son. There's nothing to suggest he was a paedophile, but he certainly was a pervert, and we let him stay in our house.
That was a real wake-up call.

I've followed this thread and appreciate all arguments for and against the OP, privacy laws, copyright etc. Some appears to be fact, some appears to be opinion, and that's great. But it's important to remember that some of the stuff you're reading about is aimed at protecting the kids as much as it is about human rights (and photographers' rights) in general.

Interesting. There is a big difference between people taking photos (without trying to hide the fact - if they were acting suspicious I'd respond differently) and a guy with a camera in his shoe (not taking photos of little kids, but women I assume).

Also, I'm not inviting these people to stay overnight.

Pervert does not (always) equal pedophile too. I'd guess the guy you mentioned is not a pedophile, just a pervert who likes to (rather immaturely) look up woman's skirts. You never know though, so it's better to err on the side of caution.

I know you should always be careful with your kids (I certainly am, I almost beat up some guy for talking to my daughter). But we can use our brain a little too. ;)

I suspect there are a lot of perverts out there. Some are more sinister than others. Some go to great lengths to do it (camera in a shoe). Most don't use professional photography equipment to take their photos (hard to fit a DSLR in your shoe).

[gooble]

I wish the OP would've called the police but I understand why he wouldn't have wanted to put up with the hassle after the lady backed down. However, I fear that the lady with a somewhat bruised ego will quickly relate to anyone within earshot about how her and her kids were assaulted by a pedophile in the park. Then they will go on and tell more people, "Hey did you here about the pedophile prowling for kids in the park?" and so on. I would not be surprised if it is because of these kinds of incidents that many people have such beliefs about the widespread nature of pedophiles and child predators.

I would like to see the statistics on crimes against children to see if they are on the rise significantly and what kind of cameras, if any, the criminal used. I'd also add that taking pictures of children in public is not a crime no matter who takes the picture and no matter the reason behind taking the picture (what is done with it can be - use for commercial purposes etc.). I get the feeling that many people make it a crime in their mind because the photographer's motives are suspect. The fact is that you can't know their motives you can only judge based on their actions. If their actions are in accordance with the law then they ought to be treated like any other person out in public. Now if they're leering at you or the kids or doing weird things they should be steered clear of, but those are actions. I'm just saying you can't know their intent yet many people behave as though they can and try to control people's behavior based on that. Could you imagine a woman verbally assaulting a man because she 'felt' he was undressing her in his mind? It's the same thing.

[Tbirder]

Interesting. There is a big difference between people taking photos (without trying to hide the fact - if they were acting suspicious I'd respond differently) and a guy with a camera in his shoe (not taking photos of little kids, but women I assume).

Also, I'm not inviting these people to stay overnight.

Pervert does not (always) equal pedophile too. I'd guess the guy you mentioned is not a pedophile, just a pervert who likes to (rather immaturely) look up woman's skirts. You never know though, so it's better to err on the side of caution.

I know you should always be careful with your kids (I certainly am, I almost beat up some guy for talking to my daughter). But we can use our brain a little too. ;)).

You're exactly right. My point wasn't the difference bewteen the Op and the shoe cam, but more about trust. I was too trusting, naive even, fortunately nothing bad happened but I learned a big lesson.

I should have used my brain too :), but my point was that we can be too trusting, it's human nature. Obviously the OP's woman in the park was quite the opposite. Was she wrong? In the way she handled it, yes; she overreacted and made a bad assumption, but we don't know if she had a bad experience prior.

[skygod44]

It's unfortunate that we can't have a reasonable discussion on an important subject like this.

If the tone of the thread doesn't improve soon, I will declare this a failed social experiment, and lock the thread.

Your choice, everyone.

Thank you for intervening. This is a VERY IMPORTANT thread, and members making personal attacks, or beginning to get "political" is below us.

So, let's discuss the issues for the OP.

The whole pedophile issue is not going to go away. We, as decent people need to educate and be educated about this problem and deal with it on a case-by-case basis.

Whether that means "country-by-country" or not is immaterial. I live in Japan and the laws here are very odd (about almost everything, actually!) but the point is to NOT GET INTO THESE SITUATIONS WITH IRATE PARENTS.

1. Children must be protected from real pedophiles. I hope we all agree on that.
2. Photographs of kids are priceless. I think even overly sensitive parents agree with that.

So, act like a pro, and develop your social skills. If you REALLY WANT to take pictures of some kids playing, they're not likely to stop playing anytime soon, so look for their parent/guardian and go up to them! You've a good chance they'll be flattered. Offer them a print or two. Explain what/why/how you want to take pictures.

