Are kids off-limit when you shoot "street"?

[AutumnJazz]

On another website, a huge debate was sparked over ethical questions of street photography, in and of itself. I'm interested in a more specific issue regarding street photography, and that would be the photography of children, in public, with or without their (or their parent's) consent.

Do you think it is ethical to do so? What problems do you have with such shooting, if any? What if someone else was shooting your (real or hypothetical) kids?

Really, I want to know your thoughts and I want to have an interesting conversation, if not civilized debate.

In my opinion, it is fine. Look at Diane Arbus' wonderful photos. I don't do it myself because, honestly, I want to avoid confrontation with irate parents.

I am only talking about photography of children for artistic purposes, by the way.

[stathunter]

I am certainly not an attorney - but I have found that photos taken of people on public streets are open for the taking -- when you photograph for journalistic purposes the door is even open a bit more.

[AutumnJazz]

I know it is legal, but I want to know if people think it is ethical.

[sjones]

In an overarching sense, it is not unethical; and some people who are adamantly opposed to it would possibly be less resistant if discovering that the photographer was female.

That said, I do not shoot children, because as a male, I just do not feel like causing anyone any undue stress. However, I would not impose this personal restriction on others, and frankly, for historic and sociological purposes, let alone sentimental, it would be unfortunate if candid shots of kids ceased.

[Hamlet]

Legally, if someone is outside, and it is legal for you to stand there, it is legal for you to take a picture. I had someone in a public park scream at me becasue I pointed a camera at them. Tough.

As for children, I don;t take pictures of them for three reasons. The first is that although I like the children of some of my friends, that is not a blanket love of children. Some of them are quite tedious, and the are always noisy. Secondly, taking pictures of children can sometimes cause them to "perform" for the camera, and that could cause them to get hurt. Think 14 year old with skateboard. Finally, I am a 51 year old unmarried man walking about with a camera taking pictues of people's kinds. It can draw the wrong type of attention that I don't need in order to get pictures of some little snot monster. But this is just my opinion.

[Streetshooter]

Arbus...hmmmm
Well, let's see...that was a different world when she made images. Today with the internet, all the creeps and peds are out there and that makes it dangerous to make images of kids. It's not a legal or even an ethical issue. It's more a moral and safety issue.

For over 40 years with all the images I've made, very few have been of kids. The reason probably is that I find the Lost Innocence of adults more interesting. The world is no longer a safe place......

My opinion but many parents/grand parents appreciate it....
shooter

[justincase724]

I think in the world we live in today, parents have every reason to frown on some random person taking pictures of their kids in public without any permission. Legally, I think a photographer is free to take all the pictures he/she wants of children in a public place. Morally, I feel that asking the parents first would be the right thing to do, and even offer to give the parents copies of the photos you take. After all, what parent doesn't want candid pictures of their kids? I for one love children, and love watching them play and interact with those around them (especially real young children). They are quite entertaining.

[AutumnJazz]

@Streetshooter: How is an image of a child morally corrupt? How would an image of a child endanger it?

[FlyingPhotog]

@Streetshooter: How is an image of a child morally corrupt? How would an image of a child endanger it?

+1 on this question.

Pervs exsisted prior to digital photography (or photography of any kind for that matter) and they'll exsist well into the era of holographic imaging and mind melding.

There was another thread discussing similar points as this one and it was pointed out that "child endagerment" is far more likely from family and close aquaintences than it is from complete strangers (cameras not withstanding...)

[kevindar]

I dont do street photography. However, I was with my 2 year old daughter, playing in a park, and taking some pictures of her. she started playing with a 4 year old girl, and I asked her mom if its ok for me to take pictures of them. She said yes, but thank you for asking. I used to go to family birthday parties, and being known as the "photographer" I would take pictures of everyone. Then I was told by a couple of my close friends that they would prefer if I did not post them on my picasa page (no page or ID included of course).
So I think I agree with Sjones the most. Though it is legal, and I think a lot of the fear and concern is unfounded, I have limited my children photography to my own kid (which I share on these forums frequently) and the kids of my first degree relatives.

[Streetshooter]

@Streetshooter: How is an image of a child morally corrupt? How would an image of a child endanger it?


The photo is not morally corrupt but bear in mind.....

