Children, do they stop you shooting? [Archive]

Larky

01-08-2008, 00:12

peterm1

01-08-2008, 00:28

Pretty much. I am very careful about this. I only feel comfortable if my wife is by my side. People are so damn paranoid these days it makes me paranoid.

flippyot

01-08-2008, 00:39

The most uncomfortable time I've had taking picture (shooting sounds wrong in this situation) was during a crafts event at a Santa Toyshop. The parents knew I would be taking pictures but they made me feel uncomfortable with their stares as I tired ot capture the moments where kids were just being kids and having fun with glue and glitter.

I ended up passing my camera off to a female friend and joined the dads in the smoke pit.

Dave Wilkinson

01-08-2008, 00:45

During the summer months I attend a lot of steam rallies and fairs, my wife walks around with her p+s digicam taking great pics of sooty faced kids climbing on and tending engines, if I attempt similar shots,-maybe fifty yards away-Ive had hostile looks from the adults, so now I just stick to the scenery and machines!! :(

Dave,

Johnmcd

01-08-2008, 01:54

I know exactly where you are coming from. Since my son was 10, I have been shooting all his soccer matches (he is now 15). The parents of his team mates think it's great, as I make sure that all the guys in the team are photographed during the year and it has made for some nice framed presentation photos at the end of year.

But sometimes the feeling of suspicion from others at the field is almost palpable.

Only one time did it piss me off enough to make me stop. While I was taking shots from next to the goal mouth a typical middle aged 'busy body' official from the other club approached me and asked if I was a professional - no doubt due to my large white Canon lens. I said no, and that my son was playing in the other team. She then said, 'Oh that's alright then as we don't normally allow people to photograph the kids playing'. Well I had, had enough. I told her that even if my son was not playing, this is a public place and there was nothing she could do to stop me taking photos, no matter what 'they' had decided. She then left in a huff. I took a couple more, lost interest and joined my wife at the side of the field.

It is ridiculous! If somebody wanted pictures of kids, they can get them delivered to their door every second day in the form of a K-Mart catalogue - why would they bother taking them themself?

Last week I was talking to another father while the boys were playing cricket. We were both taking photos and discussing the very same topic. He told me of the time he was photographing his daughter at netball. When they told 'the man with the camera' to stop taking pictures over the PA system. He took a few more before he realised they meant him! You can just imagine the hysteria - young girls jumping around short skirts!

So what happens now when a proud Dad wants to take photos of his daughter?

John

Peter_Jones

01-08-2008, 02:20

I was picking my younger kids up from primary school before Christmas and one of the mothers had a Canon DSLR over her shoulder. What went through my head was "What would happen if it was ME with a camera in a school playground ?" :(

Also , it this something that only occurs in the English-speaking world, or is this a worldwide phenomenon accross all cultures ?

rover

01-08-2008, 02:30

Yes and no. As my partner in crime is a 7 year old I often am taking pictures of him, and when we are out exploring, his new "friends" are included. Because of this parental environment, I will take some shots of other kids, often with an acknowledgement or nod to a parent who aways smiles their permission. I would not just go out myself photographing children, unless with specific acknowledgement of a parent though. I don't think I would be comfortable if my son was photographed without my knowledge, in an open public place, so I offer that courtesy to others.

Roger Hicks

01-08-2008, 02:33

Also , it this something that only occurs in the English-speaking world, or is this a worldwide phenomenon accross all cultures ?
Take a look at the thread about street photography and age, which has addressed this at enormous length.

From my own observations (I live in France; have lived as an adult in the UK and the USA; and travel extensively) it is principally a problem in those countries which the French rather inaccurately call 'les Anglo-Saxons', i.e. UK/USA and to a lesser extent Australia and possibly New Zealand.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks

01-08-2008, 02:37

I don't think I would be comfortable if my son was photographed without my knowledge, in an open public place.
Just a thought here -- and I'm not trying to be a smart-arse -- if he was photographed without your knowledge, how would you know? I suppose he might tell you, but unless he'd been brought up to be paranoid about cameras (which seems unlikely in the case of your son) he'd probably not think it worth mentioning.

Cheers,

R.

Johnmcd

01-08-2008, 02:47

And it is not just taking photos.

A case in point is my father-in-law and he and I have discussed this in the past. He is now 66 years old and ex-army - tough as nails. He absolutely dotes on his grandchildren and has always loved to watch them play since they were very little - taking genuine enjoyment in their innocent play.

Now what if he was in a park and sat down one day and happened to smile as some kids played nearby. The bottom line is that he just could not do it!

Having said that any 'grandma' could...

Brian Sweeney

01-08-2008, 02:48

At playgrounds, I have a lot of kids that come up to me and yelp "Take my Picture!" I do, but do not post them on the Internet. I've posted some "old" pictures of kids. Some of them would be almost 40 by now, but that is an extreme.

At Nikki's school playground, I was asked to give some of my pictures to the editor of the school yearbook. They used them. Although, not the ones in Color Infrared.

rover

01-08-2008, 03:04

Just a thought here -- and I'm not trying to be a smart-arse -- if he was photographed without your knowledge, how would you know? I suppose he might tell you, but unless he'd been brought up to be paranoid about cameras (which seems unlikely in the case of your son) he'd probably not think it worth mentioning.

Cheers,

R.

Truth is, if he is in public, he will not be alone. He is 7. So, chances are I/someone will see and know, at which time I would play parent. Which, who knows what that involves? I just make stuff up as I go along most of the time.

rover

01-08-2008, 03:14

This problem of "fear" of all strangers is not prevalent in the mediterenean countries.

Don't misunderstand, there is no "fear" of strangers. Just an interest in who and what my child is experiencing, and a parental "need to know." I would most likely in a friendly way introduce myself to said stranger and strick up a converstion about photography.

sepiareverb

01-08-2008, 03:18

I saw what would have made a great shot on Sunday, four kids having a big snow battle across the alley, they all seemed to be completely exhausted and were negotiating an 'end to hostilities', drawing lines in the snow as to what part of the mutual alley was to be who's. What would hav made the image was the kid sneaking around the woodshed with a pair of snowballs. I just watched as I walked by, not daring to even let myself touch the camera. I avoid making pictures with anybody I don't know in them, kids especially.

My daughter played soccer for the first time this summer, every time I was there with a camera I made some images, but with trepidation. Sad really.

IGMeanwell

01-08-2008, 03:23

I can completely understand the worries of today's parents; my sisters are definitely among those who frown on anyone pointing a camera (they don't know) near my nieces and nephews ... in fact you'll never see a public photo of any of those children where they are recognizable on my website (requested by my family and I never protest)

But this brings up a funny story:

At a recent wedding where I was an usher but also a backup photographer, loaded with my bag my Fuji S5 and a couple lenses .... its after the ceremony and we are all taking formals in the lobby of a hotel. Both my nieces were flower-girls, at one point I am instructing the youngest (3 years old) to do some portraits and she is being very well behaved, so after I lean over give her a hug and a kiss for being a good sport then let her go off to get a snack.

