TEXAS LAW AGAINST IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #17204372
Why not reverse the situation?

The west can be a foreign country to some, who may consider a child in a bikini to be oversexualized. For them it would be a foreign concept and a social commentary on the way the natives of the land dress their tween children.

Whatever you have to tell yourself to justify that behavior... Reality being your hiding behind the cloak of art. Evil has always cloaked itself as something that it isnt, that is why the world is the way it is. Keep playing the Devils advocate and you end up his friend... Just sayin

If you can get yourself an art exhibit or published with that type of photo (hip shots of young girls Butts in public) I will eat my hat.

electricme wrote in post #17204795
Evil has always cloaked itself as something that it isnt, that is why the world is the way it is.

What? We were having a serious discussion here, about real things. Why bring in ideas about mysterious unseen forces?

electricme wrote in post #17204795
Evil has always cloaked itself as something that it isnt, that is why the world is the way it is.

Just so we're clear, you do realize that we can probably cite more instances from history where 'evil' sought to oppress freedom of expression and silence people than we can cite clear examples of 'evil' wanting to take photos of people while they are in public without their permission, right?

@lovemyram4x4, you're pics are clearly typical travel and event related shots. Nothing looks sneaky or inappropriate in these, and nothing suggest you were trying to be. I'd shoot these shots quite comfortably. Now if parents of the little boy were offended by having his picture taken, I would rather ease their mind and erase it, rather than cause distress for them.

Most parents seeing a shot like yours of their kid, would smile and be proud you chose their kid as being worthy of a picture. (We like to show off our kids). And ask how they can get a copy!

How we "present ourselves" is critical in this whole discussion. It is all a matter of respect.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's how most people would feel at least after seeing the the pictures. Probably even those that start question someone just because they have a big camera in the general area of their kids even if it wasn't pointed at them. I think with those that aren't familiar with cameras a lot of has to do with how things like movies have portrayed pervs with cameras and that big cameras can't see(as they like to say) anywhere near as far as they think. A small super zoom P&S would be a much better tool for doing what they're worried about.

I still don't get why a few that were posting int his thread earlier would have a problem with those shots and not understand why anyone want to take them if it's not of their own kids. Part of me just thinks they were trying to cause internet drama but how some people get questioned by other parents for just having a camera around theirs leads me to also believe they could be serious.

I'm trying to picture all that "evil art"
I must have missed that chapter in art history.

lovemyram4x4 wrote in post #17211336
I still don't get why a few that were posting int his thread earlier would have a problem with those shots and not understand why anyone want to take them if it's not of their own kids.

They never did explain it to my satisfaction, either. To try to understand, I have to speculate, so here are a couple of ideas off the top of my head.

1. For many people, capturing family memories is THE purpose of photography. They buy a camera when they have a baby, or they upgrade at that time. They don't empathize with people who make images for other reasons. It doesn't make sense to them that you'd want pictures of kids who aren't yours. They've heard about pedophiles' private use of pictures, though, and they think maybe that's what you're about. I think this last bit may be an easy mental jump for men in particular to make because they're familiar with a similar use of pictures of women.

2. In an indirect or symbolic way, photographing a person somewhat resembles predation. You select a target, you aim, you "shoot." The act can be construed as rude, almost as an assault, when the person isn't a knowing and willing participant. It has something in common with staring or pointing: you orient yourself toward the person and you direct intense attention at him or her. Staring, in fact, is considered rude when there's no prior relationship and no special circumstance such as watching a performer on stage or watching athletes in a game. Pointing is considered rude even when there is a prior relationship. Being stared at makes people nervous. I believe there's an evolutionary reason. Early humans lived near large, hungry carnivores. They needed to be alert to the constant threat of being eaten. Although photographers don't eat people, the physical situation of having something "looking" at you is enough like being stalked by a tiger that it can arouse a feeling that something bad is going to happen.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17179469
I suppose it depends a bit on how it's asked, and on whether I think I have the shot that I am after. But in general, no I wouldn't stop but tell the parent that I am a photographer, that this is a public place and that I am allowed to shoot people, including his child. I will be polite and respectful and will also explain why I am photographing his child, but I will also be persistent.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17197320
In my opinion, anyone taking photographs of buttocks, breasts, genitals outlined in a swimsuit etc. of people in public is crossing a line, regardless of sex and age of the subject.

Yet, I see photographers posting pics of women's buttocks and breasts, taken candidly on the street or on the beach, on a regular basis here on POTN and nobody says anything about it. So those of you, having such a hard time with people taking photographs of children, where's your protest when you see a woman having been photographed in a way that is inappropriate?

So you're all for the freedom of photogs to photograph whatever they seem fit as far as it's within the law, and are arguing with the parents you see as overly paranoid when they see you do something they define as creepy, but then you fully reverse yourself when some other photogs cross some imaginary line that you defined in your mind ? Even though such a line is not defined under the law.

So how are you different and more open minded from the people who object to their kids being photographed by a complete stranger ? Only because you drew your line a bit farther away ? Don't you see the hypocrisy ?

By the way, the parents have no idea exactly what the stranger is photographing, or how the images are going to be used.

