Lady Forced to Delete Pix of Kids (Not Hers) with Mall Santa

I would not have deleted my photos..people need to realize a photographer is not a damn terrorist.
This makes me want to go out and photograph all the children in public places and wait for the cops to show up.

Raven

I agree with most of what you said. There’s another side, too, however and it does begin with a “what if.” Yes, if in public, there’s no right to not be photographed. There is a right not to have your image used to make money. So, if the photographer had intended to sell the child’s image (albeit innocently), then the parent does have every right not to have the child’s face sold. That’s a reality. So not everyone is a pervert, but some people will use your child’s image to sell a product. Is that okay? I mean, I would have asked the woman her intent, but I don’t think people should feel that they have carte blanche to do whatever they feel with anyone’s picture (post it on FB or make cute Christmas cards for the next art show).

I’m appalled and yet can so totally see it, too. We are so endlessly barraged about keeping ourselves safe and protected that absolutely nothing seems safe anymore – even visiting Santa. People are literally living in near-constant fear. And we let this happen to ourselves.

This drives me bonkers. People, you have no right to your own image in law. NONE. If you are out in public, anyone has the right to take a picture of you. In fact, in most of North America, where you are is irrlevant — it’s where the photographer is standing. If they are in public and can see you (through your front window), it’s legal,. Tacky, but legal.

Furthermore, “mall policy” does not trump the LAW of a state, province or country — EVER. A mall is considered in most ways a public place, therefore it can make any rule it wants about pictures, but it can’t enforce them.

If you are standing inside a store, that’s different, but the main concourse of a mall is in most senses public.

Fianlly, no one, not even a cop, has the right to demand you delete photos. A judge can order them sestroyed, but not a security guard or a cop.

As a former journalist, this nonsense restricting people’s legal rights drives me bananas.

Stand up for yourself. Refuse to delete the pictures. My photojournalism professor told us when confronted to state we were student journalists, apologize and walk away — thus keeping our pics.

Exactly. I meant commercial, sorry. And, don’t get my wrong, I am completely appalled that the woman was forced to remove her pictures because that was wrong. I just think that the tone of this post is that parents have no right to be worried about their child(ren)’s image(s) at any time because not everyone is a pedophile.

This reminds me of a story my grandmother told me while we were looking through her photo albums. There was a serious of really great photographs of my aunt doing cartwheels and other things girls do when they are 10, at the park and showing off for their friends. Knowing my grandmother is a downright awful photographer it was clear she didn’t take them. When I asked her who did she said “some guy who thought your aunt’s antics would make great pictures”. He gave my grandmother copies much later after they developed a friendship but at the time they were taken he was a stranger with an eye for photogenic people doing interesting things. It didn’t bother my grandmother at all.

Mirielle, there are incrediably few instances of someone taking a picture of a random stranger and then using it to sell some product. It is extremely unlikely to happen. Maybe an artist who uses a random photo taken in public in her artwork. Maybe someone who prints a picture of an event in a paper or magazine that contains your child. But advertising almost always contains paid models or someone known to the advertiser, not random unknown strangers.

I would not delete my photos.

People need to be informed that this is not a crime but a perfectly ordinary activity, and that you don’t have to delete your work just because a bully with a badge wants to gain some brownie points with the overreacting fearful ones, or throw his/her ‘authority’ around. Police exist to enforce existing laws, not make up new ones. Mall cops enforce, well, mall policy, which (as has been said) does not trump state or federal law.

The woman who stalked the former legislator through the mall and bullied her should be prosecuted for harassment — if the facts are presented and the bully does not relent; I’m not saying every misinformed busybody needs to be arrested. Then again, that might be nice…

I’ll admit I don’t go to malls often, but one part that surprised me was that there wasn’t a “no pictures” sign by the Santa. Last time I saw one at the mall, they had that sign and an explanation that selling pictures was how they made their money.

I am very careful about pictures of other people’s kids. I probably got that way because I used to volunteer for a charity that provides mental health services to children. We threw parties for the kids, and we took photos, but we were instructed to not take photos of any children’s faces, as that would be a privacy violation. Granted, that was different as it was known that the kids were there due to mental health issues. But it made me that much more sensitive and careful. I just don’t do it for the most part.

However, I was glad last year when I forgot my camera, and another lady at the Christmas party took photos of everyone’s kids with Santa, and posted them on her blog. I ripped them right off and used them in my Christmas cards. I see no issue.

As for others thinking my kids are the most gorgeous ever – well, they are – is that a problem?? It’s not like someone can steal them via the internet pictures on someone else’s blog. (Their names & address were not provided on the blog!) I’d rather see them anonymously on someone else’s blog than post them on my own blog.

My kids have also showed up in ads, etc., because they were photographed while attending a somewhat high-profile Christmas party. What can I say, they were the cutest people there (and also the only ones under 15). Nobody’s making money off of them and I can’t imagine any harm coming from this.

This situation reminds me of another one I ran into repeatedly during a brief foray in a mom’s group. (Zebras don’t fit in with horses well, so I didn’t last long!)

Every mother, except me, refused to let other people post pictures of their child on Facebook. They’d go to a birthday party, then be incensed that the birthday-child’s mother posted party pictures with OTHER CHILDREN in them. How DARE that mother share pictures of Junior’s party online, except pictures that didn’t include any other child in it. Some gave the pedophiles online reasoning, while others it was all about keeping their child’s privacy by not having images of the child… except how does an unlabled picture of the child make any difference related to privacy? I don’t get that part. There’s a lot of time and effort spent by certain mothers/ people on controlling what other people do– in regards to pictures, but also other things. (But heaven forbid someone try to control THEM!)

