No Photographing Children without Parental Consent?

it was on the agenda at a cub scout leaders’ mtg last night here in central NJ.

This is one of those laws that one bad apple ruined it for everyone type thing. It is also the type of law where they are not going to enforce it unless someone complains and it is a more serious situation such as the original situation that prompted it.

With cell phone cameras a lot of things have changed because honestly it is hard to retain any sort of privacy or modesty. I hear stories all the time of men slipping their cell phone camera under an unsuspecting woman’s dress in line at the bank or in class, etc. Its pretty darn sick. And I kinda welcome that if something like that happens that I would be able to press charges against them. If anything it might prevent that type of thing due to fear of being prosecuted.

I doubt they are going to go around arresting people taking pics of their kids playing with other kids and innocent things. It would only be enforced if there was so serious shenanigans going on.

There is a saying “What people think of me is none of my business” Maybe it should be adapted to “Why people want pictures of me is none of my business.”

I am surprised the parents were not arrested for not supernaturally knowing that an icky man would be taking pictures, or for not being able to stop him before he depressed the button on his camera.

I don’t think it has to be about hurting. I think that we have a right to photos of ourselves.

Of course I don’t always know if it’s happening, but I believe that I do have the right to ask someone not to take my photo.

I believe everyone on this planet has that right, for whatever reason. No, they’re not taking my soul, but I guess I’ll just say that I have two photojournalist friends. They don’t publish pictures of people without the permission of the subject, or the subject’s family. I think that’s ethical.

I do not think that perverts, ad men, or photojournalists should be allowed to take pictures of children or anyone for commercial or personal use.

And it should be noted that most news agencies do not do that, out of respect for the individuals photographed.

“Why people want pictures of me is none of my business.”

It is my business. That’s a picture of me!

I should say, I believe the rights apply equally to adults and children, and I never would have thought of this as a pervert issue. My main thought was the guidelines we got for taking pictures for humanitarian organizations:

Don’t treat the person as an object.
Always ask permission to take photos before the session so you can get photos of the person in action, otherwise, interrupt the action to ask. Never take a photo without permission.
If the subject may not be aware of what publication means, show the subject photos of other people looking at pictures. Ask if she would like to be in the photo.

Etc.

And this was in every country, not just very poor or underdeveloped ones. Rules were the same in Skopje and in Kabul.

I think our kids deserve the same!

A hobbyist photographer, this absolutely is a biggie in which I get very riled up. Frankly, I don’t see how it could stand up to constitutional scrutiny via Freedom of the Press.

Parents do anymore, however, think that there’s something “creepy” about your photographing practically anything in public if their kids happen to be within approximately a 3 trillion mile radius of where you’re doing your photographing. I have experienced this: I once photographed ducks at the lake, DUCKS, and a local mother was screaming “stop photographing my kids you pervert.” My reply: don’t worry, I only photograph things that look good (i.e., you have one ugly kid), ha ha.

But seriously–when you are in public you lose all expectation of privacy where it regards this. You can’t have it both ways–wear a bikini at the lake, you will get some stares, don’t like it, cover up–and that is NOT the same as saying a woman in a skimpy dress asks to get raped, I’m talking about a brief stare, not even leering.

As for kids–as Lenore says, no harm is going to come over simple pictures, it doesn’t rip out someone’s soul. As for my prior example, had I been photographing her kid, I would’ve been breaking no law. People like that are really starting to bother me because they’re a reflection of how totally out-of-kilter this country is really starting to get.

Henri Cartier-Bresson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Cartier_Bresson) would be a criminal under this bill. Considering Henri Cartier-Bresson has his street photograph in museums, that shows just how ridiculous this would be.

LRH

Eilzabeth I respectfully say–I do not need and will not ask for permission to photograph ANYTHING in public. Period. I have been known, on an occasion here & there, to see a stranger’s kid do something cute, and I photographed it. I was breaking no law, nor was I doing anything decent. It’s part of life. I mean no disrespect, but no one should have to ask permission to take a picture, that’s just totally ridiculous.

And yes, for the record, I have children, and yes–if someone wants to photograph them, go right ahead.

Again, look it up–Henri Cartier Bresson.

LRH

“Again, look it up—Henri Cartier Bresson.”

I know who he is.

It doesn’t mean I approve of 100% of what he did and how he did it. A criminal? No. I don’t think the law Lenore posted should be passed. HOWEVER.

Just because you don’t think people own their own likeness, does not mean you are absolutely right. Others may disagree and I think you ought to respect that.

Sorry that lady called you a pervert, though. That was uncalled for. A simple, “We don’t like to be photographed or published, thanks,” would suffice.

“I do not need and will not ask for permission to photograph ANYTHING in public. Period.”

I disagree with you. I think ethically, you do. I think I own my likeness.

PERIOD. (Because that ends the debate? I can always tell when I’m arguing with an “artist”… sigh…)

PS, My photographer friends would also disagree with you. Perhaps that is because they work with people whose rights have been trampled on enough?

Warning: if you go to a poor country, where people have nothing but their pride and dignity, you might have to adjust your thinking. Or else get the crap beat out of you, or your camera taken.

Just because you do the job does not mean you get to define the limits of your obligations.

Your hero, Mr. Bresson, might well have asked his subjects, after the fact, if he could publish the photos.

Would that be so hard?

“Cartier-Bresson was a photographer who hated to be photographed and treasured his privacy above all. Photographs of Cartier-Bresson do exist, but they are scant. When he accepted an honorary degree from Oxford University in 1975, he held a paper in front of his face to avoid being photographed.[1]

In a Charlie Rose interview in 2000, Cartier-Bresson noted that it wasn’t necessarily that he hated to be photographed, but it was that he was embarrassed by the notion of being photographed for being famous.[9]”

LOL.

On one hand, I agree with you. By that logic, they should make it illegal for men to purchase women’s underwear.

On the other hand, I don’t like the unauthorized photography of my kids for official purposes. Every year my kids’ school has several “picture days,” plus there was that time when the cops offered to come in and fingerprint and photograph our kids so we could identify them if they were kidnapped, murdered and dismembered. Ugh! In none of these cases did I give my consent/place advance orders. Yet at least for the regular school pictures, they always took my kids’ photos anyway, supposedly so they wouldn’t “feel left out.” I would not be surprised if they did the same during the cop ID event.

No harm was done, but I don’t want my kids’ info to be arbitrarily placed in some database somewhere. I don’t need the government to be keeping tabs on my kids. I can do that myself.

I’m sure some people will think I’m being paranoid, but with the whole nanny state thing going on, I wouldn’t be surprised if they decided, for instance, to track who had and hadn’t had an MMR vax and force it on those who hadn’t. I don’t like them having all my info. (They already have plenty of info from every doctor visit we’ve ever been to. Ugh.)

Sorry, I was typing too fast and didn’t proofread…

I meant:

“Who could get permission from all of the looters we saw after Rodney King’s attackers were aquitted?”

Sorry for the misinformation!

Elizabeth Think what you want, but again, in person, you have NO RIGHT to the expectation of privacy. Except in this wacko weirdo legislation NJ is considering, it’s long been legally established. The ONLY reason any person could possibly think otherwise is because they’ve been brainwashed by the media at large, or they have an elevated level of discomfort which, to be frank, I have no interest in pandering to. I don’t intend to be a jerk per se, but some things I just can’t respect, and that, frankly, is one of them. It’s not up to me to assimiate to their level of discomfort, but theirs to just–well–lighten up.

And I do not know for a fact, but I don’t think Henri Cartier-Bresson asked permission. He just did what he did, in fact, he deliberately camoflauged his camera with black tape so that people wouldn’t know, and even had it modified to where it took photos at an angle–e.g., it was pointed straight ahead, but was in fact taking photos of whatever was to the left or right of it. His camera was a Leica 35mm rangefiner camera with a leaf-shutter, as opposed to a focal plane shutter of an SLR, which was by nature quieter–again, to be purposely discrete. The camera had a wide-ish angle lens, so he was close to his subjects when photographing them, not popping them off from afar with a telescopic lens.

He did all of this so as to PURPOSELY photograph people unaware–but NOT for the purpose of being disrespectful to their feelings, but because it was his opinion that people would “pose,” as opposed to acting natural, if they knew–and he wanted the genuine deal with regards to their facial expression. That is exactly what street photography is all about.

LRH

LOL, I have got to slow down when I type.

Elizabeth, I just realized I said I disrespectfully disagree with you. I hope you know I meant I respectfully disagree!

I am going to bow out of comments now. I am having non stop brain issues today.

There is no right to privacy in public. If you go out into the world, you risk the chance that someone will photograph you, put your unflattering picture on a website, and mock you for the rest of the world to see. That is what it means to live in a society, and especially in one where there is freedom of speech. If you have an issue with yourself or your children being portrayed poorly in a photograph taken by someone else then stay inside for the rest of your life, or man up an deal with little sticks and stones that don’t break your bones. If you’re worried about some sicko taking photos of your kids while fully clothed and getting off on them…well…is it hurting you if he does? Is it hurting your kids?