Most photographers today make images and post some place on the web.....
The web is where the morally corrupt use of the image happens.....
All the peds, abusers etc have access to those images....

It may not be the intent of the photographer but it could be used by some one else in their morally corrupt intent....
Shooter

[arnie12]

The photo is not morally corrupt but bear in mind.....

Most photographers today make images and post some place on the web.....
The web is where the morally corrupt use of the image happens.....
All the peds, abusers etc have access to those images....

It may not be the intent of the photographer but it could be used by some one else in their morally corrupt intent....
Shooter
How?

[Streetshooter]

How?


Well,
Whenever a Pedophile gets busted...a search of his computer usually brings up hundreds or even thousands of photos of kids....

Now,... it's easy to become immune to this sort of thing but if you looked at his photos and came across a photo of YOUR kid on his computer, well...then it would be a rude awakening.....

I'm just stating that the world is not always a pretty place just because we photograph it that way....
The DEVIL lurks among us and one can never be too careful.....

Just watch Nancy Grace on CNN when a kid goes missing....hmm, that's almost all the time

Shooter

[arnie12]

Well,
Now,... it's easy to become immune to this sort of thing but if you looked at his photos and came across a photo of YOUR kid on his computer, well...then it would be a rude awakening.....

Obviously, nobody would like this to happen. However, at least in the States, it can happen and, assuming it's an innocent picture taken on the street, there is nothing illegal being done as well. BTW, I would frown upon it regardless of the sexual orientation of the owner of said picture. For me, that's irrelevant.

The situation in Germany IS different, but that's beside the point here.

[FlyingPhotog]

Well,
Whenever a Pedophile gets busted...a search of his computer usually brings up hundreds or even thousands of photos of kids....

Now,... it's easy to become immune to this sort of thing but if you looked at his photos and came across a photo of YOUR kid on his computer, well...then it would be a rude awakening.....

I'm just stating that the world is not always a pretty place just because we photograph it that way....
The DEVIL lurks among us and one can never be too careful.....

Just watch Nancy Grace on CNN when a kid goes missing....hmm, that's almost all the time

Shooter

Barf...

As a broadcast professional for over 20 years, Nancy Grace is #1 on my list of reasons to never tell anyone I work in television. :rolleyes:

[Lowner]

I don't shoot street and I don't shoot kids. No moral reason, I'm just not very good at it and it does not excite me.

However I would have no hesitation in shooting whatever I want to in a public place. Anything and everything is fair game.

[Mintie]

In an overarching sense, it is not unethical; and some people who are adamantly opposed to it would possibly be less resistant if discovering that the photographer was female.

That said, I do not shoot children, because as a male, I just do not feel like causing anyone any undue stress. However, I would not impose this personal restriction on others, and frankly, for historic and sociological purposes, let alone sentimental, it would be unfortunate if candid shots of kids ceased.

As a male also, my thoughts precisely.

We live in a completely different time and mindset than when the likes of Arbus were shooting. Sad but true.

I have a female photographer friend who regularly approaches complete strangers in the street and asks them whether they would like to pose for glamour images.

I imagine if I did that, I'd likely end up arrested.

[Lowner]

This "political correctness" needs to be resisted, otherwise it becomes the accepted normal behavior. It's not just shooting children, in London the police are misbehaving, stopping photographers and taking cameras from people who are doing nothing more than sightseeing (using the terrorism act as an excuse). Currently they are having to return cameras and make groveling apologies, but we have to fight the crazies, otherwise they will win!

A UK Photo magazine (AP) has repeatedly requested stop and search figures from the Metropolitan Police under the Freedom of Information rules, but the Met are refusing to release the information.

[arnie12]

@Lowner: You are 100% correct! Unfortunately.:mad::confused::cry::eek:

[AutumnJazz]

Well,
Whenever a Pedophile gets busted...a search of his computer usually brings up hundreds or even thousands of photos of kids....

Now,... it's easy to become immune to this sort of thing but if you looked at his photos and came across a photo of YOUR kid on his computer, well...then it would be a rude awakening.....

I'm just stating that the world is not always a pretty place just because we photograph it that way....
The DEVIL lurks among us and one can never be too careful.....

Just watch Nancy Grace on CNN when a kid goes missing....hmm, that's almost all the time

Shooter
So we should ban Nickelodeon and keep kids inside 24/7?