If the shot is more difficult, and/or there is no obvious parent around, be cautious in your behaviour.

Perverts (I doubt very much!) would carry around enormous white lenses stuck on expensive gear. They don't get their "jollies" from high res, well saturated, artistically composed and timed images.

We need to explain that, if someone looks at us in a suspicious way.

Taking candid shots should be "ok", but not if the result is constant suspicion about our personalities and motives.

I hope that's made my feelings clear, and yes, I have been interviewed by a head teacher about me taking pictures of students in my own schools!

I hated the secondary accusation, "you're a pervert, aren't you?!" but dealt with it maturely and now have no problems.

[Stealthy Ninja]

You're exactly right. My point wasn't the difference bewteen the Op and the shoe cam, but more about trust. I was too trusting, naive even, fortunately nothing bad happened but I learned a big lesson.

I should have used my brain too :), but my point was that we can be too trusting, it's human nature. Obviously the OP's woman in the park was quite the opposite. Was she wrong? In the way she handled it, yes; she overreacted and made a bad assumption, but we don't know if she had a bad experience prior.

At some point you do need to trust people. But, you're right, don't be naive in trusting. :)

Like the guy who was talking to my daughter (he had his hand on her shoulder and was a little to close to her in my opinion + my daughter looked a bit scared) I had no problem yelling at that guy and asking him in a loud voice what he was doing (getting attention from others and keeping a potential pervert away). I came close to beating up that guy but I had to use my brain (not worth going to jail over if I'm wrong). I did follow him for a while and look for a policeman (never there when you need them). But he got away.

Another time, some women were smiling at my kids (the women were sitting in a ride in Disneyland and my kids were lining up for that ride). They took some P&S shots of my kids. I quite deliberately pointed my (comparatively) large gripped 40D with 200mm 2.8L lens (and hood) right at them. It stopped them and got my point across without me yelling or trying to grab their camera (a la OP's story). Ah brain, you did it again. :lol:

So, my point is: Brains are good. :)

[Flame]

great thread

are there any Aussies here who could shine some light on how the OP would sit with Australian law in this regard?

ta
These don't really cover that type of situation but:

I found a site by the Aust'n Sports Commission about taking photos of children at sporting events but it includes a brief summary of our law - http://www.ausport.gov.au/supporting/ethics/policy_and_resources/hfs/harassment-free_sport_information_sheet_series/images_of_children

This one is specific to NSW but it could be similar in other states http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php

[Wilt]

This can be a very complex issue. I suggest that everyone review this article in The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/10/privacy_breach/) and consider what it says before continuing to argue what they wish the world situation actually was. You may wish to argue your rights (on either side of the issue), but you have no assurance that local jurisprudence will agree with you. If it doesn't, you're possibly looking at a criminal conviction which will have serious repercussions down the road, even if you don't spend time in jail. This was a no-win situation for all parties. The best approach there is to find a way to let everyone walk away from it intact.


Certainly anyone held up for ridicule, as an example of poor taste, poor manners, poor style of dress, etc. is walking on thin ice for the publication, for such defamatory uses! It would be interesting to hear the same story with regard to citizens held up as examples of Joe or Jane Average out with the family, enjoying the zoo or park, etc. where the intention is not to hold them out as 'below average' in any regard. I think the story would have been written quite differently.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Certainly anyone held up for ridicule, as an example of poor taste, poor manners, poor style of dress, etc. is walking on thin ice for the publication, for such defamatory uses!

As my lawyer friend once told me. It's not defamation if it's true.

If it's a matter of opinion, then you've got your grey area.

[lanno]

These don't really cover that type of situation but:

I found a site by the Aust'n Sports Commission about taking photos of children at sporting events but it includes a brief summary of our law - http://www.ausport.gov.au/supporting/ethics/policy_and_resources/hfs/harassment-free_sport_information_sheet_series/images_of_children

This one is specific to NSW but it could be similar in other states http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php


many thanks, Flame!

both very useful links - the 2nd was a particulary good read

cheers

m

[cdifoto]

I don't have much to lose so I'd be standing up for myself (without breaking the law), even if it means an inconvenient trip to the local police station to further explain the situation. I'd also keep the image(s) since they're evidence at that point, and I'd be taking more pics...of her, her car's license plate, etc. I wouldn't be worried about my gear. If she breaks it while assaulting me, she'll be required to replace it as part of the defamation and bodily injury lawsuit I bring against her.

The attention's already been drawn by the lady. Scurrying away only makes you look guilty.