Last year I was taking photos of a long abandoned railway right-of-way. Some of it was a weed-grown vacant area, but part of it was a long, and relatively narrow park. There were children playing, and other youngsters walking home from school. I was quite careful not to include any recognizable people in the shots. Years ago, I wouldn’t have worried about such things.

Actually “commercial” is very much defined to EXCLUDE Facebook. “Commercial” means “make money from.” Someone or a company or a cause cannot PROFIT from your image without your consents. I receive nothing for the pictures posted on Facebook. If only I did.

Zuckerberg profits from my use of Facebook not my image. Huge difference. The fact that I can post pictures makes use of Facebook more desirable but my individual pictures have no value. However, they could not use my pictures in ads for Facebook because that is profiting (or not with my image) directly from my image. Under your theory, Walmart couldn’t print my pictures without the express written consent of every person in them since I pay them to print them (again, Walmart is profiting from my use of their services, not my images).

And a P.S. that’s actually on topic: This is an area where the law, well-meaning as it is, is criminalizing an act that is bad etiquette. It is rude to photograph someone without permission, it would be rude to refuse a parent’s request to delete a photo of his or her child. But thankfully, RUDE doesn’t make it a crime.

I’m appalled when people come to dinner and don’t send me a handwritten thank you note on a piece of paper they send through the mail (well they could have their footman drop it off in person if they prefer). But I don’t want my government to waste its resources (which are really MY resources) punishing people for that. And I don’t want the people in congress to have the power to make it a crime.

Perhaps the earlier commenters who are disagreeing do actually agree that the act may be objectionable and are mostly disagreeing about the penalty that should apply.

What I find interesting is that this bill would not make illegal certain activities that ARE wrong and invasive. Think of celebrities out with their children, who are harassed beyond all reason, and because they could “expect” that kind of treatment, the photographs would not be illegal.

Spot-on piece, Lenore.

And of course the law is totally stupid. I was referring to other aspects of the conversation here, not the OP.

I agree to a point pentamom. I don’t think people should post random pictures of people if those people ask them not to. I don’t really need to post a picture of your baby kissing my dog no matter how cute. However, asking me to take down pictures of my kid blowing out her birthday candles because your kid happens to be in the picture is a bit much and is not going to be met with a positive response. (Neither of those things have happened as my friends seem to be okay with posting pictures).

When I started reading this post I forgot it was a FRK post instead of a PINAC (Photography is Not a Crime) post. http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/carlosmiller

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, which guarantees the right of photographers to report on what’s happening in our country, often through photographs. This right extends to citizen journalists, aka Moms and Dads and everyone else with a camera.

This law will not hold up to Constitutional scrutiny if passed.

There is no expectation of privacy when you go out in public, period. You are constantly under surveillance, whether by corporate or government cameras. That is what you should care about, not a single photographer taking a picture for personal (non-commercial) use.

Donna, I think I agree with that. I was thinking more of the situation where someone is snapping pictures in public, they’re not obviously taking action pictures of their own family where yours “just happens” to be in it, but are taking pictures that could just as easily be retaken without your or your child in it, and you simply ask them not to, or not to post it.

But yeah, if someone is taking candid pictures of people doing something and they want the image of the person doing something, and then you or your child is in the frame because they’re actually *with* the person being photographed, I don’t think you should deprive them of doing what they want with their kid’s birthday picture or whatever.

timkenwest, I wanted to say something like your #2 but didn’t know how. You said it well. People concerned about wanting to be found should post pictures of themselves. People like me who figure anyone who wants to find them can figure it out from my maiden name and school information or otherwise don’t care, should put up what they want for their profile. It’s not a Rohrshach test, it’s usually more like a personal whim.

Pentamom: I agree with your sentiment about how there is no reason to get outraged if someone asks you to please not take or post your picture. I don’t know why people get offended so easily. Maybe they have good reason to ask that: maybe they are in witness protection, maybe they have an deranged ex they are in hiding from and don’t want them seeing a pic and finding where they live. maybe they have a stalker.

There are all kinds of legitimate reasons for not wating a pic of your kids or you taken or posted and people should respect that. For example, I had to get onto my SIL for showing my estranged FIL pictures and telling him info about my kids. My husband has chosen to not have any contact with this man for very good reasons. So it is not SIL’s place to tell him about us or show him pictures of us. That is a violation of privacy. Wheither she took the pictures or we took them, if I ask her to not show him, she should respect that.

Phil, good point. Brings to mind the citizens who have been stopped by police and try to film the following events (citations, arrests, killing of unarmed persons) and the police want to take away the phones/cameras.

Isn’t there a case up before the US Supreme Court about this?

Yesterday I was at World Market and picked out a scarf for my Mother’s Day present. When I got home and cut the tag off, I thought of Free Range Kids. You’ll never believe what it said! Not intended for use for people under 14 years old (or something to that effect)! Really?! A little pink flowery rayon scarf?! What harm could ever possibly come from a scarf? Sure, maybe it could suffocate a newborn but a 5, 9, or 11 year old can’t wear it? What is the world coming to?!

Lollipoplover – your anecdote is awesome. You should post it again and again until some of the others who’ve been commenting actually read it.

Elizabeth and Dolly – So what you’re both saying is that when you’re on vacation and taking pictures of your kids, etc, you make sure that no one – absolutely no one – is in the background of any of your pictures, right?

What a lot of folks here seem to be missing is the concept of a candid vs a posed photo. There is a spirit, a rawness to a candid photo that is impossible to produce in a posed photo (even with pro models or actors). The very act of asking someone before you photograph them destroys this.

ELIZABETH is wrong in a way. If PETA was to take my pic and use it in a smear campaign, yes PETA would be liable, but not for the reasons Lizzy is suggesting. In that case, it would be slander.

Giving up right to privacy is a double edged sword. When people supported public registries and open records like mug shots, it paved the way to greater loss of privacy. If I knew Liz’s full name, I can collect her public records like arrest records, credit history, and the like through Intellius or similar record selling companies. Many people willingly give up info like kid’s photos on their FB pages, including those people who propagate the fear of online sex predators (how contrary, eh?)

Public means public. Back a few years ago, Cincinnati was going to have to allow the KKK to march through the black neighborhood (Free Speech) but they could not hide their faces behind their white hoods. Apparently they got the idea from a similar event in New York state. That means you can take pictures of the racists. Needless to say, it went a long way in killing the march.

Its not the taking of pictures that is illegal, it is how they are used.

Katie You nailed it, that is exactly right. I read that very idea & concept in photography years ago, in the 80s as a teenager just getting into this for the first time. Discrection is the key.

What gets lost in all of this is the “face in the crowd” reality that, properly done, such photos can be seen by millions without it being traced to the subject directly. Think of all those “lose 30 pounds in just 3 weeks” commercials, complete with a woman in a bikini looking hot. Zillions of people will see that woman flaunting herself in a bikini but won’t associate the image with the person. She could teach 3rd grade arithmetic but no one knows she’s a teacher moonlighting showing 3/4ths of her body on TV, not even her students, she’s a nameless face in the crowd.

Done right, photos taken will be the same way. The trick is to post somewhere like Flickr or SmugMug under a userid as opposed to posting them on Facebook under your real name, “friending” your subjects and “tagging” their names. That’s where people get nervous. But the way I do it as described, no one’s going to associate my subjects to who they are in real-life.

LRH

Elizabeth The woman in the commercial is legally entitled, candids are not.

And good Lord, that person who called you “Liz” wasn’t trying to offend you. All you needed to do was say “I prefer Elizabeth,” it’s far less abrasive and doesn’t make you sound like you’re fishing for reasons to CHOOSE to be offended.

Now let’s all get some sleep. Enough bickering. Sometimes I think Lenore must shake her head at how some of these posts get–yes, that may include some of mine as well, I must admit.

LRH

Again you seem to be missing the point Elizabeth. PETA doesn’t have the right to use your picture because it’s for COMMERCIAL purposes. They can’t use your picture for their own benefit without your consent and offering you payment. An exception would be a image taken a PETA event. If you attend a PETA rally and pictures are taken, PETA can use those images.

Like it or not, your friend has every right to take your picture and post it on Facebook. Now one who would do so against your wishes is probably not a great friend but is not a criminal either. I also would not consider someone a good friend who came to my party, ate my food, enjoyed my liquor and either refused to allow me to take their picture or demanded I remove them from Facebook because it’s an “invasion of their privacy.” It would likely be the last party that person was invited to attend.

People have a right to document events in their lives as they see fit. If you don’t want to be a part of the documentation, don’t attend the event.

And give me your email and I’ll send you a picture. I don’t personally care whether you hate on it or not. I don’t know you. I will never know what you do with the picture. What a stranger says about me is completely and totally meaningless in my life. In the limited time I spend worrying about anything, I’ll worry about things that matter a little more than a strangers opinion. I feel the same about strangers taking pictures of me. If they want the picture for artistic purposes or get off is completely irrelevant. Yes, the later is creepy IF I know about it but I never will.