I hear this gasp as she walks a way, a woman who only showed up for the reception and not the ceremony, did not know who I was and only saw the DSLR; started to say something to me and my brother-in-law's mother stopped her "Its her uncle, he just happens to be one of the photographers as well as in the party" and my brother-in-law (who was helping me with his daughters) looked at this woman like she was crazy. I laughed it off ... but it actually bothered me that this woman automatically assumed a wedding photographer would show physical affection to a 3 year old girl?

I guess some just assume the worst

myoptic3

01-08-2008, 03:31

While this is surely a sign of these ultra police-like times, fostered mostly from mass media fear mongering and, let's face it, the internet, I have to admit that this is a fundamental problem w/ public photography. I know that I do not like someone taking a picture of me, and this is how I have felt since before 911. The feeling is, why is he/she taking a picture of me? Who are they? What are they going to DO w/ my picture? It has worsened because these days everyone and their mother is running around w/ SLR's and zoom lenses. It used to be you assumed they were a professional or a hobbyist (terrible word), so it wasn't as bad. If I were sitting in a coffeteria and sketching someone at a table, even a child, there wouldn't be any problem. I would be seen as a "good guy". Which is odd, as it has been artists (painters, sculptors, etc) who have traditionally been revolutionaries and enemies of the status quo. Photography has that documentary aspect to it, along w/ the voyeur aspect, along w/ the spy aspect. Too much baggage. Imagine McLarren sending someone to go spy on Ferrari armed w/ a sketch pad and a #2 pencil. Or some prevert trying to add to his collection by whipping out his charcoal and sketching madly away. That's art!

ClaremontPhoto

01-08-2008, 03:33

This problem of "fear" of all strangers is not prevalent in the mediterenean countries.
Not just with photographers but in social life in general. There is also a "fear" of personal contact in english speaking cultures, hardly anybody shakes hands anymore.
Here, I walk down any street in town saying "good morning" to most everyone I pass (if they don't say it to me first). Men shake hands with anyone they only slightly know. I will ruffle some kids hair if I know them and bend down to kiss them on the cheeks if I know them a little better.
When I enter my favorite café, it can take 5 minutes to go round shaking hands with all men and kissing women and children on the cheeks before I can order my coffee.
If I didn't do this I would be considered rude !
Yet if I acted like this in Manchester I would get locked-up !

What's wrong with this "modern" world where you only find out that your neighbor has died when, after several days, the smell from their door gets unbearable ?

Well said, and exactly the same here.

There is no fear; just friendship.

Kids walk to school, and to swimming etc.

Young women walk home alone from a night club.

There is no danger whatsoever from any sort of wrongdoing, and no suspicion of a guy with a camera.

varjag

01-08-2008, 03:33

rover

01-08-2008, 03:38

Rover,
I'm a "dad with a camera" too, though my son is now 30 years old. His mother and I were divorced when he was only 3 years old. My son was raped by his mother's "boyfriend" when he was only 8 years of age. As sitemystic has pointed out here and in other threads, the "stranger" in the park is the least of our worries.

I would only substitute your word "least" with "one".

No arguments

Roger Hicks

01-08-2008, 03:52

People are afraid of all sort of things, some fears get publicly reinforced and go into and out of attention. Noone's scared of martians, punks or commies anymore, drug dealers are on their way out, but fearing terrorism and perverts is hip.

My pet theory is that societies can't reliably sustain more than two or three strong fears simultaneously, so what we photographers can do is to put an effort towards raise of alternate phobias. I propose to start with arachibutyrophobia.. google it!. Let's make a man with jar of peanut butter look sinister, not us camera users!
Well, I'd think that anyone who walked around carrying a jar of peanut butter in such a prominent way that everyone could see it probably WAS a bit sinister...

More seriously, I had not previously considered your excellent point about constantly renewing the target for obsessive worry. Sooner or later, even the stupidest and most parochial societies begin to realize that hey, maybe we aren't going to be eaten alive by martians or commies. Those whose interests are best served by keeping people frightened then have to invent a new bogeyman.

Cheers,

R.

wintoid

01-08-2008, 03:57

...at which time I would play parent. Which, who knows what that involves? I just make stuff up as I go along most of the time.

Sounds like parenthood to me :D

ClaremontPhoto

01-08-2008, 04:03

Is it because some places are fragmented and each person looks after their own, and suspects everybody else?

Here a kid can leave home to go to school, wave to a neighbor, say hello to an uncle at his shop, kiss a cousin on her way to the shop, and say 'Hi!' to me. All in a few minutes and all in complete safety.

Any stranger in town stands out like a sore thumb and we would all keep well-aware and vigilant. But never obviously so.

IGMeanwell

01-08-2008, 04:11

Perhaps a question might be ... is it gear driven?

Is there a difference between the camera with the zoom lens, the smaller rangefinder, and the even smaller, perhaps less intimidating, point and shoots?

Or does it not matter.... its just the particular person observing the fact there is a person (who may or may not be related to the subject) taking pictures of a toddler who has a funny look on his/her face?

Or is it the fear of the person who is taking those photos and what might happen to those photos?

Either way

I think, as Rover stated, a matter of making your intentions known and acting smart if there is someone who may protest

That being said, any street shooting, I avoid taking pictures of the youngsters unless I know my subject.... just to not cause any unwanted disturbance

Welsh_Italian

01-08-2008, 04:30

In the UK, this is a very prevalent thing. I remember being out one Sunday morning taking photos in the centre of the city here and was wearing a suit (this was after going to church) so I looked professional. A couple of young boys (11-12 years?) were having a good time in the city themselves and asked me to take their picture, but I felt I had to say no to them.

In the Philippines though, it's very different. Sometimes, if I bring out a camera, I get mobbed by people who want their picture taken and who then get confused because they can't see the picture I've just taken on the back of the camera :D

I sometimes wonder if fear is a necessary part of society or that it will always arise no matter what the living conditions. In the UK, despite the gloomy and scary news we get, we are extremely privileged and safe by comparison to other countries who have much more to fear. I guess their fears are more immediate and realistic (like not having enough food) which helps them keep a sense of perspective about things.

IGMeanwell

01-08-2008, 05:00

IMHO it's got nothing to do with which camera. Rather ask yourself why-and-who made anybody even think that a guy with a camera was a threat to anybody.

Well my questions were merely vehicles for more discussion

honestly I think we all know why there are people who are very protective of the their children... I guess that is off this particular topic

The question is does it change our shooting? I say there are instances when that answer is yes

Does it change the way I photograph at a wedding, a portrait session that happens to be in a public area, or an even an event where you are apart of press? Then its more about the job, especially when you have people to vouch for you I think its less of an issue.

chikne

01-08-2008, 05:17

I have a Basque friend with "new" english neighbors. He was out one after noon and missed a delivery van. The driver tried to leave the package with the "neighbors" but they refused to accept it. When my friend got home the neighbors explained why, "the driver looked a bit Arab"

Forgive them Allah, for they know not what they do.

Classic...

nikonhswebmaster

01-08-2008, 07:02

Also , it this something that only occurs in the English-speaking world, or is this a worldwide phenomenon accross all cultures ?

It is pretty crazy now in the US, but in reality it occurs in some form or another at different times everywhere when you do not have "permission."