So what if someone gets off to a picture. Seriously. No harm is being done. Sure, it is creepy, but so what?

[Streetshooter]

So we should ban Nickelodeon and keep kids inside 24/7?

So what if someone gets off to a picture. Seriously. No harm is being done. Sure, it is creepy, but so what?


Geeze...that's a great way to look at things....

[StellaBean]

So we should ban Nickelodeon and keep kids inside 24/7?

So what if someone gets off to a picture. Seriously. No harm is being done. Sure, it is creepy, but so what?


because that's typically only the beginning for a pedophile. eventually the pictures aren't enough. You ought to find that website that shows the registered sex offenders living in your area. I happen to have half a dozen living within a 10 mile radius. I also live less than 2 miles from an elementary school. I personally find it very disturbing that a grown adult is finding sexual pleasure from a picture of children. It's quite alarming that you don't.

ON TOPIC:
As an adult that takes photographs, I say public is public. I'm shooting what I want.
As a parent, I say don't you dare take pictures of MY kids.
A conundrum indeed. I just stick to birds and my OWN kids.

[arnie12]

because that's typically only the beginning for a pedophile.
This is bull****. Scientific studies show this to be a lie.

[StellaBean]

This is bull****. Scientific studies show this to be a lie.

link? source?

[Lowner]

StellaBean,

While I can see why you think that, you must understand that the general public have a perfect legal right to take whatever pictures they want in a public place. By preventing that YOU are breaking the law, not them. And come on, take a picture of a cute 5 year old engrossed in building a sandcastle on the beach and next thing you are a Pedophile?

[StellaBean]

StellaBean,

While I can see why you think that, you must understand that the general public have a perfect legal right to take whatever pictures they want in a public place. By preventing that YOU are breaking the law, not them. And come on, take a picture of a cute 5 year old engrossed in building a sandcastle on the beach and next thing you are a Pedophile?

that isn't what I said at all. As a parent I don't want people taking pics of MY kids. as a photographer, I know there's nothing wrong with it. I never said I prevented it. I also never said people who take pics of kids ARE pedophiles.

I think you completely misread my posts.

[arnie12]

link? source?
I assume you're referring to the quote I referred to? I am interested in that as well.

[oaktree]

I limit my children shooting to "tourist" areas like aquariums, zoos, etc. I guess the only street shooting would be in Waikiki.

But, I always shoot the children with their "parents", or at least an adult in the frame. This is easy to do in at an aquarium since parents are usually with their kids. I have many shots of a "parent" holding a child up to the front of the aquarium looking at jelly fish, sea horses, etc, with most of the light coming from the aquarium.

Since I've not posted any photos on the net, I still have full control of the photos.

[StellaBean]

I assume you're referring to the quote I referred to? I am interested in that as well.

I didn't note "scientific studies" in my posts. YOU did. I was inquiring about the links and/or sources you had for the scientific studies that claim bull***.

[3Honu]

My $.02...
History; I'm a dad, a cop and a photographer.

As a dad, I better know you before you take pics of my kids. The cop part of me knows why some people take pictures of kids in public (http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1717011.php) (he was found guilty and thankfully lost his job).

As a cop I have watched people taking pictures of people in public. I just want to make sure they are on the up and up. I have yet to even suspect anyone of innapropriate behavior. And please, lets remember this is a kid taking picture question not a "he took my camera away while I was taking pictures of the Sears tower" thread.

As a photographer I don't take pics of kids in public, PERIOD. I will take pictures of all the family members but it doesn't go on the net without permission.

[Karl Johnston]

I think a lot of kids are boring, as photography subjects, to be honest..like why would anyone want to take a picture of a kid if its not theres? That's what I wonder. If someone's taking pictures of my kids randomly at a park I'd be kinda creeped out and ask him what the **** he was doing.

[arnie12]

I didn't note "scientific studies" in my posts. YOU did. I was inquiring about the links and/or sources you had for the scientific studies that claim bull***.
So I am not your librarian. Too bad for you.

Do you think the following scenario is likely and is happening a lot?
1. Man sees a picture of a pretty girl in a skimpy dress.
2. Man wants to rape said girl.
3. Man finds out where this girls lives.
4. Man rapes girl.