Larry: You are just not a very considerate or etiquette person. You think how you feel about something trumps everyone else. So if someone invited your children to a nice birthday party you would show up with a camera and start snapping pictures of everyone without even asking the host if that was okay? At your party, sure, click away, but at someone else’s party that would be rude unless you cleared it with the host first. Then if the host said they would prefered you didn’t you would get all put out and not let your kids attend the party? That is actually fairly anti free range since you would be trying to control other people at their own event and keep your children from doing something fun just because you got told “no”.

I know that sounds fairly rude of me to say but you have not cared how rude you sound toward me or others on this blog so I am losing patience with you.

I need to find where you live and get a pic of you and create a website about you saying what I think of you and no that would not be slander because its opinion and opinion is not slander.

That is where I call bull about people saying they would not mind their or their kids pic posted online. So if some mean girls took your daughter’s picture and put it on a website where they talked about how ugly she was and how much they hated her, you would not care? Because legally they would be doing no wrong since that would only be opinion. Its not slander to state an opinion. Or what about some teenage boys putting her pic up and saying how they had sex with her and how hot it was? If it was true then they have the right to talk about it. I call bull because I believe you would have a BIG problem with it and would do all you could to have it removed. Even if it was true. Because the fact is that all people don’t like negative things being published about themselves and if they can stop it, they will.

Donna: you totally missed the point of the whole blog post. The man was admitting to taking the pics of the girls for getting off purposes. So you said you would mind if you knew that was what the pic was for. Well there you go! The police and the parents KNEW that was what the pics of the little girls was for because the man admitted it! So by your logic then, you would support their opinion that what he did was wrong and unacceptable and should be prevented.

I would, admittedly, be more pissed off about it if it were my child instead of me but I still don’t want a law that prevents pictures from being taken in public places. End of story. If that means that some geezer can take pictures of my kid and use them to jack off, I just hope I don’t find out about it.

“So if some mean girls took your daughter’s picture and put it on a website where they talked about how ugly she was and how much they hated her, you would not care?”

I would CARE tremendously and I would talk to the mean girls’ parents and try to get it taken down. Same with the comments about my daughter and sex. However, I DO NOT want A LAW preventing pictures being posted on the internet or a LAW giving me the right to simply demand pictures of me be taken down. A law against bullying I may be able to get behind if very carefully worded. I’m simply a fierce defender of the 1st amendment, although I don’t think bullying is protected speech.

I have traveled in different countries and always try to get a few photos of what kids do in those places. I hope they never make it illegal. It would take away a whole dimension of cultural awareness/understanding. Who wants to look only at posed photos of children?

But on the other hand, this would probably be a breath of fresh air for the children of celebrities.

Really, what we need is better manners, not more laws.

Donna Wow, all I can say is–wow. You make so much sense & articulate it so well. Will you marry me? (Ha ha, just teasing.)

I eapecially agree with what you said about how people ought to be able to document their lives, within reason anyway, as they see fit. Exactly. It is the most natural thing in the world to want to do this. lt’s why cameras were invented. Especially noteworthy is that it’s why the old Kodak Box camera in 1900 became so popular, prior to that people depended on expert-types to take photos for them, because cameras that almost anyone could use weren’t common-place yet, now people could photograph tbeir life events themselves, maybe the results weren’t as good, the same is true today, but at least now people were (and still are) free to document it all themselves.

If a person doesn’t like tbeir photo taken, they have the right to their feelings and ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY they have the right to expect people’s compliance. But once you venture outside your 4 walls & engage in life, you now can’t expect that to be accomodated any longer. Other persons don’t have this hangup & are busy photographing each other and enjoying it. To be a wet blanket in it is just ridiculous, and that goes triple for wanting a law forbidding public photography without consent. I’m not putting my camera down, sorry.

People could enjoy life so much if they quit seeing darkness in everything. In fact, last year at the lake, I was there with my kid & a friend who is an official foster care parent approved by the state. A young 1 year old (my guess) boy was running completely naked up & down the lake, oblivious to it all, and his parents–amazingly–didn’t freak out. This friend & I were laughing hysterically. Yes, a photo was taken for the purpose of remembering how funny that was. Remember–this person with me is a person APPROVED BY THE STATE for being a foster parent. I know her well besides and would trust her with my kids in a minute. Even she was laughing and saw no harm in taking a photo of it for humor purposes. This photo will likely never be online anywhere, it will simply live on as an offline image that reminds us how funny & enjoyable life can be. I do NOT consider it porn, it was NOT a rude or weird thing to do (look at old photo books made before people got ridiculous about this, they’re full of such photos with descriptions about the funny stories behind it & tips on how to do it yourself) and the fact that the parents watched the whole thing and never had a cow tells me they are free from this crazy worry–thank God for that.

Life is funny, enjoy it already. I sure do.

LRH

I am hoping with all my heart that they do not pass it… ebcause where than do I take my kids where I can take pics?!?! I already love zoom because I honestly crop other people’s kids out… unless they are freinds with my kids and know us! I have no need to have pics of others kids…

Went to a public spray ground once through http://sacramentosidetracks.com so it is free and public. Only thing I didn’t like, and couldn’t crop out of one of my pics was an over weight, topless, 13 year old girl, who was obviously getting what I have. It didn’t bother me as a person, but as a mom, I think if she were mine I would have gone nuts? And I couldn’t use one cute pic of my boys becaise she was smack dab in the middle of them, background, but seen!!! Didn’t want her topless in my toddlers pics… even though they were in spedo bottoms! Loved their tushies because they were over sized without diapers under.

But I think the issue is we’ve grown so over the top of our children they cannot function when they get older… I learned the hard way with our eldest who is now 15! I lerned to back off our now 4 and 5 year olds… and trying to fix the teenager???

These are the rules in the United States (paraphrased): All rules about location apply to the place the picture is taken FROM, not the place the picture is taken OF, with the single exception that a picture of the inside of a private residence may not be taken without the owner’s consent. Photography of any and all subjects, except where prohibited by military law, is permitted in all locations owned and operated by a city, county, state, or federal government (“Public Places”). This includes all public roads and all land within a certain distance of a public road (usually a couple of feet). From all other locations (“Private Places”) it is the sole decision of the land owner as to whether photography is permitted. A private landowner (including large corporations such as Wal-Mart or Disney) has the rights to remove any individual from the premises for any reason, including photography (however, discrimination lawsuits can easily occur if an individual feels that he is being singled out… i.e., if others are taking pictures and not being removed from the property). However, he has no legal rights to ensure that the photographs are removed, unless he has previously stated via speech or signage that photography is prohibited. Even then it is questionable as to the landowner’s rights, unless the photographer entered the property without permission (in open places such as stores and tourist attractions, permission to enter is implied during operating hours). All photographs taken may be used in any way, shape, or form by the photographer, except that usage of human likenesses in commercial works with a resolution such that the face is clearly identifiable generally requires the consent or the individual involved (or his parents if he is a minor). Note that the selling of the photograph or its use in sold material (such as books and newspapers) does not make the use commercial; rather “commercial use” is defined as the use of a human likeness in advertising in such a way that a reasonable individual would believe that the person is supporting the product.

Beth: No if someone ends up in the background I don’t think that is a big deal. I made that very clear that if me or my kids happen to end up in a background by accident, no biggie. What I am against is purposefully taking pics of my kids where you are lining up the shot with them the subject of the shot without my permission or by someone I don’t know. That is when I would have a problem. Then if I ask you to not do that, you need to stop.

So this law is not worded right since it seems even accidental pics or background pics would be outlawed and I don’t have a problem with that. I have a problem with intentionally taking pics of someone you don’t know without their knowledge or permission. If someone asked me to delete or not post a pic of them in it though, I would. As I said I have done in the past.

Typically I don’t really have a lot of shots of random people. I am not a huge picture taker for one thing so the shots I do have are taken deliberately with my kids or my friends or my family lined up in the shot and they are probably going to be the only ones in the shot. If anyone else happens to be in the shot they are out of focus and you might just see an arm or something, not a focused, lined up, centered shot where you can tell who it is or really see much.

Hey if a law prevents traffic cameras from being put up then I definitely support it! And that is coming from someone who has never gotten a ticket ever, but I still hate the idea of traffic cameras!

Same with a lot of other kinds of invasive security cameras.

Dolly, do you really think Larry is talking about getting right up in a stranger’s face and snapping photos without asking? I guess if he wanted to do a series of pictures of surprised, angry people that would work, but NOTHING he’s said in this thread (or others) implies that is what he’s doing.

The problem is this law is so broad and vague it becomes meaningless. If a creepy dude wants to take pictures of kids at a park for nefarious purposes, guess what happens if this law passes? He’ll still do it, but he’ll just be sneakier about it. Meanwhile, everyday shutterbugs will be caught up in the sort of sweeping net of “false positives” that these types of laws always wind up being.

The extreme cases given in this thread (upskirt cell cam photos, cyber-bullying, child porn) are already covered under existing laws. We don’t need another stricter/broader law to punish those who are doing nothing wrong.

