TEXAS LAW AGAINST IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

I have taken kids in bathing suits because they happen to frame my photo well https://www.flickr.com …s/charlie617/15​152239076/. I usually dont make habit of taking random kids because it's not my style, but I can see "improper photography" as too broad of a law. Specific upskirts, I'm fine with banning, but if you're wearing butt floss at the beach, dont be offended.

pwm2 wrote in post #17180263
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.

If the child can notice someone they do not know photographing them from up close, should the child have the right to say no?

Clients can choose to be published online or not, many do not want their kids photos on the net. Seems silly that a stranger in a park wouldn't care if the parent approved (or child).

At one point is it harassment if the person clearly isn't interested in being photographed?

If you are 2 feet away do I have a choice in you following me with a camera snapping away? Where does it become a choice a person can make?

Or is the argument if you leave your home someone can snap your photo from up close as much as they want, follow you and you have no right to say no?

The photograph of the sunset, the children you can hardly seen. Not a problem I can see with that one.

pwm2 wrote in post #17180272
"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".

I'm guessing that the scenarios about punching a photographer are pure bluster. Come on, guys. I'm female. If you still have children living at home, I'm probably older than you. And I wear glasses. Are you really going to knock me in the face for pointing a camera at your kid? Remember, in public there'll very likely be witnesses to your assault.

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #17180389
If the child can notice someone they do not know photographing them from up close, should the child have the right to say no? . . . If you are 2 feet away do I have a choice in you following me with a camera snapping away?

I wouldn't photograph a person of any age who seemed uncomfortable with it. I wouldn't put online a photo of a recognizable child with a background that revealed his or her location. You never know, there might be a noncustodial parent who wants this information.

But you're not talking about shooting street candids. "Candid" means the subject is unaware. "Up close" and "following me . . . snapping away" go with paparazzi who sell images to tabloids. That's something quite different.

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #17180389
If the child can notice someone they do not know photographing them from up close, should the child have the right to say no?

Clients can choose to be published online or not, many do not want their kids photos on the net. Seems silly that a stranger in a park wouldn't care if the parent approved (or child).

At one point is it harassment if the person clearly isn't interested in being photographed?

If you are 2 feet away do I have a choice in you following me with a camera snapping away? Where does it become a choice a person can make?

Or is the argument if you leave your home someone can snap your photo from up close as much as they want, follow you and you have no right to say no?

The photograph of the sunset, the children you can hardly seen. Not a problem I can see with that one.

You are creating a straw man with your hypothetical up close scenarios. If a person repeatedly violates your personal space you might have cause to press charges for assault.

But you make other assertions that arent true, The decision as to whether client images are put online isnt as simple as you imply. If you are not using them for commercial purposes you can post client imsges against their will. It would be a disastrous business decision but not illegal. Possibly the client might find grounds for civil action if you violated a confidentiality agreement but its not criminal.

But you seem to insist that you have some right to control whether you are photographed in a public place and you dont. The insistence of adding "up close" is a desperate attrmpt to bend the argument in your favor but it has no impact on legality.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17180434
But you seem to insist that you have some right to control whether you are photographed in a public place and you dont. The insistence of adding "up close" is a desperate attrmpt to bend the argument in your favor but it has no impact on legality.

So it doesn't matter how close or for how long?

It's not bending the argument, it happens in tourist areas often enough that I have experience. (I guess my kids are extra cute)

When do you get the choice to say it's not ok?

That isn't bending argument, at some point it becomes harassment vs legal

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #17180452
So it doesn't matter how close or for how long?

It's not bending the argument, it happens in tourist areas often enough that I have experience. (I guess my kids are extra cute)

When do you get the choice to say it's not ok?

That isn't bending argument, at some point it becomes harassment vs legal

When the photographer's actions do not yet cross the line so they can be legally defined as harassing, stalking, trespassing, or other criminal act under local laws, then they can continue snapping photos away, and display the photos in a way that is not defaming the person.

If I snap a photo of your kid while in public, and you tell me to delete it and stop looking at your kid, then I have every legal right to then take more photos for a new gallery exhibit "Innocent child and angry parent", featuring dozens of 20 foot by 30 foot images of you both, and would require zero permission from either of you. (Which is something I've been tempted to do after someone came up to ME and started harassing me for 'taking photos of their kids' when I was at a public green-space park playing around with macro photography.)

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #17180389
If the child can notice someone they do not know photographing them from up close, should the child have the right to say no?

Clients can choose to be published online or not, many do not want their kids photos on the net. Seems silly that a stranger in a park wouldn't care if the parent approved (or child).

At one point is it harassment if the person clearly isn't interested in being photographed?

If you are 2 feet away do I have a choice in you following me with a camera snapping away? Where does it become a choice a person can make?

Or is the argument if you leave your home someone can snap your photo from up close as much as they want, follow you and you have no right to say no?

The photograph of the sunset, the children you can hardly seen. Not a problem I can see with that one.

Why are you focusing on "from up close" or "2 feet away"? Is it really common that photographers walks up 2 feet away when photographing unknown children? If not, why are you going that path? None of the sample photos have been taken "2 feet away".

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #17180452
So it doesn't matter how close or for how long?

It's not bending the argument, it happens in tourist areas often enough that I have experience. (I guess my kids are extra cute)

When do you get the choice to say it's not ok?

That isn't bending argument, at some point it becomes harassment vs legal

Harassment is an issue separate from the legality from the photography. If you are being harassed, then whether the person has a camera is irrelevant. But if you are a public place and if the person taking your photo isnt committing some other crime, you do not have a choice. You are trying to conflate harassment so you can make it about photography, but they are separate issues.

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #17180452
So it doesn't matter how close or for how long? . . .

When do you get the choice to say it's not ok?

You can always say it's not okay, but your utterance doesn't have the force of law. Journalists wouldn't be able to do their jobs if they couldn't photograph unwilling people.

Again, following someone around and annoying the subject is a far cry from the idea that it's wrong to photograph other people's kids or it's wrong to photograph them in swimsuits. Be realistic.

pwm2 wrote in post #17180472
None of the sample photos have been taken "2 feet away".

Actually, mine was, but I hadn't chased the child. I turned around and saw his stroller parked near me. I was there first.

I think one should always use common sense when photographing people, be it adults or children. I will never photograph a person who is in a derelict situation, or someone who is in a compromising pose like revealing something by accident or something like that. With children I think one needs to be extra careful. When I photographed the children on the square with the fountain, there was one up close shot of one of the girls that I thought was revealing. I deleted it, because it wasn't any good anyway, but even if it would have been a good pic, I would never put it online.

But, other than that, I photograph people freely and cheerfully. Not often as it's not really my thing, but if I do, I do. I never ever do it with a telephoto lens though, or hiding behind a tree or fence or whatever. I use a wide angle to standard lens, like the 28mm on my old 5D Classic. Or even use my Samyang 14mm some times. I am therefore close to the people I photograph and part of the scene. I am a woman, not young any more, with a nice, friendly face, I smile a lot, look people in the eye, often talk to them and only had one really negative experience with an elderly woman; she was following people around, urging them in a loud voice to give their hearts to Jesus or something like that. She very much objected to me taking her picture. I thought it was rather funny that she said she had a problem with me taking her picture without her permission while she herself was trying to shove her religious beliefs down the throats of other people without their permission. She however couldn't see the humour in it...

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #17180389
...At one point is it harassment if the person clearly isn't interested in being photographed?

If you are 2 feet away do I have a choice in you following me with a camera snapping away? Where does it become a choice a person can make?

Or is the argument if you leave your home someone can snap your photo from up close as much as they want, follow you and you have no right to say no?....

Harrasment is something different. If you're 2 feet from their face following them around, your libel to get arrested for harassment. But still, you have a choice, you can leave the premises at any time. If you feel threatened, leave.

gjl711 wrote in post #17180531
Harrasment is something different. If you're 2 feet from their face following them around, your libel to get arrested for harassment. But still, you have a choice, you can leave the premises at any time. If you feel threatened, leave.

yeah been there, done that, just not ideal

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17180505
... When I photographed the children on the square with the fotain, there was one up close shot of one of the girls that I thought was revealing. I deleted it, because it wasn't any good anyway, but even if it would have been a good pic, I would never put it online...

I don't know about in the Netherlands, but in the US, simply having on your computer "revealing" photos of children can get you in serious trouble if someone decides to go after you. I even vaguely recall a parent getting in hot water' for something along those lines.