ebiggs wrote in post #17777411
It may not be a legal question but a moral one. There are "laws' that are higher than Man's Laws! What if your innocent picture was used to abduct or threaten or bully or some other ugly thing to a child. And why in the world do you want a picture of somebody else's kid? There is name for that individual. Don't make it yours.
ebiggs, that's exactly my point.... i'm talking about the moral issue, except that i hold the complete opposite viewpoint from you. to me it's morally wrong to tell photographers not to take pictures of your kids. to me pictures of kids are no different than pictures of adults. i am sure the percentage of pictures used for nefarious purposes is astronomically low--probably almost none of them as a percentage of all that are taken. this fear of pictures of your kids being used to harm them is perpetuated by this sort of thinking. it is your right to take the pictures--defend your rights.
tell me, do you think it's wrong for men to take pictures of women walking about on the street? i am sure the chances of those pictures being viewed sexually is a zillion times more probable than pictures of kids. should we ban that then?
Another thing to remember people can sue you for anything. It doesn't have to be an illegal act. In England loser's pay for the court costs but in the US no such law. People think about it. In the US, that is why there are so many cases.
not exactly true. in america the court can order the loser to pay lawyer costs. however, i talked this over with a lawyer friend, and it seems it's kinda a case-by-case basic and somewhat subjective. apparently it's up to the judge to award such fees, and it depends on how justified the case was.
my friend explained the reason they make it subjective like this is to not discourage legitimate lawsuits, otherwise people would be too scared to sue even if they were wronged, for fear that if they lose against say a big corporation, that they would lose too much.