Could you please not take pictures

bsaber wrote in post #6021999
That's totally different from what we're talking about here but yes I do agree.

As far as your rights vs police powers go, it's not different.

As I said, go to extremes, and you'd likely lose; try to be reasonable, and you win most of the time.

Amamba wrote in post #6021972
You do realize the law in itself is just a compromise. Since there's no easy way to obtain consent of everybody being photographed in, say, a holiday parade, requiring such consent would basically amount to prohibiting photography. So the law gives you broader rights than a common sense would require, because it's an "all or none" scenario.

I do not believe this is correct.

The law is not a compromise because "obtaining consent" of everyone in a photo would be nearly impossible. The law states that you own the image that you took and not anyone that is in the image as long as you do not use the image in specific situations (for advertising or editorial reasons). If I consider you an amazingly beautiful sight to see, I am free to take a picture of you and call it art as long as you are in public. It is my right to take a photograph in a public place, with you in it, regardless of whether I had the opportunity or inclination to obtain your consent. I own the photo I made; you are in public and therefore give up your rights to privacy. Just like we're all on closed-circuit TV many times per day.

This is contrasted right here in Canada by one province -- in Quebec this is not the case and the person in the image controls all usage of that image. This is identical to France, ironically the birthplace of street photography has now made it illegal. The exceptions to this, are like you said above in another context, with "touristy" snapshots of landmarks and such where the people in the photo are incidental -- those are allowed. (Of course a company there also owns all rights to images of the Eiffel Tower at night as soon as they are taken, so that is out, too.)

Woulda, coulda, shoulda, it's all the same. Endless arguments of what's right or wrong.
It's common decency. Whip out a camera and cause a fuss, no reason to be there. Bet you won't get one decent shot. Day is over. Introduce yourself, interact with the subjects and your keeper rate will expand.
Rights or not hard to take pics in a hostile environment. Cause a fuss and the police will escort you out. Be congenial and they will ask you back in.
Argue with a portrait client and see if they come back.

Amamba wrote in post #6021993
Let's have this conversation again in 5-6 years than.

Congratulations, btw ! Your life will never be the same.

Are you implying that you don't believe any actual parent would disagree with you? I'm not sure what this part is about.

TheHoff wrote in post #6021821
I still haven't heard a reason why a parent would be concerned over someone taking photos of fully clothed children playing sports. Taken to the worst extreme, what is the absolute most horrible thing they might do with those images? If they're stalking you or your family, you have more concern than the fact that they have some pictures and they probably wouldn't be stalking you in the open.

So they might "pleasure" themselves to the photos? The same parents, if the photographer said they were working for the local paper, would stand in line to have the same photos taken *AND* published for everyone to see!

Amamba wrote in post #6021834
Have any kids, Hoff ?

I do, and I agree with Hoff.

Maybe explain to her that you are using the events to practice your hobby and that if she would like she can have some proofs emailed to her and if there is anything she likes then you can order her a print for a small charge.

AndreaBFS wrote in post #6023300
Are you implying that you don't believe any actual parent would disagree with you? I'm not sure what this part is about.

No. I am just saying that being an actual parent makes you more receptive to the concerns of other parents, whether or not you share them yourself.

Regardless, this is all matter of personal opinion, and I was just expressing mine.

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.

By the way, I would be pretty much equally bothered by a woman doing the same.

If you had approached the team parents, let them know that you're a hobbyist and would like to practice, offered them your card, told them where they can see the shots later, and THEN started shooting, I'd see where you're coming from. If you can't do that, then find adults to practice on. On principle, it's as much a matter of respect for the parents as it is anything else.

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.

The fact that you can see him plain as day with a big-ass lens is a pretty good indication that he's NOT a creep or pedo. Pedos & creeps, you'd probably never notice in the first place. They don't like to draw attention to themselves and therefore would not show up with pro or semi-pro gear. If you're gonna be paranoid about someone, be paranoid about the guy with the Powershot S5 in the top row of the bleachers. Yeah...the one you didn't even know was there until I pointed him out. He's got a 432mm lens. I've only got 260.

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?