If yes, I've got news for you: Men are able to control their feelings just as women can. In fact, your thinking (there is at least one other woman who thinks so and she is the minister of family affairs in Germany :confused::() is highly insulting for most men.

[3Honu]

Arnie, Stella was just asking you to back up your claim with facts. I see nothing wrong with that. If you can't back it up with facts then just say so. Relax

[arnie12]

because that's typically only the beginning for a pedophile. eventually the pictures aren't enough.

Arnie, Stella was just asking you to back up your claim with facts. I see nothing wrong with that. If you can't back it up with facts then just say so. Relax
This was Stellas original quote and I find this quote very offensive and worthy of an apology. I asked, perhaps not clear enough. to back this claim up. The problem with the original quote is that, apparently, many women think is very likely to happen. We, man, however, that this is bull****. The worst thing that the orignal quote is also misused by politicians to justify all kind of nasty censorship laws....

[RDKirk]

Arnie, Stella was just asking you to back up your claim with facts. I see nothing wrong with that. If you can't back it up with facts then just say so. Relax

Both sides need supporting evidence, otherwise they are merely individual opinions. Western cultures are clearly moving toward a "morality" of street photography in general and photography of children in particular being a "taboo." I used the word "taboo" because even though it may become a social moral norm, there may not be anything particularly rational about it. There is nothing any more rational about Western cultures fearing photography than there is about "primative" cultures fearing photography.

I have a copy of a photograph taken of two black men in the American South in the 30s. These men had been lynched, their bodies burned. The entire town was picnicking under the hanging, charred bodies, posing and smiling for the camera, men, women, and children. Torture and murder as a social, "moral" act, right here in the USA.

Social morality has little do to with personal ethics, and could be "wrong." The morals of a particular society are not laws of nature.

[DDCSD]

In my opinion, it is fine. Look at Diane Arbus' wonderful photos.

I'm not sure that I would clarify Diane Airbus' works as "street" photography.

If you are posing and photographing people to make them appear as something that they are not, I personally think it is unethical. This is something that Airbus often did and is why I would not consider he work to be "street" photography. But I guess you can call it art and then of course all is fair.

If you're simply walking around town occasionally snapping a kid doing something cute or funny, then of course its fine. Unfortunately the Nancy Grace's of the world have everyone so paranoid that its almost as if they think the camera will kidnap their children.

I do think that there is a certain amount of tact needed. I mean, you don't sit there snapping away at someone else's kids, but the quick snap and move on shouldn't get anyone worried.

[StellaBean]

This was Stellas original quote and I find this quote very offensive and worthy of an apology. I asked, perhaps not clear enough. to back this claim up. The problem with the original quote is that, apparently, many women think is very likely to happen. We, man, however, that this is bull****. The worst thing that the orignal quote is also misused by politicians to justify all kind of nasty censorship laws....

I stated my opinion. you find it offensive.. "too bad for you".

you stated a "scientific study". ... where's your source? I also never said YOU were a pedophile for photographing children.. so I'm not sure why you are offended. I noted an opinion, no backing up necessary.

Both sides need supporting evidence, otherwise they are merely individual opinions.

Never portrayed my post as anything other than opinion.

[3Honu]

I was escorting a convicted child rapist one time. He had just been convicted and was going to state prison. While I was walking with him he volunteered to me that his 10 year old female victim asked for the sexual contact because of the dress she wore. Apparently it was a nice sun dress, or so he said.

Where did his proclivities begin? Who knows. But based on my training, and experience I will opine it was small and perhaps seemingly innocent. Maybe we should outlaw JC Penny and Sears catalogues? I keed

[Lowner]

3Honu,

Your job has affected your judgement as of course its bound to. All the police and ex police I know seriously believe that everyone is a criminal and that this outlook on life is the only sensible one. The case you quote reads very differently to me than it does to you. I see a sick mind, by all means protect society by seperating him from it, but don't assume that society needs laws preventing the distribution of Penny and Sears catalogues.

I realise (hope) you were joking, but the way things are going, the Metropolitan Police here are taking your line of thought to ridiculous limits and I hope will suffer because of it.

[HMetal]

This is rather ridiculous and a lot of people overreacting. I shoot children in parks all the time. Some are planned shoots, others are candids. NONE of them are either illegal nor perverted.

Children enjoying their world, doing what is natural and not some stupid world of perversion is a thing to be celebrated, not feared.