I feel the need to leave another reply in direct response to all of the “it’s a free country” / “there’s no law against” people.

I agree the parent went completely overboard in her reaction… HOWEVER
Just because “it’s a free country” or “there isn’t a law against” taking pictures, it can still be rude.

Well Lenore – nice of you to give the senator the benefit of the doubt that her legislation were “measured and sane.” But it is just such laws – and esp the barrage of them – that has mummified this country in a state of fear and suspicion.

@Karen, you’ve said it beautifully. Thank you.

It’s amazing that people get far more worked up about someone taking a few pictures at a mall during the Christmas season, but don’t seem troubled at all by the near constant surveillance at such places. Malls are private property, and as such, they can ban photography with their rules. All they can do, however, is ask anyone photographing to leave. They may not ask for people to delete their pictures, nor can they confiscate film. (Yes… some of us still like to use film.)

“And for those few who are, dare I ask: So what? ”

AMEN!

As a victim of childhood sexual abuse, I take this stance all the time, and people are completely baffled by it. My opinion is – if the options are actually touching/harming a child or taking their photograph in public and otherwise leaving them alone… I’ll hand the pedophiles a camera every time.

Donna,

Please check the spelling of my name. Thanks. 🙂

I think that it is rude to take pictures of other people without asking. I think that it is rude to post them on Facebook. I think that it is rude for the mother in this situation to have reacted by having security to delete the photos.

I do not think Free Range parents are going to get very far if the only reaction to someone else’s opinion is “you’re being ridiculous.”

Karen said most of what I wanted to say better than I was going to say it.

But here’s a thing: I have seen photos of children taken in public places used in advertising; not often, but it happens. The most frequent offenders around here seem to be malls, especially advertising their play space, or, ironically, their Santa display. Anybody familiar with Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood? Their message, that kids deserve to grow up without the influence of marketing, is just about as important to me as free-range parenting is. My kid doesn’t wear clothing with branded images (ie ads) on it; I philosophically oppose his image being used to sell something.

My radar isn’t on for my son being caught in the background of someone’s family photo, but if I see someone I don’t know directly taking his picture, yes, I’m likely to ask what their plans are, and respectfully request that it not be published, explaining my position. Honestly, I don’t much care whether I have a legal right to do that or not; I think I have a moral one.

Would I ask for it to be deleted? Dunno. Haven’t yet. Certainly less likely if the person is a hobby photographer, especially if they offer to email me a copy!

As usual, it boils down to good manners. On both sides.

Donna,

Wow. You’re actually bothered that I corrected you on my name. Yeah. I get why you see no problem saying exactly what you want to whomever. I don’t see how your attitude is any different from that of the helicopter moms. Everyone do whatever they want! It’s a free country! No need to be polite at all. Lol.

My first thought was, as others have said, a lot of mall Santa displays have a rule against outside cameras because they are a business trying to make money by selling photos. I, for one, don’t have a problem with that at all.

(I would add, when I took my kids to see Santa last weekend, I was broke and not planning to buy a photo. They gave me one for free. I thought it was very generous of them. Of course, they are probably hoping that I will go to their website and order more copies — and I might end up doing that, LOL. Free is good advertising!)

The actual story is pretty outrageous, though not surprising. As a hobbyist photographer myself, I wish more people understood that no one has a right to force you to delete your photos. They don’t have the right to demand that you turn over your camera or memory card. Personally, I use a service that automatically backs up my cell phone photos, and I wish I could get something similar for my DSLR.

SKL, when you downloaded the photos of your kids from someone else’s blog, I really hope you asked first. Otherwise, you have technically violated her copyright.

It goes back to common courtesy. If the photographer had asked and the mom had a reason (real or imagined) to not want to risk her child’s picture getting out there, then there were other families lining up who might have said ‘yes,’ and the whole thing could have been avoided. As long as we’re all fighting over whose individual rights are more important, we open ourselves up to rare what-if situations and imaginary threats. Why not ask instead of assuming the law will back us if a confrontation occurs? We might actually have a conversation with someone and get to know them a little better, thus building a better community and educating people through experience that not all strangers are threats. Can’t have that!

So, Dolly, if she was (in your opinion) rude by doing something that is completely within her legal rights, you would have (illegally, BTW) committed battery on her physical person?

Someone on Facebook just told me that he would have smashed the lady’s camera. I happen to know he’s full of it, but I’ve heard this many times and it bugs me that people think they have a right to react violently to someone who isn’t hurting them.

I suggest that all photographers that take pictures in public places carry a copy of the photographers bill of rights. http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm The woman in the story did not have to delete her pictures – she could have threatened legal action.

It has saved my bacon a couple of times. I was in a swanky part of town and took a couple of pictures of live oak trees and got “pulled over” (I was on a bike) by the village cops. I politely pointed out that I was on a public right of way and that taking the pictures was perfectly legal. Then I showed the cops the bill of rights. The homeowner was ticked off but the cops told him to cool it.

On the flip side a woman at the zoo took pictures of my cousins’ kids. Two of them were foster kids and there are rules about the foster parents allowing pictures to be taken/published. We politely without hysteria explained to the lady and she deleted the picture. (If not for the foster kids we would not have minded at all)

Michelle: The drink thing would probably not be something I would do, but if the lady escalated it enough and mouthed off enough to me, I certainly might go there. It is not an assault to “trip” and spill a drink. She would have to prove it and good luck with that.I got 100 witnesses to testify to my chronic clumsiness.