What constitutes "permission" is the interesting issue. If I am in South Africa, or India, just my being upper class, and white, may give me permission. Go into a culture where human images make people nervous, and you may find yourself at a minimum unwelcome, but again your upper class posture as an outsider may get you a pass.

Someone mentioned shooting young girls at a game, my guess is without "permission" you are in trouble. Getting permission may in fact be as easy as saying "is it OK" to the coach.

People like to know what is being done, they just want to be in control, if they are used to being in control. Only those who are not in control of their lives will never object.

This argument about rights is much too shrill on RFF, common sense seems to have flown out the window.

I have taken thousands of photographs of small children with the permission of the institutions where they were studying or playing. I was just now looking to scan (unsuccessfully) a photo of two young kids that was a full page in the NY Times. If I needed photos of kids playing, I would have no problem approaching people in my neighborhood to get them. People would let me, I can guarantee some would almost beg me to take photos. And I guarantee by having "permission" I would get much better photos than sneaking around around like a child molester collecting up-skirt photos.

Rather than thinking of photography as an exercise in first amendment rights or legal chip on the shoulder rights, try thinking of it in a creative personal way. If I had to choose between the impersonal photos of HCB and Diane Arbus, who talked to all her subjects, I would choose talking. it took me a long time to come to this realization that the more "female" approach of talking makes better images.

I'm logging off now and going outside into the real world, shake a few hands, kiss a few youngsters and have a drink with my dear friend Herrman (a german), who's father fought against mine in the second war. I might even put my arms around him and hug him as I've done many times before.

I will never again follow threads in this forum with pertain to such anormal thinking.
Good afternoon gentlemen,
Regards,

Ditto, this is actually a bad vibes thread that is basically trolling for controversy. Just go into the world and use common sense and politeness and you can get people to let you shoot almost anything. They will put on red rubber noses for you if you ask. I too am done with these stupid threads about "freedom."

rover

01-08-2008, 07:36

Ditto, this is actually a bad vibes thread that is basically trolling for controversy. Just go into the world and use common sense and politeness and you can get people to let you shoot almost anything. They will put on red rubber noses for you if you ask. I too am done with these stupid threads about "freedom."

Well, I can't be done with any threads, but......

I can't agree more. This is all just a bit about personal interaction and respect for each other and not about rights or freedom.

jbf

01-08-2008, 07:45

Does it stop me from shooting? No.

Usually if the parent is near I simply tell them I'm a student photographer doing portraits and if it is ok for me to take their kids photograph. If they say ok I take the photos. If they say no, I dont. Simple as that.

If the parents arn't around I take them anyway. Almost all the time I'm not 'just' photographing kids. Usually I'm photographing a whole ton of people and other things, so I hardly think it really matters. Let them give their jeering looks or whatever.

Roger Hicks

01-08-2008, 07:58

. . . This is all just a bit about personal interaction and respect for each other and not about rights or freedom.
What is this if it is not freedom?

I see the argument as between two groups.

On the one hand we have those who say, "None of this is very important, given goodwill and common sense, so those who seek to ban, control or formalize everything are at best misguided."

On the other we have those who are at best misguided.

But if we have to formalize things, because of pressure from the latter -- and boy do they make their feelings known -- then I'd rather see a right to photograph than a vague and ill-thought-out 'right to privacy' in public places. I mean, surveillance cameras and camera 'phones are OK, but a 35mm camera isn't? Wheee!

Cheers,

R.

feenej

01-08-2008, 08:01

Sorry if you guys are sick of this, but I thot I'd tell what happened here this summer. A guy at the Wisconsin State Fair was tackled by a dad then arrested by the police for taking "random" photos of kids. We followed the story in the news. He was never charged with anything (he was not breaking any laws).

ChadHahn

01-08-2008, 08:45

It all seems silly to me to be worried about the man with a big camera and lens.

No matter if you are worried about pedophiles, terrorists or industrial spies, why they be so obvious when there are cellphone cameras that take high megapixel images and palmable digital cameras?

There is so much pornography available on the internet catering to perversions that you never heard of, why would someone want to take pictures of kids in parks when they can just download what they want?

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself and making us fear is a big business, both for the government who wants a controllable populace and the media who keeps us watching by letting us know all the bogeymen out there just waiting to get us.

I too am signing off. I'm going to take my camera, grab my child and head to the park.

rover

01-08-2008, 08:54

What is this if it is not freedom?

I see the argument as between two groups.

On the one hand we have those who say, "None of this is very important, given goodwill and common sense, so those who seek to ban, control or formalize everything are at best misguided."

On the other we have those who are at best misguided.

But if we have to formalize things, because of pressure from the latter -- and boy do they make their feelings known -- then I'd rather see a right to photograph than a vague and ill-thought-out 'right to privacy' in public places. I mean, surveillance cameras and camera 'phones are OK, but a 35mm camera isn't? Wheee!

Cheers,

R.

Why would freedom be a conflicting idea to respect and courtesy?

Larky

01-08-2008, 11:52

Wow, I started a long thread here! I think the thing to do is just be sensible, and see how it is at the time. But thanks for all the comments. :)

ernesto

01-08-2008, 11:59

I understand perfectly what you mean.
I am glad we have not that problem here in Argentina.
Should I say: yet?

Ernesto

BillBingham2

01-08-2008, 13:53

I'm not sure it's only about freedom, I think it's about trying to find different ways to deal with and handle the situation. Early this fall I had enough of driving my son to school, he "Missed the bus" again so I said walk. Not being old enough to walk alone I figured I would follow him. So off he went and I drove after him. About 10 blocks from the house and one block from school an unmarked cop car pulled in front of me, another behind me. My plates were from a neighboring state and I had not combed what is left of my hair. They asked for my license and what I was doing. As I handed it over I explained to them it was the same thing they were doing, making sure my son was safe on the way to school. After asking my son (via radio) a few questions I answered correctly we all parted friends. Was I mad, h3ll no. We have had scares around here a few times in the past 10 years and I am much happier that someone cared enough to watch out for my son.

I usually have the other son with me when I shoot so I'm not a lone wolf if you will. Also, my stuff is so small (RF, F2) that I don't get a lot of looks. When I have gotten comments over the years I ignore them for the first, if a second comes I walk up to them and identify myself (respectfully) and take it from there. I explain that just because I am looking through the camera does not mean I am taking a picture so not to worry. If they escalate I just excuse myself and walk away and continue what I was doing. I live in OZ so few folks are willing to call the cops for something silly as this. Way too many lawyers live here to start throwing yellow fluid.

After all the crap I got growing up and then being the only kid with a camera in his hand throughout High School, it's water off a ducks back. When my wife gives me crap about not spending time with the family, that's something different, her I care about.

B2 (;->

nikonhswebmaster

01-08-2008, 14:13

One last try...

My guess is the folks that are having the most "problems" shooting in public, are the ones who really are not good at being socially aggressive in general.

I am a very upfront person, I will walk up and talk to anyone, and they always talk to me. I would never skulk around, I am obvious, so I can photograph anything or anyone. When I ask people to stop for me 95% of them do.

