TEXAS LAW AGAINST IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Why are you not all up in arms about CCTV ?
In most major cities your film on nearly every street, but you still go outside.
I just can't understand your paranoia over photographers, but totally relaxed about your children being remotely film by unknown strangers.

If I remember is was Liverpool UK, where council officials had to be removed after pointing remote CCTV camera in a ladies bedroom.

electricme wrote in post #17179176
If I had a problem I would ask them to stop. A reasonable person with no ill intentions would immediately do so.

I hardly ever photograph children, but when I do I have no ill intentions yet I would most likely not stop if the parent asked me. Why would I? I'm doing nothing wrong. The dirt would be in the parent's head, not in mine.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17179356
I hardly ever photograph children, but when I do I have no ill intentions yet I would most likely not stop if the parent asked me. Why would I? I'm doing nothing wrong. The dirt would be in the parent's head, not in mine.

You really wouldn't stop if a parent told you they didn't want you to photograph their kid? I don't understand why you would want to continue.

Wolfeye wrote in post #17179059
The world is full of people who want to control how others' think and or act. Most of it hides behind the guise of organized religion, but some of it is as simple, and as simple-minded, as a mom who wants a stranger to never masturbate to pictures of her kids.

This odd phrase "masturbate to"--I never encountered it until I got on the Web and saw men, cloaked by Web anonymity, talking about their manly secrets. The phrase always reminds me of the direction that accompanies lyrics of parody songs: "Sung to the tune of _____ ."

So the presumed offense against a photographed child isn't the snapping of a picture, it's the way the picture might be used later, when the child isn't even there?

electricme wrote in post #17179141
Permission is needed for minor children period.

Not legally, it isn't, not if the child is in public, unless a commercial use will follow. A good reason not to get permission is that getting it would destroy the subject's spontaneity, which may be exactly what you want in photos taken in public. The child will pose.

It also not a matter of your personal opinion.

electricme wrote in post #17179149
Im sorry but the fact that you dont see anything wrong with this and that you knew to do it quickly should make you evaluate you conscience. Regardless of your intent.

Me conscience is just fine. I didn't hurt anyone. The little boy had been looking around in various directions. He appeared so alert; it was part of his charm. I got an image quickly enough that I don't think he noticed the camera. Having him look at the camera would have ruined the shot.

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #17179402
You really wouldn't stop if a parent told you they didn't want you to photograph their kid? I don't understand why you would want to continue.

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.

I have been in that situation once or twice while shooting adults where they objected to me taking their photograph, but never while shooting children. On the odd occasion that I have shot children, parents were fine with it, smiling and nodding and proud even that I wanted to photograph them. I'm not a people shooter but sometimes you stumble upon a scene were children are having fun and they're so natural and don't pose and you just want to capture the scene, is all. I really can't imagine anybody objecting against that.

Talley wrote in post #17178165
But if someone was taking photos of my kids I'd punch em lol

Chance are your gov across the agencies are taking pictures of your kids. Please punch em.

I would suggest that while in mixed company or at church gathering or even at neighborhood get together, proudly announce that you regularly or occasionally photograph children in public locations. Also inform them that you would continue to photograph these children even if the parent asked you not to, because it is legal and you are a photographer.

Dave3222 wrote in post #17179878
I would suggest that while in mixed company or at church gathering or even at neighborhood get together, proudly announce that you regularly or occasionally photograph children in public locations. Also inform them that you would continue to photograph these children even if the parent asked you not to, because it is legal and you are a photographer.

Your point is?

Dave3222 wrote in post #17179878
I would suggest that while in mixed company or at church gathering or even at neighborhood get together, proudly announce that you regularly or occasionally photograph children in public locations. Also inform them that you would continue to photograph these children even if the parent asked you not to, because it is legal and you are a photographer.

Why waste your breath, then?

Dave3222 wrote in post #17179878
I would suggest that while in mixed company or at church gathering or even at neighborhood get together, proudly announce that you regularly or occasionally photograph children in public locations. Also inform them that you would continue to photograph these children even if the parent asked you not to, because it is legal and you are a photographer.

Well, church is still consider a private property, if the parent happens to be influential to the church, then I guess they can kick you out. Church is just as public location as a shopping mall.

Dave3222 wrote in post #17179878
I would suggest that while in mixed company or at church gathering or even at neighborhood get together, proudly announce that you regularly or occasionally photograph children in public locations. Also inform them that you would continue to photograph these children even if the parent asked you not to, because it is legal and you are a photographer.

I think if people had to announce it like this they would have 2nd thoughts

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #17179115
these kids aren't in swimsuits so how is it related? My 1 child doesn't even like ME taking photos, why should she have a stranger in her face on the playground? I don't know seems thre should be some choice by the subject no?

The sample photos could just have been from a swimming competition, in which case the kids would have been in swimsuits.

That "in her face" is a very colored expression that indicates that you aren't really interested in understanding this issue. Extremely few photos are "in their face" unless you are famous and have the press or paparazzi after you. Your view indicates that you somehow have decided that you own the world 30m around your kids and so can decide what happens within that zone. That's a rather broken view. It's no more wrong to photograph kids than it is to photograph grown ups. The big difference is that lots of kids are way better subjects because of how they express feelings. People tend to be happy when they see images of happy, playing, children. And the face of a crying child is also very moving.

electricme wrote in post #17179156
This... accidental trip so camera smashes on ground and then the large cup of soda accidentally spills on it.

Assault is bad.

"Accidentally" grabs the person while waiting for either the money, or for a cop to come to take the report of the damaged property. I'm pretty sure your satisfaction will cool off a bit after having payed $5000 for the broken camera gear - and maybe just as much as a fine for the staged "accident".

That accident may include doctor bill and jail time also, because when you accidentally knock the camera off my firm grip hand and shoulder strap to the ground, that may cause a broken finger/shoulder.