I don’t start out rude with people. I would politely ask her why she was photographing my children. Then depending on how she answered it would go from there. If she told me “none of your business” or “wank off” then it would get ugly. If she said “Oh I just thought they were so cute and so I got a pic, hope you don’t mind.” I would smile and say “not at all, thank you for the compliment.” People should be more civil to each other. But if you mouth off to me, darn right I am mouthing off right back.

Kimberly: Good point about foster kids. I remember a woman I know who had foster kids and she was not allowed to post pics of her kids on the message board due to those rules. She had to black their faces out. See perfectly legitimate reasons not to photograph intentionally other people’s kids without asking first.

There was a story posted here some months back. A child’s picture was on facebook, someone noticed something unusual about her eyes. They urged the parent to take the child to a doctor, the diagnosis was dire, but with prompt treatment the child lived. Child’s picture online = child lived.

Here’s an even better way to handle the mall situation. Pull out your camera and start taking pictures of the whole situation, capturing mallcops, harridans, elder legislators and children too. If, all of a sudden, thirty people are taking pictures of her anointed children, what is she going to do? Faint? That would be fun to watch.

Mike I think it is a type of eye cancer. Instead of a flash picture giving a child ‘red eye’, the pupil turns white – like a cat’s eye.

I took my niece and nephew to the zoo today. Several times they asked me questions I didn’t know the answer to – so they walked over to the nearest volunteer/zoo keeper and asked them. They were complemented several times.

When we got to the petting zoo – there was a group of young adults speaking another language, I got the impression they were tourist not locals. My niece walked up to the gate and said excuse me and let herself and brother in.

The young adults were surprised. They followed niece and nephew inside. Niece handed them brushes for the goats and showed them how to brush the goats. The young adults gestured with their cameras and the kids posed for them. Niece and nephew also had a long talk with the zoo keeper. All this while I was outside the gate – because goats will make my skin blister.

Taking photos is a protected right of self expression. Anyone told by a mall rent a copy to delete their photos should refuse.

cherokeebydesign, had she refused to delete the pictures, she could have been charged for child porn.

I can’t say I agree with this mother, however, there is another option as to why someone would not want their child photographed. My husband is in the media, and we are careful about where our children’s pictures end up. This, in turn, makes me super careful about photographing other people’s children and putting them anywhere. Often, i will blur out their faces just because I do not know how that parent feels about having their child’s picture on the internet. Typically, I only post pictures on Facebook, and since I’m locked down tight and you can’t see anything on my profile unless I friend you, random people can’t see any of them.

I obviously can’t stop people from taking pictures of my children, and i realize that I’m in a different situation with my husband being so recognizable that people don’t *want* to take pictures of our kids, but it has really made me more aware of what other people’s wishes may or may not be.

Gosh, I think people are just crazy. I never understand this issue. Honestly – if some creep wants to do something disgusting with a picture of me, my wife, my son – WHAT DO I CARE? The picture is a two-dimensional representation. It doesn’t include our souls, and it’s not a voodoo doll (or the photographic equivalent). It may gross me out, but I don’t think I have a right not to be grossed out.

@pentamom — you’re right, I don’t know for certain that all the images of kids in the ads I mentioned were there without permission. Though I do know some of them were, because I know some of the kids, which is how it came to my attention in the first place. It’s not really a different issue; it’s an example of a reason why one might question why one’s child’s photo was being taken. There are a couple of other excellent ones in the comments all of which could certainly be addressed civilly.

I’ve had my own image published, both with and without my permission (with, a spontaneous snowball fight wound up in a Japanese ski video; without, I’m hiking through my local university’s outdoor ed catalogue), and I have to say I was surprised by how much it bothered me to discover my own face looking back at me unexpectedly.

If I’d been asked, I’d’ve said yes in a heartbeat. As it is, there’s a bit of a sour taste. Once again, not about the law, not about rights, just manners. Which at their best are all about not making the people around you unnecessarily uncomfortable, aren’t they?

Hmm, a lot of us have had strangers take pictures of our children. Could there be a correlation between free-ranging and beauty? I can see the sperm donor ads now: 6’2″, blonde, blue eyes, doctor, grew up free-range.

Dolly, I wouldn’t be so quick to judge about the babyproofing. Just as easily as you can judge others for not doing what you consider a good enough job they can judge you for the fact your kids are four and haven’t figured out how to beat it yet.

I’d be a little weirded out if someone took pictures of my kids at the mall, but to make such a stink about it? I don’t know. It’s astonishing how much things have changed since my kids were toddlers (they are now 14 & 12). I hate this modern society…everyone is a pedophile or child murderer if they enjoy kids. Next thing I am going to discover is that the sweet old lady who sits behind my family at church, the lady who has sat in that same seat since before my kids were born, was stalking hubby and me so she could be close to our “someday children.” It makes me sick to think my kids might become “that” kind of parent.

Karen said it perfectly.

Sorry, taking pictures of kids from a distance in say a park or something…party pictures on facebook…these don’t bother me. Purposefully taking pictures of individual kids without asking is just plain rude.

I especially like the blatant racism at the end of the column: “Like a superstitious Mexican native afraid that a photograph will capture his soul…”

I guess I was the only one who noticed that or thought it was important.

“Most people taking pictures of kids are not doing it to get off on ‘em. And for those few who are, dare I ask: So what? It’s like that disclaimer at the end of a movie: No child was harmed in the making of this photo.”

I’m really glad you said this, because it seems that society has been so obsessed with protecting kids from exploitation that they’ve completely lost touch with what child pornography actually is. Child pornography is a specific thing; media showing children in sexually explicit clothing, positions, situations, etc. Intent (i.e. what the photographer intends to do with a photo/video of a child) does not define child pornography.