A suggestion to those on the thread who don’t want their picture taken: if you see a photographer who you think may have photographed you, approach them and politely inquire what they are doing, and let them know you don’t want your photo taken. Odds are, that photog will comply with you if you are nice about it! Approaching with a “you have no right to do this!” attitude will probably not get you compliant behavior from the photog.

Leaving aside the legality issue for a moment, Jenn, I agree with you that a changing room is not a good place to take photos. I can also understand your uneasiness about your children’s pictures being “out there”. But let’s think for a moment what happened here – a grandmother, who was taking pictures of her grandchildren, not other people’s grandchildren, got called a possible paedophile and had the police called in (and I understand this only after you tried to reason with her politely).

Here’s the thing that gets me. If I ask myself would I take pictures in a changing room, the answer would probably be no. If you asked me if I thought it was a good idea to take photos in a changing room, I’d say, no now you mention it, no it isn’t. But if it happened to me, unless the woman was directly taking photos of my children, in which case I would be very angry, I probably wouldn’t notice.

In a way (although people might feel it’s an unfair analogy), this reminds me of a card I saw up at my local swimming pool. It was a customer’s complaint followed by the management’s response. The complaint was: could you please put up a notice to remind parents to change their children in the changing rooms provided and not in the cafe area in full view of the gallery. I had to think about it and yes there is the occasional parent who towels off their child and helps them off with their swimsuit discreetly there (there are certainly not naked children running around).

Again, I would not help my children change outside the changing room, yes you should do it in the changing rooms provided, but who are these people who are even noticing this let alone writing complaints about this?

I do think that a lot of these people who make these faux pas are immigrants and I do feel a bit sorry for them as really their only crime is to not understand how strange we are about children in the UK.

I agree the granny should have calmed down and shown the photos or deleted them and taken new ones. Maybe she was just shocked.

I remember once I took my granny to a buffet place for dinner. She had not been to one before. She served herself like everyone does – more generously than she often eats – and found herself too full to finish. Having grown up during the depression, she considered it a sin to waste food, so she took a napkin and wrapped one roll in it and placed it in her pocket. She was accosted for “stealing” on the way out. She was horrified.

Did she break the rule? Yes. She didn’t realize it at the time, but you could say she should have admitted her wrong once she was stopped at the door. However, in her mind, she was being attacked in a most ridiculous manner over not wanting to throw a piece of bread in the garbage can.

So as far as grannies go, I would say give them a little grace. You know they are not trying to get photos of your nakey kids, and even if it happens, she’s not going to go and sell them to an international publisher. If there’s an innocent photo of your naked child out there, is that really harmful? The naked body of a child is not the problem; images of it is not the problem; the problem is people who make of it more than it is.

Sooooo basically – when we went to the park w/my son today for a school/city fitness day all the pix i took of him would be considered illegal. The pix of him accept a trophy for his school (because it was him and another child), the pix of him playing tug-o-war (because there were children near him that ended up in my pictures), the pix of him trying to hula hoop because well lots of kids were nearby.

WOW that’s just insanity at it’s best.

And I do know that somewhere my son ended up in other people’s pix today too. And may even *Gasp* be on their facebook page because he was beside their kid during tug-o-war. But I honestly believe that most people who happened to get my son in their pictures today – were just like me….parents enjoying a fun morning out w/their child and trying to capture a few fun moments on their camera.

oooh and that would mean I can’t photograph my daughter’s horseshow tomorrow either….

The precious moments that we catch in pictures would be lost forever 🙁

I’m so saddened to see where this world is going.

“Warning: if you go to a poor country, where people have nothing but their pride and dignity, you might have to adjust your thinking. Or else get the crap beat out of you, or your camera taken.”

Elizabeth… Sorry, but I know for fact that in one 3rd world country at least, you’re totally wrong. I lived in the Dominican Republic for 2 years as a Peace Corps volunteer… I had to hide my camera. As soon as folks saw it, they wanted their pictures taken and then demanded prints be given to them. They didn’t have access to cameras much and had very few, if any, pictures of anyone in their families. Imagine not having pictures of your kids as babies! I have lots of pictures of all of my neighbors, none of whom gave a whit about who owned the image. In talking to other Returned Volunteers, they all say the same thing – cameras are very popular in very poor places. Oh, and while you might get mugged in the Dominican Republic, you most likely won’t get “the crap beat out of you”… though you are right in saying that your camera might be stolen. Not because they want to get “their” pictures back, but because they either want to keep the camera for themselves or sell it so that they can buy food. I guess that’s where the difference between 3rd world and 1st world is… they worry about important things and we obsess on silly matters that squelch the wonder and magic of our very charmed and privileged lives.

My guess is the proposed law has little to do with “protecting children” or privacy or the like and everything to do with the laws coming up forbidding photographing animal confinement lots or meat processing plants, etc (even from public areas).

If you think about it, there are few public scenes that won’t have a child in the background. If you ban them all that means no videos of police brutality, no pictures to support whisleblowing, no pictures of wrongdoing, and so forth.

This smacks of corporate power plays far more than it does of overprotection of children.

I can’t recall ever reading one of your posts and not agreeing with it before, but I do have to say that I’m not with you on this one. I work at a school, and because modern technology often attaches a location to a photo that is shared on, say, Facebook, many parents do not want their children’s photographs shared on line. It’s not so much the photographing as the sharing they don’t like, but once someone has a photo of you or your kid you have no control over where it goes from there. We do have parents sign a release that allows us to use their children’s images on our Facebook page or blog, and while most people don’t care, some people decline permission.

Who knows – could be a situation with a non-custodial parent or somethng, maybe they are paranoid, personally I don’t have a problem sharing pictures of my kids all over the place, but I do think it’s a privacy issue.

And BTW, the old man taking photos of “sexy” teens in the park is a little beyond creepy for me.

Donna: So the fact that the granny BLATANTLY broke the rules about not taking locker room pics means nothing? In that case I guess rules don’t matter as long as your intentions were good? To me it would not be a pedophile issue at all, it would be a you broke a rule issue and now you have to apologize and correct it by deleting the pics or showing them to us and by apologizing. If she doesn’t want to follow the rules, then she needs to stay out of the place.

] “outlaw the photographing or videotaping of kids in situations in which “a reasonable parent or guardian would not expect his child to be the subject of such reproduction.”

I don’t think this law is as radical as others are implying. Look what is specifically says – in situations a reasonable parent would not expect his child to be photographed. In other words, it is deliberately worded to omit places where there is NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY – such as public parks. It is worded to apply to kids being photographed in an unexpected place (such as a lockeroom, for instance). The “reasonable” test isn’t going to be passed by a guy snapping photographs of scenerey in a public park, or his own kid with other kids in the background, etc. But if one guy is following your kid all over the place snapping pictures from one piece of equipment to another, that’s probably a “situation” a “reasonable” parent would not anticipate having their child photographed – not the park itself, where he has no expectation of privacy – but the “situation” of being constantly trailed and photograph, which a “reasonable” parent would not expect.

I’m not saying I agree with the law as phrased, but I don’t think it could be easily interpreted in a court of law to apply to a guy snapping pictures of his own kids in the park and catching someone else. I don’t think it’s that broad. It’s phrased to apply to Mr. Creepy primarily.

How’d that smiley face get there?? It should read 8, as in eight years old.

Ted Sali That is exactly right. People have been brainwashed just as you said, and I’ve neither the patience. nor inclination to clarify & pacify them on the occasion when I’m doing what I do. I know better, it’s not my fault they’re ignorant & I won’t let my photography (not that I’m that good, but still) suffer on account of their ignorance. I choose to focus (pardon the pun) on what’s beautiful and appreciate it & attempt to reproduce it.

LRH

I knew a guy in high school who didn’t want his photo taken for the yearbook. He never came on photo days, and although he was told by the adults he HAD to go and do group photos for the groups he was in, he always ducked down at the last second. He succeeded in not having his photo in any of the year books for the time he was in high school.

Not sure if that is relevant to this discussion, but, he was a minor, but had strong feelings, for whatever reason (maybe just to annoy people) about getting his photo taken. I always felt, this being back in the early 80s, that it was his right to decide, not some administrators’.

What if someone with a really good memory stares at your kid and remembers them fondly later? Would you get the Thought Police after them? Would you dress your child in head-to-toe robes from then on?

You don’t own the photons that bounce off of your face. You don’t own your likeness. You didn’t create it. You don’t even own your child’s likeness. It’s so strange for me to see some commenters here insisting that they own their likenesses — it’s like them claiming that a certain tree in the park is theirs, and no one may look at it or photograph it.

If you are in a public place, you may end up on a CCTV or in someone’s photo. Big deal. Even if they put your likeness to some profitable use, like, say a calendar of people enjoying city parks and green spaces at different times of year, so what?

Once at a birthday party at which I was taking candid photos (three of my kids were there), a woman politely asked me to avoid taking pictures of her child if I could, and if her child ended up in any of my photos she said that was fine, but she asked me not to post any of those online. (She knew I had a site that I use to share family events with relatives overseas, etc.) Her child was a foster child, being kept away from abusive parents, and while it was incredibly unlikely that they might find her through my largely-unknown website, I understood her concern, appreciated her polite explanation and request (not that she had to tell me any of the gory details), and I gladly complied with her request. Amazing what mutual courtesy can achieve.

So, in a case like that, I’ll be happy to alter my photographing activities, but if you’re just at a public event I’m not going to go out of my way to keep you out of my photos. And any law that could even be vaguely applied to make me do so is simply ludicrous. I would cheerfully break it and challenge it.

Also, the person who suggested that a person would be beaten for pulling out a camera in a “poor area” doesn’t know what they are talking about. I’ve taken my camera to many places in many countries. In most places people have NONE of these silly ideas, and BEG to have their picture taken. And they don’t even ask first what you plan to do with their photo. Maybe they are simply too busy enjoying a life of normal, non-fearful living to worry about such foolishness?

Tuppence – But these weren’t photographs taken of HER child. They were photographs taken of someone’s child that her child may or may not have been in the background of. At some point, we have to accept that when we exit our homes we occasionally end up in other people’s pictures. We don’t have control over that situation.

That said, even taking into account that there is a legitimate objection to photos being taken in a dressing room, I stand by my assertions that (1) that Americans have extremely unhealthy viewpoints on the human body, (2) Americans are way too prone to see pedophilia where none exists and overreacting in situations such as this, (3) that small children running around without clothes is quite natural in many cultures and used to be perfectly acceptable in ours before the pedophile craze started, (4) as described, this situation was handled completely wrong, (5) calling granny a pedophile was absurd and obscene.

I just reread Jenn’s story and she stated that she politely explained the rules to the granny and the granny still got rude to her and was refusing to show the pictures. She even said she assured the granny she knew what she was doing was harmless but she would like to just make sure her kids were not naked in the pics for privacy purposes. The granny continued to be rude and uncooperative. I believe Jenn because why would she need to lie about this story? So if what Jenn says is true that means that there was no accusations of calling her a pedophile or being rude. She was just enforcing rules and protecting her kids privacy and modesty. The granny was being very uncooperative and rude.

Dolly I must say, I completely agree with your view regarding your story about your husband at the playground. We disagree about the photo thing, but we are in full agreement about this.

I have had a similar situation occur to me on several occasions, and to be frank–I went ahead & honored the child’s request, and just let the chips fall where they may. Fortunately the case so far has been that the parents not only didn’t take offense, they actually seemed appreciative. In one recent case it was even a little girl (aged 5 or so), I was spotting up climbing the monkey bars and she was even asking me to swing her the “aggressive” way I was swinging my own girl, and due to the heat I was shirtless–but STILL the parents seemed appreciative vs freaking out. It brought a smile to my face.

I’m not AT ALL lambasting what your husband did in terms of playing it safe, frankly as nutty as people can be like you said, I can’t much blame him. I just choose to fight the tidal wave. Kudos to you, too, that you are apparently fighting the tidal wave. I applaud you for it.

LRH

Larry –

I am an intensely private person. I do not want pictures of me floating around “out there” that I have no control over. Me being a face in the crowd or some person in the background, I have no problem with. However, if you took a photo featuring me (as in the case with your kid and the kid he was playing with), without my consent, I would ask you to stop and delete the pictures you had taken. I am not at all comfortable having some stranger take photos of me like that. If you refused to delete the pictures I would insist. If you continued to refuse, I would forcibly remove the pictures from the camera myself – and if that happens to involve breaking your camera, you SD card, or your face, so be it. I feel that strongly about the issue. Please understand that I am not a violent person and certainly do not believe that violence is an acceptable way to solve problems, but that picture is coming off that card.

Yes, obviously, if someone goes out in public they expect people to, you know, SEE them. However, we do of course control WHERE we are seen and to a general extent by who. For example, what I normally wear tends to be… well, spiky. Going to a job interview I’d be neat and tidy and well dressed and not spiky. I do not want my potential employers to find a picture of me somewhere on the internet with spiky cuffs and ripped jeans and a belt made of steel chain, because they’re going to assume I’m addicted to at least five five illegal drugs and not want to hire me. It is, however, totally unlikely that my potential employer would have seen me in a crowd somewhere and recognised me.

I believe that it should be each and every person’s right to demand that any given photograph of them is removed from wherever it is or destroyed – the kicker is that they need to a) KNOW that the photo exists and where it exists, and b) ask to have it removed. Obviously it shouldn’t be a crime to take a photo at a beach and have some guy in the background, but it SHOULD be a crime to take a picture of a guy at the beach and keep it, even though he asks you not to or asks you to delete the picture. The guy knows the photo exists on you SD card. He insists that you remove it. You should remove it. Simple as that.

And Donna –

Having someone take pictures that include complete strangers (of any age) in partial or complete states of undress is completely inappropriate at any time. If you would not leave the changing room in that state, no photo of you in that same state should leave the changing room either. It’s as simple as that and it’s completely common sense. Granny was way, way, WAY over the line in refusing to delete the pictures of half-naked stranger-children from her camera, and that strikes me as extremely suspicious. I mean, do you really need a sign on, say, the ladies’ room door that taking pictures of people using the toilet under the stall door is “not allowed”? Is that a rule you need to know?

Really.

Your transaction number is: 120757409

PS–can I put it blunter?

“I am not at all comfortable having some stranger take photos of me like that.”

How about this: tough shit, don’t leave the house or wear viel like the Muslims can’t (but should be able to) wear in France.

You should take a hint from the Almish–I’m told they hate their photo being taken, they think it’s making an image before God (idolatry, I guess), but I doubt they’d be chasing me or whoever with pitchforks and axes yelling “that photo is coming off the card.”

That’s what you apparently would do? Well get ready, because you will be arrested for assaulty & battery, and you know what happens when you are arrested? They take your mug shot, and there ain’t a damn thing you can do about it.

Don’t want employers seeing you in spiked clothes? Then don’t flaunt yourself out in public that way? Do you assert “an employer doesn’t have the ethical right to hire or not hire me based on photos of me dressed that way?” I would 100% agree with you there, but that’s not problem your employer doesn’t understand how to separate “leisure Sera” from “office/professional Sera.”

I’m not a rude person, but I have the right to photograph what I do, and the minute you or anyone else tries to be pushy, you are going to lose. I promise. Even if I “fake delete,” you lose–that is, I can delete the photo off the card, put the card away and use a new one–and use image recovery software off the original card, and the photos are recovered even though I deleted them.

And some cameras have “hide image” features where you can take the image, “hide” it to where it doesn’t show in playback but it’s STILL there. How about that? Doing it that way, I can playback every single image on my camera–which, by the way, I don’t have to do no matter how much you threaten me–and you will see nothing, thinking you’re in the clear. But you’re not.

You do NOT own your likeness in public. The public does. Learn it, live it, and keep yourself out of legal trouble. We know our photographer’s rights, and having this jackass attitude only raises the stakes against you in a way in which you are guaranteed to lose every time if you try it with someone like me who won’t back down.

LRH

Larry –

I believe that if any reasonable adult would, if asked, remove a picture of another person from their camera if said other person made it clear that the existence of that photo makes them uncomfortable. That is certainly what I would do for anyone else, and what I would expect others to do for me.

Normal adults try to avoid engaging in behaviours that make other people uncomfortable. This is part of normal social development. We compromise, we give, we make space for each other. You, however, do not. I’ve read on awful lot of your posts on this blog, especially lately, and you are not a reasonable adult. You have a prevailing attitude of “I want to do X, and the law allows me, so I WILL do X and screw how that affects anybody else”. This is antisocial behaviou.

I was bullied extensively in high school. Those people are still out there and they have left a lasting impression on my psyche that there are people in the world – many people – who would do me harm for fun and think nothing of it. I do not want pictures of myself on the internet for them to use and abuse. You couldn’t really call it a phobia, exactly, but the way I feel certainly shares many characteristics with phobias.

Honestly, I find your views on this subject unreasonable, disgusting, selfish in the extreme and antisocial. Any reasonable adult would try to avoid a situation where a confrontation is provoked. You seem to relish these sorts of situations.

With rights – all rights – come responsibilities to not exercise those rights in ways that cause harm. Taking a photograph of someone and causing them to lose peace of mind is causing them harm.

Actually I think Lafe‘s post was rather sensible. As for honoring “don’t take my photograph, I’m shy” types of requests, if it was someone whom I knew & they were very kind and polite about it, honestly I probably would try to accomodate them. The main thing is, would it turn into a “chilling” effect on the rest of the day’s events photographically-speaking? In other words, is it easy to accommodate their request yet still be able to photograph everyone else who doesn’t mind and it not feel awkward? If that were the case, then I’d likely honor it.

The woman who asked me to delete the photo of her child–sorry, it was a photo of my child as much as it was one of hers, and her child CHOSE to engage with mine, and the child–speaking of respecting a child’s feelings as a person–didn’t seem to object to any of it either. She took my photographing her holding my son as part of the joy itself also, from my observation. I chose to not allow the mother’s paranoia to spoil it for her child or for me.

As for Henri Cartier-Bresson–yes, his photos are magnificent, and I will never think he was wrong in what he was doing. If he had listened to people like the ones screaming “stop taking photos of my kids, you pervert” at me when I was actually photographing cucks, he’d never gotten anywhere. You can’t less sub-par thinking ruin top-notch art.

Sera Taking a photo of someone who objects because it makes them uncomfortable isn’t causing them harm–it’s them CHOOSING to see it for something it isn’t that is causing them harm. It’s 100% self-inflicted. I realize a person’s feelings should be respected mostly (and in fact I typically try to do just that, seriously)–but pandered to if they’re being unreasonable? Nope.

As for photos being on the Internet vs a photo-album–no difference, especially if they’re somewhere like Flickr or SmugMug with a caption “cute kid at the park I saw.” Do you REALLY think someone is going to see that and associate it with your child specifically, or you specifically as a person? That’s as likely as seeing a commercial of customers eating at Burger King and tracking them down. They’re “faces in the crowd,” a tree lost in the forest. (Now if it was them at a Facebook friend’s site and they “tagged” them to where it was associated with your profile, that just might be different–and I don’t do that, because Facebook’s photo hosting stinks compared to the likes of Flickr or SmugMug anyway.)

And if that still bothers you anyway–well, you have the right to your feelings and that’s fine as far as that goes–but for us to be passing laws based on them or to even be socially pressuring people to go around getting explicit permission from everyone they photograph & ruining the spontaneity of all of this over it is just nuts.

LRH

Myriam –

What is the function of a changing room?

Yep. Exactly. The thing is, if you think about it, taking any visual recordings in an area whose specific purpose is so that people can do something in private without being looked at is just… absolutely insane.

You can’t tell me that the woman couldn’t have possibly taken pictures of her grandchildren in a place that doesn’t have that whole issue surrounding it. By the sound of it she wasn’t taking a picture of them up against the wall either – she was taking pictures of them from angles that may possibly have included pictures of complete strangers getting changed.

I’m going to stop saying “granny” now. I hate it when people refer to me using generic “mum” and I’m sure I’ll hate it even more when I’m generic “granny”.

Donna, I’m sorry if there’s been an ongoing misunderstanding about me being concerned with what this original post is about — taking photos of children, automatically = creepy. That point is silly for me. But this thread has taken a turn wherein people are insisting that the right to photograph supersedes the right to privacy.

Telling people to “get over” their demand to their right to privacy is a VERY disturbing and potential VERY dangerous idea.
The statements were usually along the line of this one from above:
“If you are in a public place, you may end up on a CCTV or in someone’s photo. Big deal.”
And even go so far as to say this: “You do NOT own your likeness in public. The public does. Learn it, live it, and keep yourself out of legal trouble.” Mark the words, “keep yourself out of legal trouble”. That’s so worrying. Why not finger print everyone as well? I mean if you have nothing to hide . . .?

I’m not sure it is possible to protect privacy as we did before the digital revolution. But the (delivered with a more than slightly bullying intonation) insistence that one “be cool” and “get over (it) ” the concern with a right to privacy is very ill conceived indeed. The sanctity of the right to privacy is pivotal to free citizenship.

The concept of a “Right to Privacy” in public places is an oxymoron, and it simply doesn’t exist. No one is “bullying” anyone by attempting to point this out. In my bathroom or in my home, I should expect some right to privacy. But if I walked out into the street naked and later complained that someone had looked at me or that some media organization had taken photos or video of the crazy man for the nightly news, upon what would I be basing my complaint? That I expected people to read my mind and know that I wanted privacy in spite of the fact I was in public? Such an expectation on my part would be incorrect, plain and simple.

Likewise, upon what are some of us basing the assumption that we are entitled to some “Right Not To Be Made Uncomfortable”? If you had once been bitten by a dog and still struggled with issues related to that incident, I would feel sad for you and hope that you could get past that. I would NOT, however approve of you coming across someone in the public park with a non-threatening dog, and insisting that that person remove the dog from your presence at once, or you would kill it.

A person who has been bullied online may have unresolved issues or anger, but that doesn’t mean that they can threaten to destroy someone’s camera who has not read their mind and has no knowledge of nor part in their internal problems.

This is a strange malady of our society that we should work to address. Where did we get these ideas that everyone owes us a life free of discomfort and that we can think up rights for ourselves without considering their impact on the rest of society, and just because we feel emotionally attached to our made-up rights they must be valid?

My Daughter came early, my dad posted a pic of her in the NICU before I even had a chance to tell friends that we had a kid. He is a very proud grandpa… Now not only did they find out through facebook that we had a daughter but they also saw a rather scary pic of a child very vulnerable and fighting for her life.

How would you all feel about that? Laws are ridiculous but asking the parents and thinking before posting is always a good plan. There really is no damage here, but every parent has their own designs on how they want their child exposed to the world and we as parents should probably respect those differing opinions.

It’s fun reading all of these posts and participating, isn’t it? I love

having the chance to educate & enlighten people who don’t know

otherwise that public photography is legal, has been going on for eons

and is not, by any reasonable measure, rude, and it sure isn’t

something that ought to have laws introduced on the books on account of

it.

As Lenore stated, the 63 year old man situation, while kind of creepy,

is almost harmless. If you think it’s not harmless–sorry, your opinion

is just wrong. As Lenore also states, the camera does not capture

anyone’s soul.

The one person who was semi-quoting me in terms of “learn it, live it,

stay legal” or whatever–I wasn’t at all advocating a police state and

“if you have nothing to hide it shouldn’t bother you.” Not at all. I

was merely saying–don’t go breaking the law threatening physical

action, which is illegal–as it should be–over a right you don’t have

and over a fear which is beyond irrational. But more on that later.

No one, not even me, perhaps the most defiant in terms of saying that I

will continue to photograph publicly and will defend that right very

vigorously, is not advocating doing things like, for instance, posting

someone’s likeness on a site with a caption saying “this is what

happens to you when you don’t lose weight, you get a fat butt like this

woman, Jane Doe,” only I’m calling her by her real name, not Jane Doe,

and I’m even posting a link to her Facebook site so you can know who

this person is–her job, her employer, how she lives & breathes, ALL of

it.

And unless something along those lines is going on, there’s nothing

rude being advocated here in terms of photography. And as Lenore says,

this whole thing is fraught with “inflated fear.” It’s stupid, and I’m

NOT going to succumb to it.

And the real problem is this–it’s because of this inflated fear that

you have legislators drafting nonsense like this which should never see

the light of day. The real battle is for people’s minds, to educate

them about the 1st amendment & what the reasonable expecatations are

when you’re in public–and to point out that it’s not like people are

coming to get you. The fact that the sun is shining doesn’t mean our

solar system is actively trying to give you skin cancer.

Lafe is exactly right. But you know what? The irrational things

I’m hearing & observing is a larger part of other things I see. One of

the most irritating things which I come across on occasion is a

situation of a woman wearing a bikini at the lake, or wearing an

extremely skimpy dress with no bra etc, and then becoming mad when a

few stares are shot her way. Understand–I am talking about a FEW

STARES, not prolonged fixation or much more than a few quick stares. I

believe in being respectful, not following such a person around all

over the place, or even staring so long that a person could be

compelled to use the old saying–how ironic is this?–“take a picture,

it’ll last longer.” I am sure NOT advocating that a woman who wears a

skimpy dress & then is raped or sexually assaulted “she was asking for

it,” not at all. I sure am also not advocating that women ought

to be compelled to do like you hear about in the middle East and

cover-up head-to-toe in 115’F weather, not in a million years am I

advocating that at all.

However, it is the most natural thing in the world for a man to do a

LITTLE staring in such a situation, and to wear something that’s

overtly sexual in nature beyond just comfortable, and then to become

angry at a few quick stares being shot your way–sorry, that’s just

ridiculous. Often-times certain women understand this, they may even

enjoy the attention, although that’s certainly something that

understandably varies from one woman to the next.

However–to dress that way (overtly sexual vs comfortable) and to then

become angry at a few quick stares–that is just extremely ridiculous.

It would be no different than if I wore, say, an Easter Bunny costume

in public (other than at a Halloween costume party) and then got mad

“what are you looking at” when people stare.

Yet I have seen this very thing on numerous occasions. I think the

“Sera” type of reactions are analogous to this. And I am NOT being

anti-woman here–I am sure that men do similar things sometimes as well

in whatever regard.

ANd yes, to the Sera types saying they’d get physical and steal the SD

card–this shows just how irrational your beliefs are. You’re so pent

up about your “right” to not be photographed casually in public (vs

being stalked or photographed in your private property)–a right which

has already been established as NOT EXISTING–that you would go so far

as to do something illegal to protect it? All I can say is–thank you

for warning me just how irrational this crowd can become, because now

I can be on the look-out for it. I will make a point, while I’m

primarily focusing (pardon the pun) on my photography, to also be

aware of my surroundings.

So I can do things like, for example, if I’m photographing at the lake (where the person was screaming at me when I was photographing ducks), I can bike-ride there vs driving since my mother-in-law lives barely ½ a mile away–I can park my vehicle there so you’re less apt to trace me, there won’t be a license plate at the scene. Or, if someone starts coming up, I can swap memory cards (I have several) and the one that contains the actual images I can store in my pockets near where–shall we say–my privates are, so the only way you’re getting that card is if you see that I’ve done this and you are now groping me physically in my groin area. How do you like the idea of “sexual assault” charges going on your record? Is it worth it to you to risk this for a right you presume to exist which DOES NOT exist, all based on fears that are absolutely & totally irrational?

(Actually, I’m not ignorant, I was aware of all of this before and

already had counter-measures which I practice if I have to, but it’s

nice to be fed the information on how your side thinks so I can check &

see if my counter-measures are still current.)

Play the odds, fine, that’s what free-range is about to me–realizing

the odds of your child being hurt playing outdoors alone etc is not as

risky as you think it is & thus letting them play, etc. In like matter,

a casual user or someone all woop-de-doo about all of this would

probably comply with your request, so odds are you will get your way.

However, if you come across me or someone like me, then unless you’re

Mr. T screaming “I’m gonna beat your butt, fool!!,” your vigilante

tactics aren’t going to work. You’re operating outside the law, and

you’re dealing with someone who is no fool as to how it can get this

way with such persons, and is already thinking ahead on how to craftily

overcome them–either by a stand-off, or operating on the sly (deleting

the photo but then swapping cards so that the image can be recovered

with image-recovery software).

I’m not prone to any such thoughts per se, but if you push me into a corner, then recognizing these are my rights, just as it’s my right to leave my child in the car for 60 seconds while I check the PO box etc–I will defend those rights most vigorously.

Give it up.

LRH

If you, or your kids, are out in public, you have exactly zero expectation of privacy as far as having your picture taken. If you don’t like it, don’t go outside.

It is unfortunate that we even have to debate this subject. Our kids and ourselves should be safe enough in our society to not have to worry about some one taking a picture. I do not feel that a picture of myself or my child is or should be prohibited in public. Actually, I am happy to jump in photos. But conduct should be considered here. It is only courteous to ask for permission or to delete if asked politely. I’m a school teacher and I take pictures of my students working and learning all the time and post them to my school website. I have yet to encounter a disgruntled parent. I hope it doesn’t come to that. But if I was asked to exclude a student, I would out of respect for the request by a parent who I respect as a person and parent.

You don’t have an “expectation of privacy “when in a public place. This law will get shot down the first time it gets in a courtroom.

That said, as someone that takes a lot of pictures, I’d never take a picture of a kid without their parents consent. One, it does seem at the very least not nice and two I don’t want some whack job parent calling me a pedophile.

Wow, Sera, you talk about bullying and keep saying that someone taking your picture without your permission and then refusing to delete is bullying. But you say you will escalate to the point of theft, assault and/or property damage if your wishes aren’t honored. Who’s the bully in that scenario?

Let’s say the person who photographed you was using a film camera (shocking, I know, but some of us do still shoot film)… would you demand they remove the film from their camera, destroying all the other images they captured on that roll?

And finally, speaking as a “cleaned up punk”, I know that dressing spiky gets attention… that’s kinda part of the point (haha), innit? It’s a way of being a peacock, standing out in the crowd… and then you’re surprised when someone wants to take your picture? Hell, I used to make food/beer money posing for street pictures when I had crazy hair.

At the risk of surprising people, I actually kind of agree with the “right not to be made uncomfortable”–but MAINLY in the private property realm. To wit: I have serious issues with certain noises, the top 5: dog barking (probably #1), ambulance sirens whirring, cars with no mufflers (or with sporty exhaust pipes), children crying (yes I’m a parent, go figure) and, seriously, coughing. All are noises which aggravate me on some level.

Even in the public sector, the less I am exposed to such, the better–and I may, in SOME cases, argue for the noise to cease based on that it bothers me even there in public. However, again, the only place I can assert it to any real significance & reasonably expect accommodation for it is on my own private property. Living in the city, as much as the noise of ambulance sirens bothered me, it was inevitable. What am I supposed to do, argue that ambulances on their way to a seriously hurt person nonetheless shouldn’t be allowed to blare their sirens because the noise bothers me?

In situations such as, say, waiting rooms of the doctor’s office, I think a parent should take great pains if necessary to make their children be quiet, for the sake of others around them to not be bothered by the racket. If you’re trying to listen to someone place in a public speaking type of thing–sermons at church, conferences etc–and someone is having a hysterical coughing fit to where you can’t hear the speaker, I think they should be compelled to excuse themselves for the sake of the rest.

But again–the only place you can really firmly argue with such strong convictions about a right to not be uncomfortable is in your own home. It makes sense–it’s your property, it’s not the public at large, it ‘s the one place you ought to be able to go to & know that nothing you dislike is going to be there interfering with your peaceful existence. If a dog’s barking bothers me I shouldn’t have to hear the neighbor’s dogs going at it all the time, that noise is trespassing onto my space & in my space it should basically be all about me and the others who live in it.

So it makes sense that even someone like Sera would have every right to expect people to not snap a camera at her and tell her to “get over it” if this is happening on her own property. In that manner, I actually stand up for the “Right to not be Uncomfortable”–but again, chiefly at your own private property.

And sometimes even that goes too far, like the homeowner’s associations where people gripe about their neighbor not cutting the grass etc. To me that’s being nosy, even if there is the “property values” angle to consider. That’s their space–if they like tall grass, leave them alone. Some of my neighbors have kids who play & scream a lot when they do, I’m not going to gripe about that noise “trespassing onto my property.” It’s life, I leave it alone (and am glad my kids can play likewise too).

But in public–the whole “right to not be uncomfortable” can definitely be taken way too far, and this is a great example of just that.

LRH

If I’m taking pictures and there’s kids around, I try to make eye contact with the parents and hold up my camera, if they don’t want their kid in a pic they get them out of the line of fire.

My nieces friends are all old enough to decide if they want to be in a picture or not nowadays (tweeners), but when they were younger if their parents weren’t around I’d either not take a picture or ask them if they thought their mom and dad would be OK, depending on my comfort level. I’ve never had an issue.

Rachel, yes!

“If all my childhood pictures were of me alone, how sad and lonely it would have looked.”

This, exactly.

Suzanne, it’s not missing. Several people have brought up Cartier-Bresson’s work, as well as Vivian Maier’s. Thank you for adding Helen Levitt to the roll call as well!

Brian I disagree. What was okay 30 years ago should still be okay now. The only possible reason for it to change would be if there really were that many weirdos out there, and as we know–there aren’t.

The only problem–people are fearful now. Rather than go along with that and change anything, they need to be pushed back into having some sense, because clearly too many people have none. We should ignore their concerns because–to be blunt–they’re full of shit.

That’s harsh, maybe, but it’s true.

LRH

Since my grandmother photographing in the change room raised some issues, I can address them. There are signs when entering the building and on entrance and exits of change rooms and washrooms that photographing and video taping people in said rooms is illegal. There are four stalls in the change room and the rest of the room is open with benches and lockers. All of the stalls were taken and I rarely do use them as they are too small for an adult and two children to dress without giving someone a black eye.

When this incident occurred, the grandchild was sitting on a bench and my children were directing beside the grandchild. They may have been in the photo, I just didn’t know what state of undress they were in, (my back was to them during the first flash which I thought was a lighting flicker, then got suspicious when it occurred again) whether they were facing the camera or nor, if the photo was zoomed into grandchild’s face, I believe that my children would not have been in the photo. I just wanted to verify. I went the polite route. That didn’t work. I would have notified the staff at the pool immediately, but that would have resulted in her leaving my sight which may mean her leaving (which she did anyway) with the photos. I thought at the time it was best to insist on seeing the photos and thought that the threat (and yes, I did want to threaten this woman now as the polite, informative approach was not working) of pedophilia charge would make her rethink her decision to not show the pictures. I always have assumed when someone is breaking this law, that they have innocent intentions, and every time the response was very apologetic and people were embarrassed of their actions. This woman did not respond the way an innocent person would. She did not appear to be a recent immigrant (spoke very clear English without an accent of any kind-`North American’ clothing). She would have been in her late 50’s so not so old that she would be out of touch with technology (she was using a digi-cam). She commented to her daughter how silly I was being and her daughter agreed. I would not want pictures of myself in states of undress in anyone’s hands (call me prude!) so I wish the same for my children. Chances are she’s not a pedophile, but if she did share these photos online, how do I know that a pedophile doesn’t find them? I was trying to protect my children. Very few people would readily accept a stranger taking photos of them as they changed in a change room. Why should I allow this to be acceptable for my children?

Tuppence, I agree that some can go too far with the notion that they should be entitled to take pictures of anyone at anytime. It’s incredibly rude to continue to take pictures of someone after they have asked you not to. A little manners go a long way.

At the same time, there really is absolutely no expectation of privacy in public places. Those here who want to demand to see pictures, demand they be deleted and physically accost people for their cameras are going to find themselves running afoul of the law because the photographer has broken no laws in taking the pictures (absent taking obscene pictures) or refusing to delete them. You are simply not legally allowed to physically remove cameras from people or make demands about their pictures.

“I believe that if any reasonable adult would, if asked, remove a picture of another person from their camera if said other person made it clear that the existence of that photo makes them uncomfortable.”

Sera, that is not true at all. Every single picture taken of me from about age 11 to 14 made me feel extremely uncomfortable. I hated them. Does that mean that my friends and family should have refused to ever take pictures in my presence? Of course not. I had to grin and bear it.

I also see no reason why I should delete a picture of my family because you are in the background. I don’t care how uncomfortable that makes you. When we leave our homes, we have to accept that we are going to come in contact with others and may end up in a picture or two. Nor am I going to delete pictures that are important to me for some reason because you don’t like them. For example, I don’t care if they make you uncomfortable for some reason, I’m not going to delete any of my wedding pictures. Same with birthdays, holidays and other special occasions. Again, if you don’t want to be photographed, don’t come to the event.

In exchange, I try to avoid taking pictures with strangers in the background if I can help it. I also try to avoid taking obviously embarrassing pictures. And I will delete pictures in which one participant looks awful if requested unless it is just too important a picture to not have for some reason. And I have no interest whatsoever in pictures of strangers so that is never an issue.

Frances Sorry I disagree, the Internet hasn’t changed things with regards to this–candid photography is candid photography, period. And the very nature of street photography then, and now, is that almost no one is going to recognize who those people are, no one’s going to connect the fact with a name & address etc.

I tell you this–photography is a hobby for me, not a profession, but a hobby–but it’s one that, after many years of frustration, only recently has become something that I am reasonably good at. I’ve been at this off & on since 1983 as a 15 year old, and only around the mid 2000’s did I get a decent “hit rate” with it. Prior to that, with film costs to burden me, and without the advantage of live review of your attempts, I couldn’t get anywhere. Now I’m doing MUCH better at it.

No way am I going to let people consumed with irrational fears hold me back now that I’m, after 20-odd years, starting to get decent results from my attempts. My passion hasn’t changed, I’ve merely been turned loose via digital, and I will not let others ruin it for me.

LRH

Tuppence I refer you to my prior post.

LRH

“CCTV represents become not only universally accepted, but so esteemed that the rank and file citizenry will wield its existence as a battle cry to renounce any expectation of privacy?”

CCTV may sensitize us to being filmed all the time. Any trip to Walmart involves you being filmed by the approximately 200 cameras they have throughout the store and parking lot. We don’t think anything of it. It is simply the cost of going to Walmart.

But CCTV should not have impacted our expectation of privacy in public at all since we’ve never had any. I’m not sure where people have gotten this notion that we are legally entitled to any privacy when in public. It has never been part of our existence. We are entitled to privacy in our homes, restrooms, hotel rooms, dressing rooms and the like. Anything that is in plain view in public is not private. That includes our physical person unless you’ve managed to get Harry Potter’s Invisibility cloak. If you choose to walk down the street naked, someone can take photographs of you naked and there is nothing you can do about it.

As for Tuppence’s example, there is absolutely nothing legally wrong with what the imaginary mom did (legally, not morally). Never has been and probably never will be. Since the advent of the camera, you’ve always been allowed to take pictures of “creepy” men hanging out by the bathroom. The internet, particularly Facebook and like, have made it infinitely easier to distribute but there was absolutely nothing whatsoever illegal about putting the same picture of the same “creepy” man on a poster and hanging it all over town prior to the advent of the internet. At least in the US and as long as you say nothing untruthful.

Whatever expectation of privacy you think you have in public is, and always has been and always will be, a figment of your imagination. It doesn’t exist in the law. MORALLY we should respect each others privacy in public but it’s never been a LEGAL requirement.

You’ve had the encounter many times before? Does that mean with the same woman? Or that the place has many people taking photos in the dressing room? Please clarify.

Dolly, I do read all the comments before posting. (Sometimes I think I’m one of about six people on the planet who do.) There’s no need to castigate me for missing a single mention of repeated incidents of this nature, in nearly 200 comments, though.

Now that I’ve gone back and read Jenn’s initial comment again, though, it seems that while I agree that the grandmother’s response to the confrontation was odd, I can’t bring myself to judge the reason for the oddness. Guilty conscience? Surprise that a younger person would confront her with what she perceived was a lack of respect, regardless of the topic of the confrontation? Offense at the idea people would phone the police over what (to her) was a nonissue? I wasn’t there, so I don’t know. Even if I had been there I might not know.

If this is a somewhat regular occurrence, though, we can deduce (perhaps) that there are several types of people using that pool and that dressing room. One type might have Jenn as a representative example — those who are made uncomfortable enough by the remote possibility that something nefarious is going on that they will mention their concerns to those photographing their own kids or grandkids in that area.

I would not take pictures in such an area, but if someone else was, I think I’d ignore it, unless they were pointing the camera directly at me or my children.

We could deduce that there’s a group of people like me who don’t think it’s something worth getting upset about, unless it’s obviously an inappropriate attempt to get photos of someone else in a state of undress.

We can also deduce that there’s a group who are so not-upset about the idea that they would whip out their camera or phone and get that cute shot of Jimmy or Suzy without a second thought.

Now, I can already hear the argument that it’s ALWAYS inappropriate because there’s a sign there, or because there’s a law that might apply. Like I said, I would obey the sign and not photograph my kid in there no matter how cute they were. However, we know that there are rules that people shrug off and most people don’t seem to notice or care. At pools, especially, the “Don’t get into the pool without showering” rule is seldom honored. “No Running” is another. People bend or break the rule, and no one confronts them. It’s the same with driving 5 over the speed limit.

So we can assume that there’s a group of parents and at least one grandparent who ignore that rule, possibly because they feel it’s only there to be used when a flagrant incident occurs and the management or prosecutors need a legal basis for addressing that situation.

Maybe I’m being too logical about all of this, and the grandmother was a horrible person trying to do horrible things. I wasnt there. Maybe, though, some or most of the parents going to that pool on a regular basis don’t care about this issue, and the “mob mentality” popped up among people who were only hearing one side of the story and guessing that Jenn wouldn’t be so upset unless there was something to be upset about. People forget to check facts once emotions start running high.

I don’t exactly disagree (or agree) with what Jenn or the elderly lady did — I’m just wondering which of them represents the prevailing viewpoint at that particular pool. I also wonder if we could do a better job of getting along with others, even when they aren’t doing or saying things we agree with. (I mean that for pool changing rooms and for this Internet comment environment.)

Yes, we can do a better job of getting along with others. Such as when someone points out I broke a rule and is concerned about the privacy of their kids, I would apologize and remedy the situation.

Jenn stated several times her kids were right next to the granddaughter being photographed. So in a way the camera was pointed right at them. It is not a case of the granddaughter standing in a corner all alone with no one anywhere near her to have her photograph taken. If that was the case I doubt Jenn or anyone else would have a problem with it. The problem was there were all kinds of people around her that might have ended up in the shot. So in that case, they had every right to enforce the rule.

If you want to break a rule and it only effects you, fine. If you want to break a rule that effects others than you can’t be mad when they say something to you about it. Like I said earlier that is like when I say something to someone cutting in line in front of me and then they get attitude with me. When you are blatantly in the wrong you don’t have a leg to stand on and no right to get mad when someone calls you on it!

I don’t think the granny was a pedophile. I just think she was a horribly rude and entitled woman who needed to be taken down a peg or two.

Two Halloween’s ago, I was taking pictures of some of the cute kids coming to our door for treats. I always asked permission of the accompanying adults first, telling them I might post any good quality pictures on my facebook page. Without exception, I was given permission. As the evening wound down to a close, I heard heavy footsteps crunching the gravel on the other side of a large tarp we use each year to close off our front porch, to create a spot for decorations. It was a cop, who asked me if I was photographing children. I said yes, and was told that it is illegal to do so, and I had a concerned parent call to report me. I told them that if I received permission, it was not illegal. And, that in any event, I could photograph anything i wanted to, on my own private property. He threatened me with jail, so, I asked if deleting the photos in question, of the woman’s children who actually did give me permission to photograph her kids was acceptable, or if I was going to jail for all the photos I took. He said that the woman who reported me would be satisfied with me deleting her kid’s photos, so, I did. The cop watched me as I scrolled to find the ones in question, and said that I had several good ones. I asked him what the lady who called to complain about me concerns were, and he said she felt I was ‘creepy’, and was planning on doing something ‘weird’ with the pictures. I said that the kids were fully clothed, and for the most part had their faces hidden by their costumes. What ‘weird’ thing could I do with them? He said he didn’t know, but to stop taking photos. I didn’t want to argue Constitutional law with him, because it would not have educated his sorry ass, or improved the situation. Eventually, he left, after getting my name and running my ID to see if I was a wanted felon “child in a Halloween costume” picture-taking criminal. To avoid more cops on my property, I have refrained from these activities. An innocent gesture, commending some children on their cute Halloween costume, perverted into a dark, sinister criminal act. Truly a sad commentary on the downward-trending state of our society