The mere statement that it is wrong to photograph children in a candid setting is wrong in itself.

We can thank the movies and the pedophiles for creating this atmosphere. It is a crying shame to overreact to someone in a park shooting people, whether children or otherwise.

Yes, pedophiles exist. Yes, they are a VERY small percentage of our population. Yes, studies show that most of the time it is family members that have this disease (or whatever label you choose to place on it in order to diagnose and deal with it)

NO, we should not let it affect the intentions of an innocuous photographer attempting to learn his craft or capture the innocence of childhood.

YES, we should respect parents' wishes with respect to their children.

We need to stop labelling photographers as anything BUT a "photographer" unless proven otherwise.

With respect to the UK police, PLEASE keep us updated on that. As long as those idiots are pulling this crap, you will help us decide whether or not we want to chance a visit to the UK for vacation. If cops are doing this, I sure won't add it to my list of photography destinations. Good job on killing tourism by the UK police. Maybe if you hit them where it counts, in tourism dollars, someone will put a stop to these illegal searches and equipment seizures.

...my great nephew, Gabriel, a candid shot captured as he ran around the park playing, during an otherwise planned shoot with his parents present. It could be a candid for all anyone knows or cares.. You cannot see the object but he is dissecting and examining a flower bud he just picked off a plant in the park .. CHILD INNOCENCE. Anyone who perverts it shouldn't exist on this earth.

http://luminescentmemories.com/showphoto.php?pid=197

[focus.pocus]

as an american in Europe for the summer I don't find these issues here. Seems to be an american hangup. we have become the nation of the offended. I know peds are out there but it's our own fault. I try to avoid taking pics of kids anyway. they are annoying for the most part.

[Lowner]

focus.pocus,

Yes, Europe has a refreshingly relaxed attitude to most things. The thinking seems to be "If you want to kill yourself doing that, and it's not hurting us, then go ahead. We might even watch."

Sadly the UK seems hell bent on following the US down whatever crazy lane it goes.

[sjones]

So I can take candid photos of people in public in France? Also, from what I have read, albeit anecdotal in nature, when it comes to authorities overreacting to photographers, the UK leads, not follows, the United States.

[arnie12]

Please note that a pedophile is not the same as a child abuser. Most pedophiles can keep themselves in check and lots of child abusers are close family (classic example: young mother with newborn child).

Also note that taking pictures of people in public places is sometimes forbidden in Europe (most notably in Germany), so I cannot follow the remarks regarding the relaxed attitude in Europe so well.

[Lowner]

sjones,

Not sure you could put a piece of paper into the gap between them! My experience of the rest of Europe is that they are much more laid back. Not just about this, but about almost anything.

Example: My wife has relations in France, who have as neighbours a pair of practising English homosexuals. The pair are very popular inthe village as baby sitters, despite the whole village knowing all about the pairs background. Back here in the UK, they have been beaten up on a number of occasions.

[sjones]

sjones,

Not sure you could put a piece of paper into the gap between them!...
Fair enough.

[RDKirk]

Sadly the UK seems hell bent on following the US down whatever crazy lane it goes.

With regard to fear of photographing children, the UK has been ahead of the US for some time. In the US, it's more an issue of photographing public buildings.

[advaitin]

This is a thread that strikes home with me. A couple of examples. While walking around the city our cruise ship docked at in Tenerife, while we were having a beer at the streetside tables of a cafe, a group of kids began a football game on the blocked off street. A couple of the boys (although there were also girls) were very good so I began taking a few pictures trying to catch the action. In the meantime two different photographers came up and began posing individual children, even asking them to hold the ball rather than shoot the play. One of the girls was very attractive and a woman photographer began posing her, sitting on the wall and lounging around. Very soon a local woman came out and told the children to go home and berated me for taking pictures of children because I was the only one left with a camera.

In the London park that has the statue of Peter Pan and the Diana memorial, I shot pictures of the kids climbing on the statue, but the only one I have ever posted is one where the child's face is not clear. Yet, this is one of the most innocent of situations and a real "only in England" moment. I would have liked to have shot some images at the circular waterway that makes up the Diana memorial, but did not because there was no way to do so without the possibility of recording a half-nude child or one with thin wet clothing showing all, since it was a hot sunny day--just my bad luck to be in London when the weather was nice.