As much as it grosses people out, there are folks out there who are sexually attracted to children. And if a guy wants to, in the privacy of his home, get off to a photo of a fully clothed child jumping rope or sitting on Santa’s lap, then what’s the friggin’ big deal? The fact that some parents feel uncomfortable with the possibility of what some stranger might do in the privacy his/her own home, does not warrant legislation. No child was harmed; no law was broken.

I don’t understand why so many people are acting like this mom is a lunatic. The photographer should have asked before taking pictures of this woman’s children, out of respect for her family’s privacy. Common courtesy should allow for parents to have the right to set their own boundaries when it comes to privacy and protection of their small children. It doesn’t matter if the mother’s fear is realistic or totally ridiculous- the fear is real and she has every right to set the kind of boundaries that allow her to feel a sense of security and control with respect to her children’s safety and privacy. To all you parents: how many times did you wake up to check that your newborn was still breathing as she slept? Has anyone pulled the car over because baby was being too quiet in the carseat and you couldn’t see him to be sure he hadn’t somehow begun silently choking on something? Love can be terrifying! This mother LOVES her children and it is not hurting ANYONE if she decides she’s not comfortable with strangers taking their pictures. So let her have some darn peace of mind because it’s really got nothing to do with you.

Another possibility for why a parent might get nuts over an unauthorized photo would be if they were in a difficult custody-related situation. When I hear of some of the “allegations” parents use against each other to gain custody or control or just be a thorn in their ex’s side, I can imagine a parent becoming borderline paranoid about it.

And I do acknowledge many of the comments are civil. I’m talking to all the ones who are signaling out a specific commentor(s) and putting that person(s) down for their opinions. Let’s uplift each other here, while still respectfully disagreeing.

And Kristina, in a way, it DOES have something to do with me (or whoever). It creates a “chilling atmosphere” where you’re scared to just be yourself & photograph life happening around you, all because someone has a very warped & irrational view of the world based on NO part of reality at all.

And it IS hurting her AND her child because of what she could be the recipient of. Maybe this person would’ve, had the photo turned out good, shared it with the parent. Then the parent would’ve been able to talk about this nice snap of their child taken by this nice lady at the mall. Granted, that is her business, but it is worth pointing out–and further, when some nutcase of that type yells at me when I’m just taking photos of what’s around me, then it IS my business at THAT point. I’m in the right to stand up for myself that I’m breaking no laws and not being rude either, and that I refuse to let such schizophrenic paranoia dampen my love of hobbyist photography & the noble and legal pursuit of it as a very NORMAL part of life.

LRH

I didn’t want to bring this up but responses are so hateful so here goes. I was molested as a child. Now that I am a parent it definitely affects the boundaries I set for my children’s bodies and their privacy, not just with strangers, but with family as well. I’m laid back when it comes to so many things, but not this. I did not allow my dad to take my son in the shower with him when he was a baby and he was very offended. I know he would never hurt my child but what so many of you seem to be missing is *that’s not the point*. The point is that I need to be allowed to set boundaries that I can live with, that allow me to sleep at night and get through the day without an anxiety attack. As long as it is not harming my child or anyone else, I can be over-protective in this area and that’s FINE. Like this mother, I too would not be comfortable with someone taking pictures of my child like that. I don’t post pictures of my children on facebook. Am I a lunatic? No. I am doing what I need to do to feel safe as someone who has survived something unspeakable. You may think it’s ridiculous, and for YOU it may be, but not for me. Please have some respect, some courtesy, and for God’s sake a little human compassion.

I don’t think anyone has any problem with compassion here. I think the problem is “worst-first” thinking, and no offense to anyone who’s been the victim of molestation or is involved in custody disputes etc, but I am STILL not going to ask permission every time. To do so, to me, is to presume “worst first.”

Getting back to compassion: if someone were to tell me that they were involved in a custody dispute sort of situation or something like that & ask me NICELY what I planned to do with said photographs, of course I’d be respectful. But the whole “you never know so don’t take any photos without asking first” is, I feel, worst-first thinking. This is especially the case because I’d venture to guess 75% of the kids out there aren’t involved in any such things. Even if the 25% left over is a pretty large amount, that’s still smaller than 75%. And yes, statistics are relevant.

So Kristina your setting boundaries without your own sphere, sure. My wife doesn’t like our children, not even our 5 year-old, to have chocolate or soda & I’m always having to remind people in our sphere that, no matter how silly you may think that is, respect my wife’s wishes, especially since we’d had social services in our business under no legitimate pretense & it had the effect of making my wife more sensitive than average that people respect what she says.

But in the world at large, sorry, but you can’t expect people to put their camera away around your kids because of what you went through. What you went through was terrible & awful and no one (except maybe people like Osama bin Laden, if he were still here) deserves any of that. But as awful as that was, it is your choice how you let that affect you & distort your view of the world around you. Just because you see me, a lone male with a camera (I’m not always that way, my wife & kids are around at times obviously), as a threat to you doesn’t mean I need to put my camera away, especially when I don’t know this about you and I’m not going to presume the worst not knowing, I’m going to presume the BEST not knowing.

LRH

Larry: I have probably asked this before, but if someone asked you to delete the picture you took of their child or to not take pictures of their child, would you? Or would they have to tell you it is because of a custody dispute or foster kid issues, etc.? Even though they really should not have to make that your business. Then would you delete them? And if not, then how would you feel if you did not delete the picture and put it on your flicker account or whatever, and somehow the abusive father found it and from the picture was able to figure out where the kid was and then came and kidnapped the kid? Then how would you feel?