I would love to know what the guy at the fair looked like...

BillBingham2

01-08-2008, 14:32

Fred,

I think you hit upon it. You talk with people, with respect and it works. NYC has it's own twist on the world, but when I did that in NY it worked the same way it does here, fine. I spent a lot of time all over the city (Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan) and never caught a great deal of crap for anyone. When it started to go that way, I talked with them and most of the time things worked out fine. When it did not, I picked up myself and went elsewhere or waited till they left.

That is a good question about the guy....

B2 (;->

rover

01-08-2008, 15:56

Fred, Bill,

Yes, Perfect!!!

Just say hi and you will find that most folks are pretty decent.

Ade-oh

01-09-2008, 00:13

I can't say I've ever worried about this, or even give it much thought. I have three kids from 13 - 5 years old and I go to any school events I can, usually with a camera of one sort or another, and will always take a camera when we go out as a family. Nobody has ever suggested to me that I'm doing anything sinister in taking photographs of my kids (or anyone else's for that matter) and nor am I.

Are we sure there isn't a touch of paranoia creeping in here?

Roger Hicks

01-09-2008, 01:03

Why would freedom be a conflicting idea to respect and courtesy?
It isn't. That's what I was trying to say: how are respect and courrtesy different from freedom?

But respect and courtesy are a two-way street. Once people start to demand their 'rights' without considering the rights of others, the law is often required. This is all the more impiortant when there is an actual legal right on one side -- the right to take pictures in a public place -- and an imaginary or paranoid 'right' on the other.

Of course those who exercise their actual legal right should resperct the wishes of those who have invented a non-existent 'right' -- but it's worth remembering, if push comes to shove, exactly who has the legal right.

Why should push come to shove, if courtesy is extended by the photographer? Of course it shouldn't, but some people have such axaggerated ideas of their 'right' not to be photographed (or to insist that no cameras be visible in their presence, even if no pictures are taken) that no reasonable person would imagine there could be a problem; and there are times when a smile and an apology just seem to make people more angry and paranoid.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks

01-09-2008, 01:17

Thinking more about this, there's a big difference between stalking kids, and taking pictures of kids when you happen to see them. Hanging around a school playground is one thing; taking pictures of kids you meet on the street or see at a festival or on the beach (I used to live at the seaside) is another matter.

A few examples of pics of kids, past and present:

The lad is from the 1970s. I'd just got my first 21mm lens (21/4 Nikkor). I met him when I was walking into the city centre (Bristol) from Easton where I lived. He was on his own.

The girl doing the handstand is from the early 80s, probably shot with my old Leica IIIa and Elmar. As far as I recall she had a young friend with her. They were playing at the end of the street in which I lived in Easton.

The girl in the pushchair is from 2007. She loved playing peek-a-boo with the canopy to the pushchair, and had started this before I started shooting. Of course her parents made no objection: it was a good game. M8 and either 50/1.5 Sonnar or 50/1 Noctilux.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks

01-09-2008, 01:29

And some more...

These were all taken at the Festival de la Musique Verte at Moncontour in 2007 with the M8 and either 35/1.4 Summilux pre-aspheric or 50/1.5 Sonnar (or possibly the Noctilux for the dancing girls). I don't know where their parents were, nor did I care. Nor did my subjects.

The girl beside the tree is not what I would call a child. She'd probably have been married 150 years ago.

The girl with the home-made musical instrument was at a stand where children were being shown how to make such things -- and were being allowed to handle knives, saws, etc., under supervision if they were old enough, i.e. big enough physically to handle them safely.

The dancing girls shot is about the lowest-light picture I have ever taken hand-held: ISO 2500 equivalent, f/1.5 or maybe f/1 (my wife and I had both lenses and were swapping them), 1/2 second or so.

Cheers,

R.

Terao

01-09-2008, 01:41

Hi all.

I have missed some great shots because a child would have been in the frame, or it would have looked to outsiders like I was taking pictures of children. In the current climate we seem to have created whereby if you look at a child, you are obviously sick in the head, how do you all deal with this? I shoot from the hip as much as I can, but sometimes need to raise the camera to my eye.

Where I live in Norwich, the people are a little backwards and scared of people like me, the only technology the really understand is fast food, and so they are fast to complain. We also have more CCTV cameras than lamp posts, so you always get that feeling of being watched.

Does anyone else feel this, or am I being paranoid and should I just forget it all, put the iPod on loud and ignore everyone?

A.

Forget about it. If approached, smile sweetly. Shoot film so that they can't ask you to chimp the shots to them. If a parent objects apologise and explain that you're a keen photographer - if you have a website give them your card and ask them to check you out (even better if your card has your number on it). If its their kids compliment them on how nice little Johnny is, parents love to have their kids complimented. Offer them a free studio session, just make sure you have a bright white background, overexpose, over-saturate and miss focus on every shot ;)

I'd also be upfront in your shooting style, unfortunately hip shooting can look a bit suspect.

rover

01-09-2008, 02:54

Roger, I think we are in 100% agreement more or less. Your tone though implies that you are willing to shove your camera into any one's face and prepared to go to blows over your "right" to do what you please. It seems just a difference in style.

And of course everything is a big grey area. Yes a middle aged guy "stalking" kids at a park will draw more attention while simply taking photographs in pursuit of his hobby than he would at a festival where yes he is photographing children, but more generally the event.

nikonhswebmaster

01-09-2008, 04:01

Well Roger is right on a theoretical level, in a free society taking photos is a right, much like free speech. Without this right we could not take photos of police breaking the law for instance, or perhaps even own a camera. In the US your right to do most anything is pretty much guaranteed, however certainly no one can protect your rights all the time physically.

And yes rights can get out of control. The protesters yelling at funerals of soldiers are within their rights, but almost universally they are condemned as being tasteless oafs. But the law is the law and they can go on yelling.

Sometimes in the US politicians try to pass rulings or even laws restricting rights, the mayor of NYC thought he could make shooting 9/11 photos illegal by declaring the WTC a crime scene, until it was explained to him this was of course not legal. What he did do, in the end, which was legal was put up fences, and barriers.

So I have personally been talking about what is legal, vs. what is polite or even moral behavior. In most ways there are no rules, but most of us know what is really acceptable and what is not, we do not need a rule book. We can actually pretty easily differentiate between creepy and not creepy.

For me the taking of a personal photograph, as opposed to a wide photograph which just happens to include me is obvious. But I do know that if the photographer can defend his rights (not let the subject take his camera) he can legally do pretty much as he pleases. But still I am going to in some cases make his life pretty miserable if he/she is bothering me, which is a risk the photographer has to take.

In the US the laws are now pretty clear. You can take any photo you wish, you cannot publish all photos for profit, but you probably can exhibit all photos, even if you are going to sell them. If you are famous your right to privacy is diminished in case law, over the regular guy, when it comes to publication. Most of these laws revolve around copyright, and trademark, and who owns those rights.

It really boils down to your not having a unbridled right to make money off the image of another, sometimes you do, sometimes not.

Minors are not protected by special case law in most cases, however it does vary state to state.

There are many good books out there on media rights. I personally own a couple of them, and the case law is changing all the time. Magazines like Photo District News discuss it all the time, both from the standpoint of the right to photograph and the rights of ownership and sales.

One thing is very clear in the US, you cannot use an image of someone to sell a product. And in the case of illustration you have to be careful you do not imply that someone in a photo is what they are not (you cannot show a group of men and then caption it "criminals hanging out near the airport) unless you are pretty sure you can back it up.

So Roger is right, but how he behaves is still subject to control by those around him, he may have to defend his "rights." He may find at times as Hunter S. Thomson did, in his writing about the Hell's Angels, your life can be in danger if you push your rights too far, without anyone around to protect you.

In New York City, which has heavy gun control laws, you still in theory have the right to walk down the street with a loaded long gun (shotgun) and if tested in court, your right might be upheld. But just try it, you will not go very many blocks before you are surrounded by police, for creating a public nuisance. Rights are funny that way.

**

rover

01-09-2008, 04:35

So Roger is right, but how he behaves is still subject to control by those around him, he may have to defend his "rights." He may find at times as Hunter S. Thomson did, in his writing about the Hell's Angels, your life can be in danger if you push your rights too far, without anyone around to protect you.

Who is afraid of the Hell's Angels? They are puppies compared to a pack of angry moms in a school yard armed with lip stick tubes and miscellaneous other things carried in their hand bags. ;)

nikonhswebmaster

01-09-2008, 04:41

Who is afraid of the Hell's Angels? They are puppies compared to a pack of angry moms in a school yard armed with lip stick tubes and miscellaneous other things carried in their hand bags. ;)

The Brooklyn moms completely control the playgrounds around here, any behavior they do not condone, as a group, will be met head on. They will certainly, at a minimum, show you the depth of their vocabularies.

rxmd

01-09-2008, 04:48

Well Roger is right on a theoretical level, in a free society taking photos is a right, much like free speech. [...]
Thank you, that was a very good post.

Roger Hicks

01-09-2008, 07:41

Roger, I think we are in 100% agreement more or less. Your tone though implies that you are willing to shove your camera into any one's face and prepared to go to blows over your "right" to do what you please. It seems just a difference in style.
.
This, I fear, is a consequence of the internet. I certainly don't behave like that, and I wouldn't have thought that my tone implied that I do/would; obviously, or I'd not have said it.

But I do believe it is important to reassert rights, sometimes in vigorous terms, as a counter to those who would erode them.

The first (and indeed only) time I was challenged in NYC, I was about to start photographing children playing baseball in a dead-end alley. A busybody came over and asked why I was taking pictures. I replied that few scenes were more heartt-warmingly and classically American than children playing baseball in a back-street alley. He said, "We'd rather you didn't. Some people take pictures for the wrong reasons."

So I left. But today, I'd challenge him, asking who 'we' are and whether he thinks it is a good idea to remove images of huge chunks of everyday life. And I might just take a few pictures to show that I could.

Cheers,

Roger

Ducky

01-09-2008, 08:13

On the other hand, whenever I post a pix ov my 10 yr old gdaughter, no matter how innocent, it get 4x time the hits as any others. I stopped doing it, please don't feed the animals

mw_uio

01-09-2008, 08:17

"But I do believe it is important to reassert rights, sometimes in vigorous terms, as a counter to those who would erode them."

Roger I agree with this, whole heartedly. If you have the right, then one can act on it.

Mark

nikonhswebmaster

01-09-2008, 09:36

So I left. But today, I'd challenge him, asking who 'we' are and whether he thinks it is a good idea to remove images of huge chunks of everyday life. And I might just take a few pictures to show that I could.

I am not probably one to comment on this, since I no longer shoot street photos, but I am a bit amazed by the sheer number of photographs many of the RFF members are shooting. They really seem to be taking too much. Some really should just shoot movies.

Probably a conceit considering the number of images now on Flickr, to believe a missed photo would have added measurably to the history of the 21st century. We finally get to the point where there are so many images, to look at them all would take up our entire life.

Unless our photos are hanging at MOMA or the like, they are pretty much lost in the flood.

Dogman

01-09-2008, 12:19

"... to believe a missed photo would have added measurably to the history of the 21st century...."

How true. Eggleston once wrote or said in an interview that he only takes one frame of his subjects. Asked if he worries he might have missed the picture, he said that there's always another picture.

(People never question me if I take pictures of kids or anything else. Maybe it's because I'm 6 feet 7 inches and weigh 250 pounds. Maybe it's because I have a rotten attitude and borderline personality. Maybe it's the tatoos or the 9mm in my pocket. I'm such a piece of work, no one bothers me when I take pictures.:eek: :rolleyes: :D )

foto_fool

01-09-2008, 12:56

Probably a conceit considering the number of images now on Flickr, to believe a missed photo would have added measurably to the history of the 21st century. We finally get to the point where there are so many images, to look at them all would take up our entire life.

Fred: have you seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-DqZ8jAmv0

This is just the tip of the iceberg. What will happen with all the photos on the web is unpredictable.

EDIT: sorry about the BMW commercial on the end of the video above. Here's an alternative link without the ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkuGrCB85H8&feature=related

andrealed

01-09-2008, 13:03

It seems to be a white, anglo-saxon protestant thing, the UK, the USA and Australia. It also seems to be true elsewhere in large cities only, where people watch too much (american) TV.

I don't agree. I live in Genoa, Italy. I don't even try to take pictures of child...go figure...I get hostile looks shooting dogs....but I noticed that cellphones are seen as less threatening...I can't explain why..maybe as a form of casual snapshooting...cameras are more "yes, I want to take real pictures"

Roger Hicks

01-09-2008, 13:34

Probably a conceit considering the number of images now on Flickr, to believe a missed photo would have added measurably to the history of the 21st century. We finally get to the point where there are so many images, to look at them all would take up our entire life.

Unless our photos are hanging at MOMA or the like, they are pretty much lost in the flood.
Good Lord, you're right. We should all stop taking pictures immediately and leave it to the camera phone brigade. We should abdicate all ambition whatsoever and just devote our time to whingeing and snivelling about the price of Leicas. And street shots are completely irrelevant: all we need it "This is Harry off his face at Yseult's 18th."

Cheers,

R.

ClaremontPhoto

01-09-2008, 13:39

This is Harry off his face at Yseult's 18th."

Cheers,

Cheers mate.

And I agree with all you say, and you're my best friend ever, and I want to buy you another drink!

How does this Leica thing work?

Roger Hicks

01-09-2008, 13:50

Cheers mate.

And I agree with all you say, and you're my best friend ever, and I want to buy you another drink!

How does this Leica thing work?
Ah, sh*t, man, I dunno. Look, iss gotta be my round, right? I mean, y'know...

Cheers,

R.

bcostin

01-09-2008, 13:51

My father's photo collection, from my own childhood, is filled with the neighborhood kids playing around and goofing off. Amusement parks with families walking around and people enjoying themselves. Life. With kids. When today's kids look back at photo albums without those sorts of pictures I think they'll resent it.

Yes, it has discouraged me from time to time. There's a little league ballfield in the park down the street. I take walks there when the weather is nice, and I usually have a camera with me. When there's a game in session I try extra hard to be as obvious and straightforward as possible.

When I'm shooting in public places I usually try to come across as genially oblivious. I smile, make eye contact and small talk, and walk around like I'm in a world of my own. Fortunately that's not difficult since it's pretty much how I always act. :)

I respect that parents have concerns and I'm never angry about curiosiity. OTOH, there's definitely a nasty strain of anti-male prejudice among some parents where kids are concerned. I bristle at any kind of irrational prejudice and I refuse to reinforce it by acting guilty about taking photos in public.

nikonhswebmaster

01-09-2008, 13:52

We should abdicate all ambition whatsoever and just devote our time to whingeing and snivelling about the price of Leicas.

Well a lot do like that, but really Roger I wish you well on your quest for street confrontations, there is no question it is your right.

I just personally (that means me not you) do not find it a good way to spend my days.

I pick my fights pretty carefully, as for ambition, I am somewhat more sober on that these days, as more of my friends have retrospectives (rather than first shows) at the Whitney Museum, I realize the days are slipping by.

I don't collect images of strangers, it is just outside of my experience, my stranger-photography comes from a journalism perspective. I have never completely understood it as a stream of personal work, I tend to admire photographers who are more involved with their subjects, but I do look at a lot of work involving subjects the photographer is not involved with. And who knows I might do it myself.

I wonder why other RFF members enjoy collecting images? That would be a more interesting discussion.
What kind of body of work are you trying to create,
What are you learning,
etc.

:)

Roger Hicks

01-09-2008, 14:16

Well a lot do like that, but really Roger I wish you well on your quest for street confrontations, there is no question it is your right.

I just personally (that means me not you) do not find it a good way to spend my days.

I pick my fights pretty carefully, as for ambition, I am somewhat more sober on that these days, as more of my friends have retrospectives (rather than first shows) at the Whitney Museum, I realize the days are slipping by.

No time for arguments for me.
It's a good idea to pick your fights more carefully as you get older -- I certainly do -- but I prefer to pick them on moral grounds rather than on my chance of winning.

What makes you think I am going for street confrontations? My moving to France rather argues the opposite. But I'd still rather argue than cave in to milk-and-water aggression.

Ambition? I don't have that much any more. With 40+ books published and thousands of magazine articles, I've probably made as much mark as I'm going to. But I'd like if if those younger than I had the same choice, instead of being beaten down by mediocriity. What was that wonderful comment? About Geoffrey Howe, I believe: "It was like being savaged by a dead sheep."

Cheers,

R.

ClaremontPhoto

01-09-2008, 14:33

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/232600.html

ItsReallyDarren

01-12-2008, 19:11

The best photograph / portrait Ive taken was of a gradeschool child in Belize. The atmosphere for taking photos there was completely different than anything Ive ever felt back at home. Even testing out a lens or camera in my own backyard garners stares from a neighbor if they happen to catch a glance from the window.

For the most part Ive avoided taking photos that included people, God forbid any with children. So far I havent encountered too much trouble or hostile people but I think I can get away with more because I lean towards the younger end of the age spectrum. I dont know how much it affects things but my best guess is that when people see me with a camera walking around they just assume Im a photo student and let me carry on my business.

But even then Im wary of pointing my camera in the general direction of people, especially children. It just doesnt feel as open or accepted to take a photograph these days. I know its proboalby a matter of time before I get approached because paranoia will get the best of someone and cause a ruckus. I feel theres no way arguing my way out of that especially when dealing with a person whos afraid of a camera. Kind of makes me think of something my dad used to day;

"Dont argue with idiots, they'll just bring you down to thier level and beat you with experience"

Larky

01-16-2008, 12:28

Well, today I was walking home (it was getting dark, about 5.30) and thought sod it, if I see a shot I'll take it. I think I got some nice ones, I'll know when it comes out of the soup. I've discovered that if I'm really obvious, and tenacious, and smile and get excited, people feel it and respond in a positive way. Here's to developing a better smile. :)

RML

01-16-2008, 22:10

The more we let ourselves be constrained by perceived notions of others, the more we get relegated to shooting things others perceive as worthy. I've never been much of a people shooter but the presence of a child will not ever stop me from taking the shot I want.

So what if there is a young human being in the frame? Does that make me pervert? Does that give someone else the right to play judge and jury? If someone really wants to press charges, they can do so whenever they want and no matter what we shoot. There's always someone who disapproves of what we do. I'll take my chances that no-one actually will press charges, and if they do... well, we'll talk if that ever happens.

rolleistef

02-02-2008, 03:26

I only exceptionnaly take pictures of children because of the fear of pedophily. I don't have much scruples when street-photographying, but as a general rule, when a children is in the frame, or a groupe of children, I wait till (s)he's out. It's sad because it often makes lovely photographs, and one of my best picture was of a father helping his kid reading, on the train, one morning.
http://photophoto.bloxode.com/page,3.html

But anyway, in France, the law forbids street photography, because people are just so suspicious, and my whole blog goes against the law... hence the utility of a Rolleiflex, because it's not really a camera : it's a rolleiflex!

ClaremontPhoto

02-02-2008, 04:57

She asked me for a photo.

Her family sitting nearby were delighted when I made this photo for her.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/6429/Ms_Catiana_Catarina_Seven_Years_.jpg

Roger Hicks

02-02-2008, 05:11

...in France . . . people are just so suspicious...
Not really. Paris, maybe (though I'd dispute even that). In most of France -- which bears the same resemblance to Paris as most of the USA does to New York City -- no-one, or hardly anyone, minds.

Cheers,

R.

ClaremontPhoto

02-02-2008, 05:27

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/6429/Friday_Morning.JPG

Thea

02-02-2008, 05:53

Hi
I think its a very valid point raised. Basically use your common sense.
On the whole I dont take photos of kids, (other than my own) and at uni (In UK) we are adviced not to take photos of children without parents permission.

If you want to work with children photographically it is sensible to get police checked - after all you would expect anyone else working with kids to be fully checked in every area, wouldnt you?

migtex

02-02-2008, 07:23

Yes I do take! If they are important for the subject.
I really got asked too any times to take pictures from kids that I don't even know.

The problem here is the Fear Factor. It has been raised so people get paralyzed (brain) and fear anything they don't know or understand... and that for a purpose they don't even realize.
Of course what else is more important to anyone.. his own children.. right, right lets keep the momentum shall we?
Wthat's next on the fear list? Ah yes, religion.. right, right! Let's see...

Larky

02-02-2008, 09:54

Funny, I just got rollocked by a load of kids for taking a shot! Never again in this country will I shoot a shot if a child is in frame, it's not worth the grief. We get treated like we are sick in the head, it's mental.

Anyway, I gave them my card and explained if they had an issue they could get the parents to call me, I know I shouldn't have to but I have done nothing wrong and I'm not going to hide. But, I am going to be more picky about a shot from now on.

john_s

02-03-2008, 03:06

I was recently invited to be a spectator at the Australian speed skating championships. The invitation warned that photographing junior level skaters was not allowed, though one could get permission to film one's own child's races. Funny thing is, when I was an active skater (1970s) I used my father's Bolex 16mm movie camera to film races and today these films are highly prized, especially by the competitors who were juniors at the time and are now parents (or even grandparents). (Some are on Kodachrome which makes them even more special). I am a passionate historian and archivist and I value highly the films/photos of previous times. It's a pity the future generations are going to miss out on certain documentary material.

Johnmcd

02-03-2008, 03:46

Just happened again.

Shooting my son playing cricket. Hardly a child though, Under 16's. Anyway, I'm sitting down on the boundary line with a 20D and 300 F4 on a monopod. I've been shooting for about 15 min when the other team's coach ambles over from where he was standing with other parents and stands just behind me.

He says nothing for a couple of minutes and then asks if I'm from the newspaper. I say no, and then ask him if he was expecting them. He answers no, then hesitates, he wants to say more but I imagine he doesn't know a nice way to ask me if I'm a paedophile.

I let him sweat for another couple of minutes before I say that I am photographing my son who is batting. He seems relieved and asks which kid it is. He then says half apologetically that he was just asking me because of the 'law'. I tell him I am not aware of any law that forbids a person to take a photo in a public place. He stutters for a moment and and I continue by saying that while I would always be careful not to take a photo of anyone who obviously did not want their photo taken, there is no law that says I can't.

He walked away and I continued to take photos. Did it ruin my day - YES!

0.1% of the population might be paedophiles, the other 99.9% of us have to put up with this 'vigilante' ****e.

I suggest this would not have been an issue 20 years ago. That said, what does the future hold? Will I have to have ID to prove I'm the father and a stat dec from each parent giving me a release to photo their kid as well?

John

migtex

02-03-2008, 04:00

Ok. I'm gonna make some T-Shirt's saying

I'm NOT a Terrorist!
I'm NOT a Pedophile"
I'm just a Photographer

Thank you!

on the back!

Oh sure I will do it!

Anyone want one?

ClaremontPhoto

02-03-2008, 04:01

Will I have to have ID to prove I'm the father and a stat dec from each parent giving me a release to photo their kid as well?

Sorry to hear that. And I can imagine how you feel.

But why hould only parents be allowed to photograph a child anyway?

If I wanted a photo for the Magic Roll 'Recreational Activities' theme this month I may well head down to a local sports club.

In fact the sports club, kids and adults, recently asked for photos they could use in their publicity.

ClaremontPhoto

02-03-2008, 04:03

A friend of mine has a t-shirt with 'Film Crew' on the back.

I was already thinking of getting some with 'Photographer' on the back in big letters.

Lol999

02-03-2008, 07:25

I'm increasingly photographing children in my street shots because unlike adults, all buttoned up and repressed, they are expressive and uninhibited and make for some good photographs. keep photographing the little darlings and let's put an end to this nonsense.

Cheers, Lol

Spider67

02-03-2008, 10:31

Larky

02-03-2008, 14:02

I want a T-Shirt and a Hoody making that states I'm a photographer. I'm also going to make up an ID stating that I am a photographer and wear it in plain sight. Actually, it might be good to get a non-profit organisation sorted that we can all register with and you get an ID badge. I am a lecturer, have been CIB checked and am legally allowed to work, alone, with children of any age as well as anybody considered vulnerable. And yet I have to go through this crap every time I want to go shooting. It's nuts.

But yeah, I'll look into the anti-peado photographer association!

Actually, I spoke to my boss today and she thinks it would make a great exhibition, the entire not allowed to document anything anymore, unless it's a bloody poem or sonnet or Hawaiian Chutney Dance. :(

Johnmcd

02-03-2008, 15:42

Bulgaria: Kids climbing on an old tank. Photos made, made a glance sideways where I saw the kids father nodding in a very friendly manner.
Vienna: Shooting aawy in the court of a museum, many people, many children one of them runs right into my pic and excuses himself for ruining the image stupid me answers "Never mind the pic will just be better" Kind running to his father, father eyes me suspiciously. Is this the lesson to learn: "Hey Mister you stuppid brat just ruined my pic I'm a photog and I am sueing you flat broke my friend!"
On the other hand: The dangerous pedophile is nearly always a relative or a close friend of the family. I think much harm is done by TV series that always show pedophile getting the kick from harmless children photography (of course they cannot show what the real problem is). I still remember when we were warned from the friendly stranger waiting in front of the school. Nobody warned us from the nice "uncle" or the young guy who always liked to play with children half his age.

Too true!

Like I said earlier, if you were a paedophile, why bother taking photos and risking the ire of the public when you can wait at home for the local supermarket chain to regularly deliver a catalouge full of young childeren in various clothing including underwear and swimwear right to your door for free. Have they ever been accused of peddling 'child porn'? For crying out loud, why wouldn't the paedophile just get a subsciption to any number of women's / family magazines. Full colour, back to back photos of kids for a couple of bucks!

Taking this all too far? Of course I am, but what's the difference? It just shows how absolutely ridiculous this whole 'images of children' thing has got.

John

sjw617

02-03-2008, 16:10

I think making a T-shirt will call more attention to you and create more trouble for you. Making your own "ID" card may raise legal issues with police.

Johnmcd

02-03-2008, 16:18

Sorry to hear that. And I can imagine how you feel.

But why hould only parents be allowed to photograph a child anyway?

If I wanted a photo for the Magic Roll 'Recreational Activities' theme this month I may well head down to a local sports club.

In fact the sports club, kids and adults, recently asked for photos they could use in their publicity.

The funny thing is Jon, that if I stood 70m away and held up a P&S and clumsily took a couple of shots then ohhhh, ahhhh'd at the tiny far away players that I just captured, no one would think anything of it. Likewise if I did it with a mobile phone.

But if I have some serious photo gear, I'm either from the newspaper or a pervert!

I'm with you on this one - children are and always will be great subjects and it's about time people started looking at this without the emotional paranoia. And this comes from a father of three of the most photographed children ever :)

Cheers,

John

raid

02-03-2008, 16:25

rxmd

02-04-2008, 07:30

As I was walking around with my camera, I could swear that a man was following me for about ten minutes. [...] It makes people uncomfortable to see a man with a camera when there are many children around.
"I notice that you have been following me for the last ten minutes. May I inquire why? Is there something wrong with my face? Are you homosexual?"

Philipp

raid

02-04-2008, 17:41

"I notice that you have been following me for the last ten minutes. May I inquire why? Is there something wrong with my face? Are you homosexual?"

Philipp

Philipp,

I was walking alone for a while, and I noticed the looks.
Gay or security ? No clue.

williams473

02-05-2008, 19:35

I think this is a broder concern you have for what people are thinking of you when shooting in public. I know what you mean about being sensitive to people's suspicions, but that's just part of working on the street the way I see it. I've been detained by police, questioned by any number of people, and nearly beat senseless a couple of times were it not for quick feet - people just don't like us out there sometimes.

"Who are you with?"

"Myself."

"What are you shooting for."

"I'm an artist."

That's my story - most people can't wrap their head around an "artist" meandering around with a camera anyway, and you're off the hook.

For me and my photography, children are one of my favorite subjects. Some of my best images have been of children. I have four kids, so I see a lot of meaning that other children bring into the world and by extenasion, my work. They are a truly wonderful subject.

Unfortunately any creep that wants to take pictures of children to satisfy a sick fetish is going to do it, and there's really no stopping it. And it's hard to explain to someone that we're not up to something like that. But, I would just approach it like I do any time I work on the street. If I see an image I TAKE it. It's mine. I don't act shifty or try to "sneak" an image. Granted, I don't go out of my way to be beligerant or obtrusive, but I'll definately stare you down with the lens, take your picture and walk off without explanation.

I read a long time ago and employ it routinely the words of Alfred Eisenstadt, who used to get in to all kinds of closed-door type events by dressing up, and just going like he owned the place. If you act sneaky, people assume you're up to something. If you act up front, people assume you are there and shooting for a purpose. Occasionally, people will still take exception, and that's just too bad.

So I guess it all comes down to: are photos of children what you're after? For me, the answer is that children who enter my frame are fair game, and avoiding them would be to edit myself while shooting, and I just won't do that. If you are missing photos because of a fear of what other people are thinking, that's a shame, but believe me I understand it.

kuzano

02-05-2008, 20:44

For over a week now, our local news people on TV have been loudly announcing that there are over 700 registered sex offenders living in our community (80K population). So tonight at 10 PM there is the first of a series of one hour programs on the subject.

ClaremontPhoto

02-06-2008, 01:20

I read a long time ago and employ it routinely the words of Alfred Eisenstadt, who used to get in to all kinds of closed-door type events by dressing up, and just going like he owned the place.

Many years ago as a poor student I used to eat in Harrods' staff restaurant just by walking right in through the door like I was staff.

Worked every time.

Late at night I did the same at the Daily Express newspaper office, but the food wasn't as good.

Johnmcd

02-07-2008, 02:01

Great link for 'photographer's rights in Australia'

http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php

Now I know my rights!

I'd also recommend his 'Sydney Unposed' gallery

http://www.4020.net/unposed/

Cheers,

John

Sparrow

02-07-2008, 02:26

I was with my family at a childrens' fair. As I was walking around with my camera, I could swear that a man was following me for about ten minutes. When I then stood with my wife and two daughters, he gave me a last look and then walked away. It makes people uncomfortable to see a man with a camera when there are many children around.

My son has been swimming for the local city’s swimming club since he was 11, he’s 19 now, in recent years if I want to photograph at meetings I have to register and wear a label round my neck. I half understand why, but I personally feel offered by that a, a lack of trust thing I think

Spider67

02-07-2008, 05:49

if I want to photograph at meetings I have to register and wear a label round my neck. I half understand why, but I personally feel offered by that a, a lack of trust thing I think__________________

At least that's a fair chance as having that lebel you have an answer for those who might ask you

Rick Waldroup

02-07-2008, 06:06

Here is an example of when well intentioned laws are misused by authorities. In 2003, I believe, Texas passed a law prohibiting unauthorized photography inside locker rooms, dressing rooms, etc. The law was so vaguely written however, that soon, prosecutors began extending the scope of the original law to "catch" perverts in public taking "questionable" photos.

In 2005, in Southlake, Texas, a very affluent suburb of Dallas, Lewis Vogel was arrested for shooting innapropriate photos at an Octoberfest celebration in the town square. Several ladies at the event noticed him shooting photos of, what they said were young girls. The ladies approached a couple of police officers and told them about it. They asked Vogel if they could see the pictures. He showed the photos to them and they promptly arrested him and confiscated the camera.

The Southlake police department held a press conference a few hours later detailing the arrest of Vogel to the media. That evening, Vogel's name and photo was played on every evening TV newscast. Vogel had no prior criminal record. Not even a ticket. Nothing. He explained to the authorities that he was testing out his new camera and he had shot several photos of pretty girls in the crowd, as well as other things happening at the event.

Vogel was released on bail. A few days later, another press conference was held in which a city attorney announced that all charges against Vogel had been dropped and an official apology was made to Vogel. The attorney said, that after reviewing the photos, there was absolutely nothing illegal about his activity.

Of course, the damage to Vogel's reputation had been done. I believe that Vogel later filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the City of Southlake.

This is what happens when you have vaguely written laws and then ask the police to enforce these laws. A lot of times, publicity seeking politicians pass band-aid type laws instead of dealing responsibly with the real problem.

These are the kind of laws that worry me, and they are popping up all over the country.

ClaremontPhoto

02-07-2008, 06:21

Yes, I support the right to photograph anywhere.

But, a good friend of mine is a keen swimmer.

She used to swim every day when the pool was empty.

She's a very attractive young woman.

A guy started showing up with a video camera and filming her every day.

She felt intimidated by his behavior and switched to another pool.

We do have rights to make photos, but we should not scare people.

williams473

02-07-2008, 08:19

That Vogel case is scary, but seems to be an extension of the paranoia the current government has worked very diligently to instill in U.S. citizens. It's all part of the cutback on civil rights and personal freedoms - I am just glad the legal system supported Vogel in this case. If some meathead wants to arrest me for practicing free speech and expression in a public place, then let em, and I'll sue as well. I'm starting to believe even though the legal system is routinely abused with frivolous law suits, that the Law is our last defense against the abuses of our government - they're becoming real heroes in my mind, and deserve every penny they get. Thank God for checks and balances and term limits!

Rick Waldroup

02-07-2008, 08:24

Yes, Matt, the legal system may be our last recourse to stopping a lot of this nonsense. If you hit 'em in the pocketbook, that usually gets someone's attention.

And you are absolutely right, we have become a nation living in a perpetual state of fear. It is really sad.....

minoltist7

02-14-2008, 10:16

Whole thread sounds weird for me. What is that paranoya about photographing kids?
I occasionally photograph kids - when they are posing, or asking for shot.
there is a 4yr girl in our neighboorhod, who likes to pose if she see me with camera - and she happy about that (maybe future model? :-) )

Larky

02-19-2008, 13:52

The paranoia is because we live in societies where we are automatically labelled perverts, freaks, future murderers etc. The UK is getting really bad for this, really really bad.

However, I noticed if you have a medium format and are really, REALLY obvious, nobody cares?

ERV

02-19-2008, 14:22

rolleistef

02-22-2008, 09:28

strange that people feel fear about their children being taken in photo in the UK while their so many CCTV cameras everywhere in the streets??

retnull

02-22-2008, 10:07

The other side to this issue is photographing one's own children and not being able to post them on Photo websites due to the fear that the images will end up in other locations.
My kids are my always available, go-to test models for new lenses, resident goofballs, and precious innocents, all of which are excellent for photo opportunities.
Nevertheless I've never posted recognizable images of them on my Flickr site, which is too bad because being a kid is a documentary project in itself.

ERV, agreed -- the best photos I've ever taken are of my children, but I do not feel comfortable posting them online. My wife laid down the law "no photos of the girls online" -- at first I thought she was being over-cautious, but then I started to see it her way.
A bit like Islamic sharia law (keep the ladies covered up and out of sight)? Maybe, maybe...a complicated question...