The laws can't be perfect when it comes to such a complex issue. It's best to use common courtesy and common sense. If you're doing something you wouldn't want to publicly and loudly announce, perhaps it's better not to be doing it at all. I may have every God and Constitution given right to fart during a wedding ceremony, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Amamba wrote in post #17216348
I may have every God and Constitution given right to fart during a wedding ceremony, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Yep, that's basically what I was saying: the law should stay clear of moral issues. But that doesn't mean that a photographer doesn't have a certain responsibility.

The examples I gave were just to demonstrate where I myself draw the line. Nothing more.

Interesting read and I am very glad I found it. I am not someone who regularly takes photos of unknown children, or adults for that matter. But I am extremely happy that the right to do so is protected in the current overturning of the too broad law.
I am someone who believes strongly that rights are easy to give up and WAY to hard to get back. If we give up the right to photographs people in public, and that means actively fighting to keep the rights to do that, no matter the age of the subject, it is something we will never be able to get back.
I follow along the lines as some of the folks here that would hope that someone would ask permission to "Keep" a photograph of my children. They should be able to take whatever photo they want, and if they then approach me afterwards and show me the photo and ask if it is ok to keep, then I would feel much better about it. But I also believe if they did decide to take a photo and then just turn and walk away, I don't have any legal standing to chase or request them to delete the photo. Legally right and morally right are too completely different circumstances. I don't understand those that somehow feel they are morally "obligated" to do something to someone who is taking pictured surreptitiously. Yes we should always protect children, I am a martial arts instructor and teach kids self defense every single week for the last 10 years, but protect them from a crime, not a thought crime. We can not, and should not, try to force our moral trappings on others. Once you go down that road, we are all doomed since even religious morality is different amongst different religions. I don't want anyone's beliefs trying to dictate my life to me.
Sorry, end of rant.

For those outside the UK, Google Rose West ( who murdered her own children ) Myra Hindly ( who murdered other peoples children ) and Maxine Carr ( who covered up her boyfriend who murdered children ). There will be many more but these three came to immediate mind. Women which prove women CAN be as despicable as men.

Here in the UK we are going through a scandal where many celebrities are being investigated for sexual offences against minors. Accusations of high level Politicians, members of the Judiciary and Police all involved in paedophile rings. The churches have their own scandals going on too. The average guy in the park with a camera hasn't the monopoly on being a pervert.

I overheard a lady, question a caretaker of a building where I had been called to investigate a fault, why I had a long lens, ( I was birding on my break as they were very rural and had huge gardens ) that I could be paedophile, despite the fact it was an old peoples home at least 2 miles from the local village. The irony was as most of the residents had alzheimers, I was the one at risk of being sexually harassed

Taking pictures in a public place is legal no matter how many people on here try to twist their own warped minds to influence others. For the record, my daughter is nearly 2, I always get compliments from strangers when we're out shopping. By the reasoning on here I should be punching these people in the face or at least, reporting them to the police as they must be grooming her right...........

I find some of the paranoia in this thread stunning. Then again, the paranoids have me thinking I should switch gears. Instead of shooting life around me, I think I've just decided to switch exclusively to the narrow subject of desolate scenics. In fact, I have a 16-35 shipping to me that will be perfect.

Besides, I'm tired of kids like yours photo bombing my street shots.

So, Steve McCurry's famous picture Afghan Girl http://en.wikipedia.or​g …dia/File:Sharba​t_Gula.jpg, if taken in Texas, or with some of the people in this discussion in attendance would never had existed. She was only 12 years old at the time of the photograph. We, not just as photographers, but as human beings have to look at people with a more trusting view. Sure, someone may take a picture that they use for their "lustful" purposes later. They don't have to be carrying around a camera. Cellphones are in everyone's hands and can take pictures just as easily. I, just like others in this discussion have been approached at parks and asked what I am taking pictures of. I have started telling them it is none of there business, and give them the card of my attorney and inform them that if that wish to continue with the line of questioning we can do so in a court of law after I file a defamation of character and slander charges against them. This, usually makes the idiots go away. For those that insist, I pull out my phone and call the police for them which usually results in them being sent from the park, not me. I have learned to use the law to my advantage, it was after all written for those that are willing to follow it. My .02 cents.

I would have to ask why you are taking the photos. I'm not a big people photographer but when I've photographed kids, its only when I have a reason to photograph them or authorization. I've photographed events where kids are making boats for a boat race later that day. I have a badge identifying me as an official photographer who is supposed to photograph the kids and parents.

I have approached someone who was stepping into the area and photographing the kids. I asked him about his purpose and he was a member of the staff but didn't have a badge.

But I have been approached by parents who asked if I was photographing their kids (not an event related shoot) and I told them that I was doing a slow exposure of a merry go round at dusk getting the lights.

But I apologize from the sounds of it I'm in the minority here, but why would you photograph kids with no reason? Are you selling stock? Getty wouldn't touch any of mine that didn't have a model release (recognisable or not).
I never do that without permission and signed releases...

I don't think I'll follow this one, we have the right to photograph in public and people can't complain if they are in the picture but I draw the lines at kids... to many perverts out there...

Why is it that people feel we must have their permission to photograph them, including their children, in public? As long as we keep justifying something that doesnt need justification our rights erode? That people think a fully dressed child being in a photo is a pathway to pedophilia is paranoid.