It is worst first thinking and maybe a long shot, but still, that is THEIR kids to make that call. Not yours. You can do whatever you want with your kids barring abuse. The same goes for everyone else. They get to set the rules for their kids like Kristina said and you do have to respect it. Or you can’t whine about people not respecting your rules for your kids if you don’t respect their rules for their kids.

That is what free range should be about. Letting people parent as they see fit. If they see fit to not want pictures taken of their kid by strangers. You should respect that. You don’t need to know the reason s why and it would just be polite to ask first before taking pics of their kids.

The lack of respect for others is amazing.

LRH – I find it a bit amazing that taking 5 seconds to ask if another parent is ok with you taking pictures is being an over protective society. Things were different when we were kids. There was no such thing as ‘social networking’ or ‘photo sharing’ online. So if someone took a picture of our kid, it likely would have ended up in the shoe box or in a photo album for their personal enjoyment rather then on a blog, in twitter or facebook for the entire world to see and comment on.

Does that mean I would snatch away someone’s camera or give them grief over taking a picture of my child? No. I might remind them I would have appreciated being asked first but that is about it. Probably the same thing you would say if someone gave your child candy without asking you first.

Many parents like you make the decision not to put their children’s images online. They expect that their wishes are respected, not unlike your wife’s wishes to not give your children candy or pop. That doesn’t mean it never happens (sneaky grandparents…. like my dad) it just means you wish a majority of people respect your wishes and how you want to raise your children. My brother for example to keep his xbox from sharing pictures of his children he unplugs the internet before they start playing, his reasoning is that if he can’t control which pictures are being shared then he simply doesn’t want them.

Maybe the difference between us that I don’t simply follow laws, but I go out of my way to make sure the unspoken rules of courtesy, respect and politeness are followed as well. Which it is getting obvious that you do not follow those rules and only care whether or not something is illegal.

It may be perfectly legal to take someone’s picture, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t disrespectful or impolite the way that you are reacting. It’s not illegal for me to give your kids candy and pop too, does that mean I should do it and completely ignore your wishes? Are you going to take it away after I give it to them? Isn’t that the same as making someone delete pictures?

LRH, frankly, I would not want someone taking a picture of ME without asking. Why would it be acceptable to do the same to my child? Just because you’re not touching my child doesn’t mean you’re not invading our space.

Maybe because you do this as a hobby, you have a different level of sensitivity about it. Not everyone is fond of cameras. Some of us view them as necessary evils. My mom used to take a scissor and cut her face out of photos if her hair, etc. was not perfect. I don’t understand why your hobby should trump everyone else’s sensitivities. Nor should it be up to the individual to have to explain to you his private reasons for not wanting to be photographed.

Nobody’s saying you shouldn’t take pictures. Just ask if it’s reasonably possible.

http://www.buzzmachine.com/2011/12/19/ftc-fines-santa-claus-over-coppa-violations/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+buzzmachine+%28BuzzMachine%29

Santa fined for COPPA violations

Gigi I totally agree. The barriers to publication have fallen and with them comes a need to re-evaluate standards and mores. I am not sure exactly where/what the line should be but discussing the issue is important. When artists are taking street photos as part of work on a grant for publication there is a natural vetting process which limits the number of photographers and the distribution of the images.

Now there are millions of people taking pictures and an unlimited ability to reproduce those images. More importantly, even without knowing your name you can be identified in those photos.

Google already has a feature where you can search for images that match a face in a photo and in so doing pull up all the images of a given person. Pretty cool technology but it sure impacts the debate.

Let’s say that in the near future employers can use that technology to pull up all pictures of you that appear on the internet. It would dramatically impact how you might behave at parties, bars and clubs. Not to mention your participation in political events or other non-protected forms of expression that might turn off some employers. Suddenly the ever present photographer is stunting social interaction and now the “natural” image has been altered by the presence of the camera.

Actually Brian I agree, a LITTLE. For someone looking a job, a photo of them doing whatever should have NO impact on their ability to keep & hold a job. In that regard, their concerns are completely legitimate.

However, as a hobbyist photographer who has waited 20+ years for me to be able to take photos without the barrier of film & processing expenses, “my time has come” if you will, and it isn’t my fault that employers have the lack of proper discernment to pay proper respect towards boundaries insomuch that what a person does outside their job is no employer’s business. Standards shouldn’t change just because employers have this proper understanding.

The proper response shouldn’t be “my employer may find me online, put that camera away,” but instead a response that makes it to where your employer is not allowed to make hiring/firing decisions based on it. How one does that exactly is certainly a challenge, much as challenging that an employer didn’t disqualify you based on your race, but regardless–my photography shouldn’t suffer just because employers are mis-using the technology. I have nothing to do with that. To blame me is the same as blaming the baseball bat companies just because you have people beating others to death using them.

And besides, these are CHILDREN we’re talking about here. They’re not exactly viable members of the workforce anyway.

LRH

LRH, what’s wrong with just asking if you know people will feel better when you do? Do you also refuse to say “please” / “thank you” or tip wait staff because (a) you don’t HAVE to, (b) it’s not carefree enough, and (c) if people don’t like it, that’s THEIR problem?

Karen I would say that Henri Cartier-Bresson, if he were with us today, would be more qualified than YOU to talk about his craft. Heck, he’s more qualified than I am to speak of it, even though I participate in photography as a hobby too. I would also suggest that the fact that there are many exhibits & art museums exhibiting his work (and that respectable people visit them) means that there is much in the way of that form of art being totally legitimate, and not in anyway rude whatsoever. Street photography is a completely respectable venture.

