Could you please not take pictures

notapro wrote in post #6029885
I'm an actual parent, and yeah, if some childless guy was showing up routinely and shooting my kid's soccer games, I would be annoyed. What are the odds it's some pedophile, or some weirdo planning to kidnap my kid? not good. But who cares - the guy has no legitimate reason to be there and there is a chance, even if it's small, that he's a creep. If I said nothing because they have rights, and it did turn out to be a creep, I'd be pretty sorry. Better safe than sorry. Mind you, I can understand that a lot of parents wouldn't care - I'm a bit overzealous with the protection of my kids cause some crazy stuff happens in this world, and I put my kids' safety way WAY above your rights as an artist.

I put your kid's privacy way below my right to shoot.

You don't get to stop me just because you're paranoid. Even if some pedo does target your kids because my pictures are online - it's not my problem. I'm not stalking your kids.

Twitch1977 Your Avatar had me in stitches!!! (Err hope it's not really you!?!?)

Pete

AdamC wrote in post #6030990
Well after reading stories for many months about this stuff, and shooting my son's soccer for 18 months, dozens of matches at dozens of different fields, today I was approached for the first time ever. I shot my son's soccer match at a field I'd never been to before and a field official walked past and told me that people weren't allowed to shoot at games any more, citing 'new child protection laws.' I politely told him I was aware of the law and that he was wrong, and he walked off saying 'well I warned you.'

You are right Adam, he is talking cr*p, nothing has changed here in Aus, I know because I have had the same issue very recently and looked into it. Today was the first time I've shot my sons soccer since an opposition parent complained a couple of weeks ago, all of the parents on our side were aware of this and very supportive (I send them the pics). One of the parents from the other side was videoing the game in fact...

I don't think that the protective nature of parents vs. photographer's right to take pictures is the issue in this thread.

What we're discussing is strangers hanging around children which, to a parent, could mean anything.

And when a parent sees a stranger using a camera to look at her/his child, or even thinks that is the case, then they will get concerned.

So, sure, you have the right to photograph, which means that you have the ability to get them concerned. Why do they confront you? Because they can. Why are you shooting? Because you can.

I think people who are parents themselves see this entirely differently, because there's a huge difference between being responsible for another human life and taking pictures of it.

cdifoto wrote in post #6030913
Once again...pot, meet kettle.

I hear what you're saying, and I understand your POV, but if someone isn't breaking the law, and you put yourself and/or your kids in a public place, you have to accept the existence of photographers, whether professional or hobbyist.

Do you have children, cdifoto??

(ad nauseum)

I think it's a good thing to be diligent. But I find that protecting your child from something that I can't even rationally construe as any kind of threat is odd when many parents expose their kids to all kinds of risks that are far more real... like allowing their kids to have sleepovers at friends' houses or sending them away to camp or allowing them to wander around their neighborhoods unsupervised.

If I could come up with some kind of rational reason why a stranger having a picture of my child playing sports in his possession would pose some kind of risk to him, I would be on the other side of this. But even if that stranger *is* a recently released sex offender on the prowl for his next victim, there is no way he'd get his hands on my kids anyway. He doesn't need photos of them to try something... and if he does, well... I'm there with my kids and watching them, supervising them, not letting them get into a position where some guy with or without a camera can grab them.

Unfortunately, statistics will very clearly demonstrate that the random guy with a camera isn't the real danger. It's the people you know who are more likely to be worthy of that paranoia.. and focusing on some stranger who probably has zero ill intent and even less opportunity is probably making parents complacent about the REAL dangers in their lives.

If you have no experience to inform you about potential danger, then you'll feel quite safe all the time.

AndreaBFS wrote in post #6031606
... Unfortunately, statistics will very clearly demonstrate that the random guy with a camera isn't the real danger. It's the people you know who are more likely to be worthy of that paranoia.. and focusing on some stranger who probably has zero ill intent and even less opportunity is probably making parents complacent about the REAL dangers in their lives.

Protecting children and rights are both important/hot button topics, but I think this is point has been ignored till now...

Some stats claim 90% of molestation cases involve people the child knows well.

http://www.childmolest​ationprevention.org …ell_others_the_​facts.html

One hand: Protecting the children, not taking any chances, ...
The other: Do you ask Uncle John to stop taking photos as well & stop attending their favorite nieces events?

(just stirring the pot on a debate thats gotten too calm )

You should probably delete your Flickr, Facebook, MySpace, SmugMug, and whatever other accounts you have that may have a photo of your child on it as well.