If you have a camera and you are male, you are almost automatically suspect. Here in the states, I've been accosted by a parent when I was shooting my own grandkids at a public event. The girls had been part of a ballet school presentation and I had shot not only them, during the presentation, but all the members of the school to give to the teacher. Later I was simply following mine around shooting them on rides and at the rock-climbing wall when the parent accused me of being some kind of pervert.

It is easy to show such people what you are actually shooting and explain yourself (unless you speak a different language), but is also a painful sign of the times for which I have no solution.

[jerseyfinn]

+1 on this question.

Pervs exsisted prior to digital photography (or photography of any kind for that matter) and they'll exsist well into the era of holographic imaging and mind melding.

Additionally, I don't believe that pervs would be looking at the sort of street candids I assume we are speaking of here.

Then again, this opens the door to the difference between perversion and fetish. Here in lies the problem with an "ethical" approach. One could exhaust themselves debating self-esteem/individualism/open society/altrusim/art and a few hundred other ways to describe/debate ethos and what constitutes "appropriate" behavior.

Better to snap the picture if it feels "right" to you especially if in a public venue as your context is clear. My style of candids are quick, spontaneous grabs. But I also don't feel like having a pissing contest with an "aggrieved" parent, so I generally look past kids, but not always. If the moment fits the way I work & what I feel/see in that instant, I'll grab an image of anyone and I'll trust that my true motivation speaks for itself in pixels . I do believe the original question, interesting but I don't think a definitive answer will be arrived at. It's all in our shutter fingers.

Gotta go now and put my trench coat on and go out & flash some grandmothers ;)

Barry

[HMetal]

Gotta go now and put my trench coat on and go out & flash some grandmothers ;)

Barry

You're the culprit! Granny is still having nightmares. Shame on you! :lol:

[LordBrian]

Parenthood - when you loose a little bit of reasoning...

About this time last year I was walking along the canal doing some wildlife stuff, it's quite popular and I often see several other photographers on my walks. It's usually a quiet walk with the odd nod and maybe a hello now and again so anything above that level is going to attract attention. The next thing I hear is a women not so much screaming more screeching at this photographer and, what I suspect was, his wife/girlfriend about taking pictures of their children. As I pass the photographers I shrug my shoulders and show my empathy with their plight.

Now for the irony, I tend to do an up and down walk and on my way back about two hours later I see the same family about 20ft from a road bridge, no longer on their bikes and not moving. As I get closer I realise that they have the little girl lower half naked and doing what nature called. Now I really wanted to say something to them about it but thought better of it.

Just seems odd that you don't want somebody to take a picture of your kid because you read or more likely saw to many stories in the press yet your quite happy to let them p*** over a public footpath....

[DDCSD]

Just seems odd that you don't want somebody to take a picture of your kid because you read or more likely saw to many stories in the press yet your quite happy to let them p*** over a public footpath....


:lol::lol::lol:

[dgoakill]

For me, no one is off limits in public. taking a shot of a kid in public is fine as long as you aren't a weirdo about it. I wouldn't cross into a playground full of children just to get some shots, but a kid on a street corner or sidewalk is fair game. Likewise, standing at the fence with a giant lens is equally off putting, regardless of the subject matter (in a large populated place).

This goes for any and all activity that occurs in a public place.

My son was photographed in the park two months ago by a stranger (he was 11 months at the time) while he and I were laying on a blanket. I yelled at the photographer, not because he was taking our picture, but because he was a terrible street photographer. He actually hid behind a tree and kept peeking around the corner with a 70-300 lens. I told him he'd never make as street shooter unless he ditched the long lens and grabbed a wide angle. Grow some balls and come up to us and shoot instead of hiding in the bushes. I think the poor guy almost wet himself.

*edit - looking thorough my shots I have quite a bit of street shots involving children.......never even thought about it or noticed it until reading this thread.

[Streetshooter]

dgoakill,
Here in Philly, as you know....people get shot for much less than that....
shooter

[dgoakill]

dgoakill,
Here in Philly, as you know....people get shot for much less than that....
shooter

yeah I know, but this happened in Rritten house sq. so I wasn't too worried.