He disguised his camera so as to be DISCREET. The idea is not be all “up in people’s faces,” to do what you do without being obvious about it. It isn’t about getting away with it as if you did something wrong, other than to prevent drawing attention to yourself since there’s always some wacko out there making a fuss over nothing, but rather it is about how you don’t capture an honest “un-posed” expression if people know they’re being photographed.

SKL I always ask friends or whoever if the time/situation permits, but the distinction is that I don’t HAVE to, nor should I or others be told that to not ask is rude. If someone who KNOWS ME expresses concerns, especially if I find them reasonable (maybe they’ve let me photograph them numerous times before & will do so again but today they just don’t feel up to it, they’re sick etc), then certainly I respect it. But this whole “don’t take my photo you pervert!” or “I don’t know you” or “my child can’t speak to give their consent to be photographed & I don’t want them being disrespected that way” sort of hogwash–it’s hogwash, and I call it as I see it.

Thankfully most people I know or encounter are nothing like this. Thank goodness.

LRH

LRH, I’m pretty sure 99% of the people here who want you to ask are NOT worried about pedophiles etc. If they were, your asking would not make a difference, would it?

I also don’t understand why you have different standards for friends vs. strangers as far as being considerate. But whatever; that’s not the point of this discussion.

Sorry, Dolly, in most of N. America, you’re wrong. Civil law makes it clear that if you invite the public into a space (such as the mall concourse, not the stores) and allow them to hang out, you have no right to impose arbitrary rules about legal behaviours. Cruising the parking lot is a safety thing and entirely reasonable, as is limits on sleeping, loitering, etc. — but I bet your bottom dollar that mall would lose in a civil case about the age rule.

A good example is breastfeeding. In my province, I have the right to breastfeed in any place I am allowed to be. So if a mall lets me in the front door, I am allowed to breastfeed there, and no one is allowed to ask me to stop, move, cover up or leave. No mall policy trumps my legal right in my province to breastfeed anywhere I am allowed to be.

Another good example is segregation. Businesses tried to use the “it’s my store, and I can serve whom I choose” argument against serving black people. But internal rules do not trump the Constitution, full stop. The south learned that the hard way in the 60s.

Also, if the mall has security cameras everywhere, then everyone in the place is being photographed — which means of course you can use a camera in the mall concourse. Stores can reasonably argue picture-taking can hurt their bottom line and therefore limit camera use, but the mall concourse can’t. They could try, but it wouldn’t hold up.

AND in the end, all a property owner can do is ask you to leave. A property owner has no right to ask you to delete your pictures, no right to interrogate you, and no right to touch you. If they are not accusing you of an illegal activity (shoplifting), touching you in these circumstances is assault.

Just because a mall or other business gets away with something doesn’t mean it has the legal right to do so.

Oh, they were OK with 1 photo . . . 10 . . . 20 . . . I think it started to get old as we approached 25 or so . . . .

Gotta love those grumpy photos too, though.

Cin: I didn’t say they could make you delete it or confiscate your camera. I did say they can make you leave and they do have that right because in the end, it is still private property. I can assure you that mall which is in the South by the way and the main reason they did it was to keep out unruly teenagers mostly of a certain race, has had that policy in place since 1999 and it is still in place. People have tried to fight it and lost. I thought it was awful at the time because I was barely 18 at the time and was negatively effected by it because I had underage friends who could not go to the mall with me during the non teenager hours.

Now, with all the crime in our area associated with gangs and teenagers, I kinda am glad for the rule. The police are at the mall during this time and enforce the rule. So I assure you, it is legal and binding.

I don’t understand Larry’s problem with just asking people to take pictures of their kids. He goes on and on about the experience of meeting new people and talking to them and positive interactions. That is how a positive interaction happens! We were at a church Fall festival and we were all in our matching costumes. A mother with her son was going on and on about how cute we were and then asked to get a picture of us. Since she asked nicely I said “Sure” and we posed and had a nice interaction and talked some more. If she just ran up and snapped a picture of us I doubt we would have ended up talking like we did.

From the way Larry talks I don’t think he is the type to say “Please” and “Thank you”. He is the type to not treat others the way he wants to be treated. Just like he gets mad when someone calls social services on him for the way he chooses to parent, but has no problem insulting the way others parent or ignoring how other parents make rules for their kids such as no picture taking.

Very well put SKL. You know it when you see it.

Back in the old days, I was sitting on the grass in a park at public event with my two oldest children, then aged 2 and new born. A French tourist came up and took some photographs, because, he said ‘it is so lovely’.

I wasn’t offended, I was delighted that anyone could see a frazzled no time for grooming and it shows mother of a new born and toddler sitting with her kids as lovely.

I didn’t feel like I was experiencing anything remotely like hostile staring. I felt like a madonna!

Margret Thatcher was a conservative in the vein of Regan or Bush I. Sometimes called “neo-conservatives” or “neo-con.” Not sure why you would say she was a liberal at all. Sometimes liberals are accused of being “socialists” precisely because of their emphasis on society over the individual family unit.

I think the staring v. “right to photograph” v. polite behavior debate really does get to the heart of this issue. I am genuinely torn on this issue largely because of the discussions on this blog.

I very much support the idea that this is an issue of developing social mores not legislation. Much as cell phone use in restaurants has diminished as it has been generally accepted to be rude behavior.

Larry–just because its art does not mean it is not rude. Piss Christ is art but also rude. Artists can also create art even if they are rude. Michelangelo may have been a total jerk to work with but it does not change the value of the art.

LRH, the “child” was in high school. And honestly, the strict crap didn’t work with him and some of the others. The middle school he went to (which I did for a short time) literally treated the kids like prisoners with kids walking in lines against the wall and no talking between classes, with Hall Monitors to snitch on you. This was 5-8th grade. High school was more normal, but they had their fair share of arbitrary rules as well.