And what about all of these kids of Macungie Elementary in Macungie, Pennsylvania? Should they feel safe or threatened?

http://midnightblue.sm​ugmug.com …553_7p2FW#30102​5262_pf2jP

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #6031306
I put your kid's privacy way below my right to shoot.

You don't get to stop me just because you're paranoid. Even if some pedo does target your kids because my pictures are online - it's not my problem. I'm not stalking your kids.

Technically I do get to stop you if I feel you're a threat. There are many ways, legal and not. We can discuss rights vs concerns for ever and not come to an agreement. I am just saying that it serves everyone better to treat parent's concerns with respect and go an extra step in preventing / addressing them, even if you're all gung-ho about your rights.

cdifoto wrote in post #6031141
Absolutely - but they don't call out random strangers as pedophiles just because they're male, childless, and have a camera in their hands.

If someone really wanted to, they could file charges against you (approaching them without provocation, accusing them of being a pedophile with no evidence or cause). I'm no lawyer but that almost certainly has to be illegal. Harassment perhaps.

And she could obtain something like a restraining order against you under anti-stalking law, perhaps ? And then both of you put your life in the jaws of shar... ergh, lawyers. OTOH a little civility could go a long way !

Amamba wrote in post #6031892
Technically I do get to stop you if I feel you're a threat. There are many ways, legal and not. We can discuss rights vs concerns for ever and not come to an agreement. I am just saying that it serves everyone better to treat parent's concerns with respect and go an extra step in preventing / addressing them, even if you're all gung-ho about your rights.

Thats not exactly true.

On private property you are entirely correct

If a photographer is in a public place taking images for non commercial use you have no right to stop anyone--if you choose to break the law to accomplish your goal that is up to you.

Should your local paper be required to get a photo release from anyone in a press photo--or everyone at a professional sporting event sign a release before it can be broadcast on television?

As an event photographer I am there at the request of the organizers--If someone does not want to be photographed they have the right to not participate--but not to force their wishes on every other person there.

dave kadolph wrote in post #6031996
Thats not exactly true.

On private property you are entirely correct

If a photographer is in a public place taking images for non commercial use you have no right to stop anyone--if you choose to break the law to accomplish your goal that is up to you.

Should your local paper be required to get a photo release from anyone in a press photo--or everyone at a professional sporting event sign a release before it can be broadcast on television?

As an event photographer I am there at the request of the organizers--If someone does not want to be photographed they have the right to not participate--but not to force their wishes on every other person there.

I was saying, basically, that there are many ways to prevent someone from taking pictures of children, and a parent determined to do that will. Whether it's shoving your camera in your face and getting arrested, or complaining to police that a stranger with a camera appears to be stalking little kids. And to the best of my knowledge, if police officers feel that you indeed may be a potential threat, they have a right to ask you to leave or even arrest you. So your rights, whatever they are, will not spare you an ugly situation - the best thing is to try not let the situation spiral out of control, and that takes having some respect for other people's concerns (and of course, they should have respect for your rights).

In the end, the person who behaves in the most sane and polite way, wins. Most of time, anyway.

(Oh, I missed the "event photographer" part. This is not what a discussion was about. As an event photographer you have an official status that would greatly lower the level of most parents' concern).

dave kadolph wrote in post #6031996
Should your local paper be required to get a photo release from anyone in a press photo--or everyone at a professional sporting event sign a release before it can be broadcast on television?

I agree with you but with the sporting events it is on private property and it is a clause you agree to by purchasing a ticket.

Pete Gl wrote in post #6031381
Twitch1977 Your Avatar had me in stitches!!! (Err hope it's not really you!?!?)

Pete

No unfortunately that's my brother, he got all the good looks in the family.

This is not correct. If they arrest you they need to arrest you and charge you for a crime, taking pictures is not a crime. I guess they could ask you to leave, but they can't make you leave simply for taking pictures. Nor can they ask to look at the pictures you've taken or confiscate your film or digital memory.


I guess my point is this. I wouldn't go to a dog park where people are allowed to run their dogs off the leash then tell everyone to leash up their dogs because I'm scared of getting bitten. It doesn't make sense.

I wouldn't go into a smoking section (back when they use to have those), and tell everyone to put out their cigarettes because I didn't want to get cancer, that doesn't make sense either.

So don't take your kid into a public place where the law says we have the rights to take pictures then tell us to stop. Like I said in an earlier post, if you don't want your kid to be photographed leave them at home or take them to a sporting event that's organized at a private venue.

Kurt

(My avatar is Bubbles from Trailer Park Boys, google it, funny show )