[3Honu]

3Honu,

Your job has affected your judgement as of course its bound to. All the police and ex police I know seriously believe that everyone is a criminal and that this outlook on life is the only sensible one. The case you quote reads very differently to me than it does to you. I see a sick mind, by all means protect society by seperating him from it, but don't assume that society needs laws preventing the distribution of Penny and Sears catalogues.

I realise (hope) you were joking, but the way things are going, the Metropolitan Police here are taking your line of thought to ridiculous limits and I hope will suffer because of it.

I am not as jaded as most people think cops are. Nor are cops as jaded as the general citizenry thinks they are. Do I get to see the seedy side of life? Yep. I also get to see heroism and compassion on a grand scale. That being said, I know that it takes very little for a pedophile to get his jollies. Very specifically I know of at least two cases where men were caught in their vehicles masturbating to pictures of little children. The pictures were from children's clothing catalogues. So, do I think these catalogues should be banned? Not in the slightest. Hence the "I keed" in my last post. However, although it may not be right but every adult male with a camera in a park taking pictures of children that aren't his, is going to be suspect. Herein lies the rub (no pun intended). Can the parents approach the male in a nice manner and can the man answer them in an equally nice manner?

[HMetal]

I am not as jaded as most people think cops are. Nor are cops as jaded as the general citizenry thinks they are. Do I get to see the seedy side of life? Yep. I also get to see heroism and compassion on a grand scale. That being said, I know that it takes very little for a pedophile to get his jollies. Very specifically I know of at least two cases where men were caught in their vehicles masturbating to pictures of little children. The pictures were from children's clothing catalogues. So, do I think these catalogues should be banned? Not in the slightest. Hence the "I keed" in my last post. However, although it may not be right but every adult male with a camera in a park taking pictures of children that aren't his, is going to be suspect. Herein lies the rub (no pun intended). Can the parents approach the male in a nice manner and can the man answer them in an equally nice manner?

Absolutely. I am 100% approachable, always carry business cards in my pocket and have a copy of my municipal business license in my van. I also have a small 5x6" portfolio of my professional work (including kids I've shot) in my van.

I always happy to talk to anyone about my work, whether it is a parent questioning my intentions or a jealous boyfriend who thinks I'm taking perverted photos of his lady.

None of the above has happened to me. I have never been questioned about my intentions (yet), but I can handle the situation if it arises. Cooler heads always prevail.

[onebikeonehorseone5D]

If you're not a sicko........take pictures.

If you are a sicko.....don't take the pictures.


bw!

[S.n.a.f.u.]

let your conscience be your guide is the best i can say. if you feel bad about it then pass if you feel no issues with it then run with it.

always trust your gut feeling

[arnie12]

Very specifically I know of at least two cases where men were caught in their vehicles masturbating to pictures of little children. The pictures were from children's clothing catalogues.
Is this forbidden?

[Lowner]

Apparently.

[wickerprints]

Is this forbidden?

If the vehicle is situated on public property, or the interior is visible with the naked eye from public property, yes. Such an act falls under indecent exposure. Being in your car, if it does not shield you from being seen, is not sufficient protection from citation or arrest.

[Lowner]

My comment was stupid, am I able to recant? You are absolutely right.

[arnie12]

If the vehicle is situated on public property, or the interior is visible with the naked eye from public property, yes. Such an act falls under indecent exposure. Being in your car, if it does not shield you from being seen, is not sufficient protection from citation or arrest.
Ok, but in the original quote there is only the term "caught". For all we know, it could have been in their own garage:eek:. Although, that does seem far fetched.

Interestingly, according to the logic of some, this does mean that such catalogs should be banned as child pornography and their producers, photographers charged as such.... :p:cool:

[wickerprints]

Ok, but in the original quote there is only the term "caught". For all we know, it could have been in their own garage:eek:. Although, that does seem far fetched.

Interestingly, according to the logic of some, this does mean that such catalogs should be banned as child pornography and their producers, photographers charged as such.... :p:cool:

Note I did not say anything about the nature of the masturbatory content. The basis of the charge would be the same had they been getting off to, say, a furniture catalog, or nothing at all.

[3Honu]

Arnie is correct

[DDCSD]

Absolutely. I am 100% approachable, always carry business cards in my pocket and have a copy of my municipal business license in my van. I also have a small 5x6" portfolio of my professional work (including kids I've shot) in my van.