Really, what does it matter that he wasn’t shown in the year book? He didn’t want to be in it, his name was in it, but always listed as “Not Shown”. Just like any kid who was absent that day. It doesn’t matter to me that he wasn’t in the year book. I mean, I seldom look at the photos now, and really, stupid hair cuts and pimples in full color. Wow.

No, it was his personal preference, and I don’t think that just because someone is underage and in a school that they should not have some rights. At home, I have no idea what went on. I have gotten the feeling that they were not a close family so they probably didn’t do family photos. As I said the other students didn’t care. The only ones who cared were the administrators, and they were not the ones buying the books.

Wow! What fun discussions happen when I’m off doing Xmas shopping!

I do feel very sorry for the woman in the original post. And very grateful that in many countries people don’t have the same issues. When we went to Europe, we snapped thousands of shots, almost all of them populated with strangers, as well as our own little ‘darlings’. Of course we were at tourist spots most of the time. And in SE Asia, on the way there and back, the girls were hustled into having photos taken with lovely groups of people we’ll never see again….I just told them to suck it up and enjoy being ‘celebrities’…..What a bad parent I am! (Also, I might add, when you’re in a country where you only speak a little of the language, and you know the local jails are appalling, who would make any unnecessary fuss about anything, LOL!)

And just to show racial stereotypes are alive and well all over the Western world, my Malaysian Chinese husband takes photos of people and places all the time, including strangers, and not once has he ever been approached in a negative fashion. Everyone assumes he’s ‘just another Chinese tourist’, LOL!

The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair.

Douglas Adams

I don’t think they legally can demand you delete the photos. They can request it, but what I remember of the ethics section of my college Digital Photography class said that when a person is in a public place, they’re fair game to have pictures taken of. You can’t get up in their face or anything, but because they happen to be in a public area, you can take photos. If this wasn’t true, we could sue stores for video taping us on their security cameras, because who knows what a pedophile might do with a video of a child walking! (Insert eye roll here) Wonderful how people forget that we’re being photographed and taped every time we go outside by faceless corporations, yet single out an innocent person taking photos for the holidays.

If it was that easy to sue or create legal trouble for people taking pictures of others in public, paparazzi would have a lot harder of a job and there would be less photos of them in magazines.

I don’t think this is as much a free range issue than an etiquette/consideration issue. The mother probably overreacted. But we only have one side of the story. But we do know the woman didn’t run straight to the security guard, she spoke to the photographer first.

And regardless of legal rights, common courtesy and respect should still remain. As well as common sense. The mother was clearly upset. The photographer should have offered to delete the photos of the woman’s kids before the security guards got involved. There are lots of other things to take pictures of; just delete the photos of the kids for the upset lady. Why keep them? Just to make a point? Because the mother yelled at you? Maybe legally she doesn’t have to erase them but really, some common sense and some courtesy here would have diffused the entire situation.

It would have been good etiquette for the photographer to ask for permission, — or at the very least speak to them afterwards if you want to maintain the spontaneity — since it was clear that she was zeroing in a certain kids. While some here are comparing this to photojournalism, this woman was clearly not a photojournalist; she was using a cell phone. A good photo journalist will stop and speak to the people he is photographing (at least those he/she is zeroing in on, not necessarily a crowd photo.) Taking pictures of someone with a cell phone and just walking away is pretty creepy. And that is what might have set the woman off, snapping photos and leaving, not simply the taking of the photos.

I am surprised that only one person mentioned her “superstitious Mexican native” comment. I am not one to insist on always being PC, but throwing this racial insult out of nowhere gives me a very poor impression of her. It implies that she’s a racist. At the very least, she is not smart. She has been tagged as a racist by political opponents, (I did some Googling) and that one line is just more fodder for them.

This absurdity is only one expression of the hysteria over child sexual abuse. There are many special interests profiting from the hysteria; it isn’t just the masses of Sheeple who have gone astray. The following blog analyzes the hysteria in some detail:

http://sexhysteria.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/premature-sexualization/

LRH, you keep bringing up this Henri dude. The fact that he did X does not prove that X is an OK thing to do. The fact that his doing so earned him fame and fortune doesn’t make it right, either – if anything, it makes it worse. I know that if I’d found a published photo of myself or my kid in an unflattering pose, I would be very angry – and I wouldn’t care if the photo was taken by Mother Teresa.

Larry, I just wanted to say that I utterly agree with everything you’ve said. We live, unfortunately, in an age where the greatest sin one can commit is to ‘offend’ people. You ply your legal right on freedom of speech or freedom to photograph in public places, and there will always be someone objecting because they are *offended*.

Because they have no LEGAL leg to stand on, these people will then ALWAYS start whining that you are being ‘rude’. When they act aggressive or attack you, these lunatics will then call on the public for support because you, who are just doing your thing without harming anyone, have somehow ‘invited’ this violence against you because YOU have been ‘rude’ and ‘offensive’.

It’s the tactic of the bully.

Too much idiocy is being tolerated and too many freedoms have been curtailed because of the fear of ‘offending people’.

Steve Hughes said it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cycXuYzmzNg

Thank you Marion Ros. I’ve seen that clip before but I still like it.

I do sometimes ask permission in some situations. Today I received a haircut in a rather eclectic sort of place, with tattooed hair stylists & exotic looking décor everywhere. I found it interesting and wanted to take a photo of the interior of it. I did actually ask & the person said “sure, no big deal,” and I did so.

The difference: it was on the INSIDE of the business, not out on the street. Also there wouldn’t have been an easy way to do so without being conspicuous, and I felt inclined to. Out on the street, it’s a different story, I think.

LRH

Well Dolly no one is worth worshiping. However, his weird personal habits aside, his body of work speaks for itself. That body of work would NEVER have been possible had people been as schizophrenic as what I’m hearing here, or had he assumed they were & asked permission all the time.

And incidentally, as I understand it, he was that way in large part so that people wouldn’t recognize him and his face recognition cause people to stop what they were doing & mug him as if he were a rock star, thus ruining the shots.

I will take the habits & intelligence of one Henri over 5,000,000 schizophrenics acting like a camera is a machine gun. They’re being completely irrational & their concerns deserve no recognition and acknowledgment.

LRH

@magnum et.al. she was on private property. If that private property has published and posted rules against photography she has to abide by those.

But I seriously doubt the mall has that. They just make up such things as they go along to be able to bully innocent people with impunity.

I see that a lot as a photographer, rentacops making up “laws” so they can bully us around with threats to destroy our equipment or steal it.

I worked at a Santa display this season, and we did have a no photography/video rule. It was actually a mall-wide rule (which I didn’t know at first), but for us it was mostly because we were a business that took pictures of people with Santa, and if we just let anyone take pictures then it would take away from our business. Apparently the mall rule is a privacy thing, they just don’t want you taking pictures of people without their permission, and people don’t know what’ll happen with the pictures. But the most annoying part of all this was when I’d say “Sorry but there’s no personal photography allowed,” and instead of saying “sorry, I didn’t know”, they just blow up in my face.

Dolly, are you having trouble reading, typing or understanding the last name of the photographer to which Larry is referring?

I honored another Mom’s concerns over sharing an image that included her child. My son and hers created an amazing video with special effects and a cute plot, ect. My husband spent considerable time editing it and adding music for them. It really was a work of art. After I viewed it with this mom, I mentioned that I couldn’t wait to post the video to my facebook wall. She gasped. Seriously, an audible gasp. “Oh please no!”

Sure I honored her request but it left me thinking she’s far too anxious for her own good. Does she think my facebook friends will figure out who her child is, where he lives and then stalk him? I told her my privacy settings on facebook make it impossible for anyone outside of my network of friends to view content and posts. This did not satisfy her. I never posted the video because she asked me not to …(as ridiculous as her request seemed to me.)

I agree that’s polite to ask. No big deal and it takes like 2 seconds. As for taking pictures with Santa, I remember the days when stores had Santas and Mom or Dad could take a picture with no hassle. Now everything is about money. Folks took a sweet childhood tradition, figured how to make money off of it, and then set up silly rules to ensure they would. Ridiculous. People need to get in the holiday spirit, loosen up, and let folks take pictures of their little one on Santa’s lap at the mall and forget about the business aspect. I’m thankful for the places that do.

Carla: Good for you for honoring that mother’s wish even if you did not agree with it. The thing is even if you know everyone on your friends list. She doesn’t. Maybe she is like me and only has 53 friends and you have hundreds. I only let actual people I talk to and know be on my friends list. Some people add just about anyone to their friends list. So you know, there is a difference.

@ Dolly~ Well, I think whether I have 50 friends or 150 friends and whether they are all close friends or barely friends is irrelevant in the particular scenario I laid out. There is zero risk to her child if my “friends” view a video on FB of two kids dressed up in a costume pretending they are wizards. No one can figure out who the other kid is and therefore no harm will ever come to this boy via my posting a 60 second video. They are both fully clothed, so no one is going to “get off” on images of my son and this boy and there is no information to lead anyone to him. It is so incredibly irrational and over the top ~ and yet, I will grant this paranoid mother her wish of complete imagined safety.

Lol! I like the #2 reason – “we believe a photograph really captures the soul”

I spent hours over the holidays taking pictures of children in public places, without asking any kind of permission.
Where do I get my pervert badge? 🙂

I see so many unlikely scenarios cropping up: OMG! The child is in a custody fight or foster care! Well, how is anyone to know that photo “A” of an un-named child on website “Y” is of their child? I don’t know them, their child or the horse they rode in on! Are they scanning the entire internet? If so, they have face recognition software the Homeland Security would like to have.

Here are the rules for using pictures taken in public places:

1 – Without permission from the subjects or their parents, I can use them for “news”, including articles or blog posts about the site the pictures were taken at or generic shots … for example, a photo of a child sledding can be used (I can sell it!) for illustrating books and other things about snow sports, exercise or whatever.

The only photo sales that require permission are pure commercial ads such as an ad for the child’s sled or snow gear, or uses that are “sensitive” … I would not illustrate an article about child abuse with a recognizable shot of a crying child.

I have some excellent shots of a helicopter evac … the patient is not recognizable, and the EMS and pilot don’t care. I can sell those shots. Or post them on my blog.

I have never been confronted by an irate parent or even mall security, but if I am, they will be firmly rebuffed and educated on the rights of photographers.

Dolly, (and all the other “you should ask” people) you will never know if I am photographing you or your children.

I have lenses that can photograph high quality “close ups” from 50+ feet away, one that can shoot at right angles to the direction the camera is aiming (yes!), and cameras so good I almost never use a flash.

Feeling paranoid yet?

Guess I must’ve been a pervert, too — many moons ago, I took a few pics at my local park for my college photography class, featuring kids. Sad it’s come down to this. (Then again, I can’t tell you how many times I have to sign permission slips asking if any pics of my 8 y.o. are taken at school/Girl Scout events/etc. can be used for publicity purposes.)