Posting of photos with children

A local television station showed a story about perverts on the internet grabbing children photos from flickr and other public photo sites and putting them into "child porn sites". In the story, a local photographer found some photos of children she had taken on somebody else's site and they weren't using them with her permission either...

More about this story here: http://www.katu.com …cialreports/152​59581.html

I like this site, and I understand that whenever you post a photo here, or anywhere else for that matter, it is now on the www ... and could possibly be picked up by anybody. Is that person a pervert?? Who knows, but after seeing that story, I have to admit that it makes me a little more worried about how/what we post. I'm of the feeling that most everybody here that logs into POTN is here because we love photography, and sharing our photos and experiences with others... but there is a little voice that continues to warn me that there may be others that don't feel as we do. I just wanted to share a couple of thoughts... thanks for reading.

this thread is probably more appropriate for the general chat than the photo sharing area.

none the less, i post pictures of my son here and i am hoping they don't end up somewhere seedy. But the content of photos here I suspect is not of interest to those prowling the internet for child porn.

that article will make you stop and think though.

I personally don't have any children but I feel very strongly that people are far too careless about posting photos of children on the web. I cringe every time someone puts up a shot of little Susie or Jimmy out playing and the house and house number are easily identifiable. Same when it's a park, playground or school. I swear some people must think the internet doesn't extend beyond their own computer. Some shooters have sworn off doing child/youth portraits because of the types of occurances you've pointed out. Too, some photographers have been investigated as child pornographers because they've photographed children in the bath or on the good ol' bear skin rug.

Having said all that, there is another side to the coin. Smut, porn, etc have been around far longer than the internet. Perverts, weirdos, voyeurs and yes even pedophiles have been around longer than the internet. How'd they manage to persue their chosen fetish when everything was analog?

There's no doubt it's a "gray area" / "slippery slope" issue...

[Edit] I'm not suggesting that run of the mill photos of children should be considered pornography. But pornography, like beauty, is in the eye/mind of the beholder. The photographer's intent, unfortunately, means nothing.

Sorry but if the kids are fully clothed and not in inappropriate positions, no matter where the photo is hosted it's NOT porn. It's only pathetic on the part of the viewers that get off on it.

That's not the same as a real porn photo of a kid.

Media sensationalism strikes again.

My daughter is vastly more likely to be severely injured or killed in a car wreck than to ever be harmed by a stranger pedophile. She's vastly more likely to be sexually abused by some person I already know than to ever be harmed by a weirdo who downloaded photos from the Internet.

The TV station is hyping to try to attract viewers. But if you check out the facts, instead of letting the manipulators hype your fears, you'll discover that the risk is infinitesimal.

There's a reason stranger pedophile kidnappings make the national news: they almost never happen. There's a reason the local car wreck doesn't make the news: it's so common that people are jaded. But that's where the real danger lies.

I make my living by helping people share photos of their children (and I'm not a photographer), so I'm sure it's no surprise that I have no issue with posting photos of children online. The bottom line is that regardless of what someone chooses to do with my child's photo, it's not impacting my child. They are not harmed.

A person could stand on the street 10 feet from me and look at my actual children and me and my car and my license and perhaps even follow me home. If we are assessing risk, my children would be in far more danger here in my own neighborhood than from a random stranger on the internet who likely lives hundreds or thousands of miles away from us.

But by all means, if you are uncomfortable, don't post pictures of your children. I just have to stop short of feeling like I'm exploiting my children or putting them in harm's way by sharing their photographs online.

Ever since I started posting pics this topic has always been in the back on my mind. I have started to take down the pics I post after a few days. I know it's not full proof but it's at least better than nothing.

gkuenning wrote in post #4854341
Media sensationalism strikes again.

My daughter is vastly more likely to be severely injured or killed in a car wreck than to ever be harmed by a stranger pedophile. She's vastly more likely to be sexually abused by some person I already know than to ever be harmed by a weirdo who downloaded photos from the Internet.

The TV station is hyping to try to attract viewers. But if you check out the facts, instead of letting the manipulators hype your fears, you'll discover that the risk is infinitesimal.

There's a reason stranger pedophile kidnappings make the national news: they almost never happen. There's a reason the local car wreck doesn't make the news: it's so common that people are jaded. But that's where the real danger lies.

I totally appreciate your opinion, but I think you're missing the point... I agree with all that you're saying, but it's the use of the photo they're talking about. Imagine finding your child's photo, being used to on someone else's site to promote something. It may not be harming the child, yes... but is it right? And the thing is, they could be using the photo to promote something you may or may not agree with. The user may even give a different name to your child, then say that they have a fatal disease, and are trying to collect money/donations. Imagine if one of your family friends, or neighbors happens upon this site and recognizes the photo... this may not be a "bad" thing, and yes the media is sensationalizing it... but again, this posting was to remind us that there are people out there that will use our images (with children or otherwise) without our consent... and may even be trying to fraud the public with it.

one more reason for big o watermarks

gkuenning wrote in post #4854341
Media sensationalism strikes again.

My daughter is vastly more likely to be severely injured or killed in a car wreck than to ever be harmed by a stranger pedophile. She's vastly more likely to be sexually abused by some person I already know than to ever be harmed by a weirdo who downloaded photos from the Internet.

The TV station is hyping to try to attract viewers. But if you check out the facts, instead of letting the manipulators hype your fears, you'll discover that the risk is infinitesimal.

There's a reason stranger pedophile kidnappings make the national news: they almost never happen. There's a reason the local car wreck doesn't make the news: it's so common that people are jaded. But that's where the real danger lies.

You sort of have a point, but that is no reason to dismiss this topic. It does happen and it can happen. to think otherwise would be unwise.

gkuenning wrote in post #4854341
Media sensationalism strikes again.

My daughter is vastly more likely to be severely injured or killed in a car wreck than to ever be harmed by a stranger pedophile. She's vastly more likely to be sexually abused by some person I already know than to ever be harmed by a weirdo who downloaded photos from the Internet.

The TV station is hyping to try to attract viewers. But if you check out the facts, instead of letting the manipulators hype your fears, you'll discover that the risk is infinitesimal.

There's a reason stranger pedophile kidnappings make the national news: they almost never happen. There's a reason the local car wreck doesn't make the news: it's so common that people are jaded. But that's where the real danger lies.

Amen!

GeneMan88 wrote in post #4855533
I totally appreciate your opinion, but I think you're missing the point... I agree with all that you're saying, but it's the use of the photo they're talking about. Imagine finding your child's photo, being used to on someone else's site to promote something. It may not be harming the child, yes... but is it right? And the thing is, they could be using the photo to promote something you may or may not agree with. The user may even give a different name to your child, then say that they have a fatal disease, and are trying to collect money/donations. Imagine if one of your family friends, or neighbors happens upon this site and recognizes the photo... this may not be a "bad" thing, and yes the media is sensationalizing it... but again, this posting was to remind us that there are people out there that will use our images (with children or otherwise) without our consent... and may even be trying to fraud the public with it.

Did you read the article?

A woman who wants to be a pro posted some pictures on Flicker. She found people copying these onto other sites and making up stories like they were their own kids.

There is no evidence that there was any pedophiles doing anything with these photos. The photographer just assumed "it could happen". There was absolutely no connection between her photos and child porn sites, except for the link the author wanted the reader to make for themselves.

Thre is no difference here than what we see everyday where someone copies another persons image and uses it as their own. You can go into several sections on this forum and read about people having their copyright violated.