I always happy to talk to anyone about my work, whether it is a parent questioning my intentions or a jealous boyfriend who thinks I'm taking perverted photos of his lady.

None of the above has happened to me. I have never been questioned about my intentions (yet), but I can handle the situation if it arises. Cooler heads always prevail.



I'm sorry, but I got a chuckle out of this. I can just imagine

"Hey, are you some kind of pervert, taking photos of my child!??"

"No, I'm not. I promise, would you like to come over to my van and see the photos I have taken in the past?"


I'm just kidding around, but I thought it read kind of funny. Kind of like "Come see my van that I drive around while I take pictures of kids". ;)

[LordBrian]

I'm just kidding around, but I thought it read kind of funny. Kind of like "Come see my van that I drive around while I take pictures of kids". ;)

Now you made me snort coffee up my nose laughing....

Sometimes we take life just way to seriously, thanks for making me laugh.

[onebikeonehorseone5D]

WO........This conversation took a turn.

[arnie12]

Note I did not say anything about the nature of the masturbatory content. The basis of the charge would be the same had they been getting off to, say, a furniture catalog, or nothing at all.
Jacking off to a furniture catalog? :eek:

Slightly off-topic: A story I read in the paper called NRC Handelsblad, a reputable dutch news paper. A long time ago (must have been 20 years ago or so), when only trade in child pornography was forbidden, a journalist got hold of a collection child pornography and was able to examine the contents. According to the article the collection could be split in three parts:
1. The first part consisted of naked children in obvious family settings, i.e. the picture most probably was taken by mom or dad and somehow got in the wrong hands.
2. The second part (and this the on topic part of the story) was pictures taken of children with a tele lens on the beach and so on.
3. The pictures every one associates with child pornography.

Parts 1 and 2 formed the biggest parts by far. Part 3 was quite small. The story also shows that people taking photographs of children do not always have innocent reasons for taking the pictures...

As a parent I would not like it if strangers take pictures of my daughter (although she is almost 14). In Germany, where we live, it is forbidden to take pictures of people without their consent, but it happens all the time.

[RDKirk]

As a parent I would not like it if strangers take pictures of my daughter (although she is almost 14). In Germany, where we live, it is forbidden to take pictures of people without their consent, but it happens all the time.

Yes, a social taboo equal in rationality to the "camera will steal your soul" taboo.

[arnie12]

Yes, a social taboo equal in rationality to the "camera will steal your soul" taboo.
You're possibly right. But in all honesty, I can relate to people feeling uneasy if a total stranger takes pictures of their children. OTOH, I take pictures of my daughter all the time and it is sometimes unavoidable or even wanted that her friends are in the frame as well. I never got a parent demanding that I delete pictures. Of course, in most of the cases, I am not a stranger....

However, lumping all men / street photographers in the child abusers corner is definitely going much too far and totally uncalled for.

[StellaBean]

However, lumping all men / street photographers in the child abusers corner is definitely going much too far and totally uncalled for.

Not sure if you're virtually pointing the finger at me here, but based on a previous post directed toward me by another member I feel I should clarify my posts. I never said a man taking pictures of children in public is a pedophile.

In fact I stated it's perfectly within a person's rights to do so, even I as a parent know that. I said I personally would not appreciate a stranger photographing my children. It has nothing to do with pedophilia whatsoever.

In my original post that you took issue with I said pedophiles typically wish to move past pictures. pedophiles. people already afflicted by pedophilia. Not photographers.

I'm well aware that there are men (and women) capable of photographing subjects in public, subjects of all age, race, gender, etc., without rushing home to jerk off to their photos. Just because someone is uncomfortable with strangers photographing them and/or their children doesn't mean we assume the photographer is a ne'er do well bringing evil to the land. It just means we don't want our pictures taken.

I hope that clears things up.

[HMetal]

I'm sorry, but I got a chuckle out of this. I can just imagine

"Hey, are you some kind of pervert, taking photos of my child!??"

"No, I'm not. I promise, would you like to come over to my van and see the photos I have taken in the past?"


I'm just kidding around, but I thought it read kind of funny. Kind of like "Come see my van that I drive around while I take pictures of kids". ;)


LOL. I transport the book in the van. I carry it with me when I go out to shoot.

Thanks for the laugh. :lol: