Since 2012 my family and I have vacationed in the Ozarks of Arkansas. I have enjoyed photography as a hobby since I was a teen, and love photographing the outdoors. The great scenery in the Ozarks provides ample opportunity for that.
It also, most times anyway, allows me to enjoy doing so without encountering much hostility. But I’ve observed that parents, in recent years, have become increasingly irrational and fearful over concerns about other people potentially photographing their kids.
Yesterday, while photographing a scenic and semi-popular canoe launch spot on the Buffalo River (a spot featured in a book sold by the local park ranger stations), a group of parents became very hostile. Their children were in the frame, yes, but this was incidental with respect to what I was doing, and said children were far enough in the distance (around 100 feet) to not be identifiable in the least.
I explained to them, and I tried to be gentle in my tone of voice, that I was not trying to photograph their children specifically, and that I had traveled some distance for the purpose of photographing the scenery. No matter, they insisted that I stop.
At this point, I ceased with any sense of kindness (perhaps I failed in my standard of trying to be the “bigger person”), and said to them that the 1st Amendment empowered me to photograph anything and anyone in public as I so chose, and that if they didn’t like it, they were free to take that up with their local Congressman (or woman), but that they otherwise could just get over it, and I was going to continue to take photos however I felt like it.
At this point they threatened to call the park ranger, and I replied “Please do, I want you to, I would absolutely welcome it.” I knew my rights and was prepared to defend them.
I wish to pause here briefly and clarify that, in fact, even if I were zooming in on the children’s faces with a longer lens, or from up close, such would still be fully legal in such a public place, but that nonetheless I was doing no such thing. In the photo, the children are mere dots.
The park ranger arrived and was friendly enough, as was I, but I nonetheless explained that the 1st Amendment empowers me to photograph in public as I see fit, and that (1) children are not exempt from this and (2) that’s not what I was seeking to do anyway, it was the scenery which interested me. To his credit, the park ranger seemed to understand this and was reasonable.
However, I took umbrage a little when he asked me to delete this one photo which he felt could perhaps be upsetting to the protesting parents. I replied to him, “I would only delete it if someone held a gun to my head,” and in fact did not delete it.
I also, in passing, within earshot of the group of parents, referred to them as “paranoid schizophrenics.” Perhaps that was not classy of me to do, but I’ve really come to a point to where I’ve lost all patience with such persons. It’s bad enough that you feel hesitant taking anyone’s photos at a birthday party or a school play, etc. But when it pollutes something as pure as chronicling the beauty of the natural outdoors… (In the end, I continued photographing the area for a short while before leaving, and will continue to do so.)
Kidnapping fears and no matter what “The Sound of Freedom” would have you believe are no basis for denying me and others our rights in the public sphere. – LT
While those parents could have been overreacting, there’s a separate concern the parents could have had: Having the images posted on social media. The social media companies are data basing everybody’s likeness. Many parents don’t care. We, however, do. We’d prefer not to feed their servers data on where our kids go, who’re in their social groups, what activities they enjoy, etc. It’s highly likely that eventually they’ll be willing participants in the social media surveillance economy; but, when they’re old enough to understand the privacy tradeoffs, they can make those decisions for themselves.
From a legal perspective, the author isn’t entirely correct. She doesn’t have the write to use the children’s likenesses in certain ways (commercial) without consent. That’s apparently not what she was doing, but you don’t have an unfettered right to publish pictures of others taken in public.
My mother-in-law encountered something similar in Portland, OR. She was getting a picture of her grand-kids – in a very crowded place – when another hostile grandmother confronted her and demanded that she delete the photos with *her* grandchildren. (Mind you, we’re talking about a head here, a limb there showing up in the periphery. This was *not* a matter of, “Say cheese for perverted photo collection, sweetie!”)
So my MIL flashed her sweet smile and replied, “I’m afraid it’s impossible for me to get a photo in this place without other kids in it. I will not delete the photos, but if you give me your email, I’ll send you copies.” The other grandma left in a huff, but I think my MIL handled it with grace.
these screaming parents are probably the same types of parents that pimp their kids out on their own social media feeds to show how great their kids are and what wonderful lives they are living. lol. They were just mad that the kids were not posed properly or whatever for the pics.
The court has ruled that permission is not needed to film, audio record or take photos in public places. On the other hand, be prepared that if you specifically target other people’s child/children it can understandably alarm folks and become highly problematic.
Merely creating a record of surroundings and people in public places is perfectly permissible, so don’t let anyone bully you into forfeiting that right. First Amendment auditors face this dilemma quite frequently.
@Chris: I agree with everything you said, but we also have to consider whether or not people in a photo are identifiable. If they can’t be recognized because they’re too far away (as in this case) or they’re facing away from the camera, or you’ve digitally blurred their face (as Google Streetview does) then I see no problem with posting a photo on social media.
And in my opinion the same photographic courtesy rules should apply to both children and adults: posting someone else’s face online without permission is discourteous. I wish it didn’t have to be that way, but that’s the world we live in because of the “social media surveillance economy”.
I’m hijacking this thread to mention that there’s a great article that was just posted to The Atlantic’s website about two women in England who wondered why their kids were around all the time and what they could do about it. So they petitioned to block off their street for two hours on a nice June day. They did nothing else — no planned activities.
To quote the article: The results were breathtaking. The dozens of kids who showed up had no problem finding things to do. One little girl cycled up and down the street “3,000 times,” Rose recalled. “She was totally blissed out.” Suddenly, the modern approach to children’s play, in which parents shuttle their kids to playgrounds or other structured activities, seemed both needlessly extravagant and wholly insufficient. Kids didn’t need special equipment or lessons; they just needed to be less reliant on their time-strapped parents to get outside.
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2024/07/play-streets-children-adults/679258/
Link to The Atlantic’s article on kids in the street. I think it’s behind a paywall — not really sure if they allow any free articles or not.