As a parent, even if the odds are 7 billion to 1 (1 out of the entire population of earth) it's not odds worth risking. And honestly, there's enough sports being played that taking pictures of little kids, no matter how innocent, isn't necessary. Go to the skate park, go to the local college, go to the ice hockey arena. As a parent, I've never found any interest in shooting other peoples' kids for any reason, especially if I was told I wasn't welcome.

I shoot them for profit.....

To all of you who would be upset seeing some childless guy taking photos, would you have the same reaction if it where a woman..?

cdifoto wrote in post #6029913
The fact that you can see him plain as day with a big-ass lens is a pretty good indication that he's NOT a creep or pedo. Pedos & creeps, you'd probably never notice in the first place. They don't like to draw attention to themselves and therefore would not show up with pro or semi-pro gear. If you're gonna be paranoid about someone, be paranoid about the guy with the Powershot S5 in the top row of the bleachers. Yeah...the one you didn't even know was there until I pointed him out. He's got a 432mm lens. I've only got 260.

to be fair, I've not picked up my copy of "the absolute rules of pedophilia and child-stalking" so I wasn't aware that every single creep out there behaved in exactly the same way. I clearly stand corrected. And now that I think of it, it is so rare that someone who seems ordinary, even friendly and good-natured, turns out to be a perv...

and seriously, the more somebody argued his rights to me about shooting my kids, the more I'd be inclined to give him a harder time, whether I thought he was potentially dangerous or not. Just because you have the right, doesn't mean it is right.

griptape wrote in post #6029937
As a parent, even if the odds are 7 billion to 1 (1 out of the entire population of earth) it's not odds worth risking.

this was totally my point in the rest of that paragraph and I wish the odds were that slim.


Anyhow, I should stop posting in this thread cause the whole topic of "i have the right to take pictures of whoever I want" cheeses me off and I shouldn't have looked at this thread in the first place. People are going t think I only come here to stir the pot...

notapro wrote in post #6029885
if some childless guy was showing up routinely and shooting my kid's soccer games, I would be annoyed.

Firstly I like how you refer to the 'mystery photographer' as a guy all the time, and secondly I guess only guys without children can be pedophiles.

Except for the public place part I guess.

I don't understand why you feel they're competing points.

I do however agree with this, if you're going to photograph a youth child event I don't see why you can't introduce yourself to the coach and let them know what's going on. This is hardly going to weed out the pedophiles though.

Your children are in a public place, not only are they in a public place but they are taking part in an event that a reasonable person would expect is being photographed. If this isn't your cup of tea, then maybe you should keep your kids out of the sport or find something that is held on private property where the photography is organized and only done by trusted individuals.

Not everyone with a camera is a creep or pedophile, if we start restricting activities of individuals based on the negative actions of a few people pretty soon none of as are going to be able to do anything. Not just photography.

Kurt

I don't want to stir the pot, but I do urge you to read up on the most notorious cases of pedophiles and child killers. Some of them were very sneaky, some of them were very direct, and anything in between. They were as different as people get.

As for the rights - to me, anyone's rights, including my own, are just part of the equation. There's also plenty of other things defining what is the "right" behavior in a given situation - common sense, morals, customs, etc. etc. I may have a right to fart in public, but I don't. I may have had a right to play modestly loud music at 7 pm when I lived in a condo, despite my neighbor asking me to turn it off because he wanted to take a nap, but I don't enjoy being an *******. Everyday people have to compromise and give up some of their rights - to reasonable limits - to get along and make life bearable for all. This is just the way world works. Sorry for the rant.

2Kurt: Most people with cameras aren't creeps or pedophiles. However, the creeps don't have a stamp on them. I think - and this is just my personal opinion which I have a right to - that if I wanted to take pics of other people's kids, the right thing would be to present myself and if a parent asked me to not take photos of his/her child, the morally proper thing to do would be to obey their wish, rights or not. I also think that, shall the conflict arise, and especially if the police gets involved, the party that behaves in most arrogant way would stand less chance - rights or not. Especially providing that police are usually given very broad rights if they deem someone's actions suspicious.