Father-of-3 branded a 'pervert' - for photographing his own children in public park

[memphis]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1035315/Father-branded-pervert--photographing-children-public-park.html


This crap burns me up -- personally, I'd have told the woman to mind her own business and take a hike



When Gary Crutchley started taking pictures of his children playing on an inflatable slide he thought they would be happy reminders of a family day out.


But the innocent snaps of seven-year-old Cory, and Miles, five, led to him being called a ‘pervert’.


The woman running the slide at Wolverhampton Show asked him what he was doing and other families waiting in the queue demanded that he stop.

One even accused him of photographing youngsters to put the pictures on the internet.

Mr Crutchley, 39, who had taken pictures only of his own children, was so enraged that he found two policemen who confirmed he had done nothing wrong.


Yesterday he said: ‘What is the world coming to when anybody seen with a camera is assumed to be doing things that they should not?


‘This parental paranoia is getting completely out of hand. I was so shocked. One of the police officers told me that it was just the way society-is these days. He agreed with me that it was madness.’


Father- of-three Mr Crutchley, a consultant for a rubber manufacturer from Walsall, West Midlands, was with his wife Tracey and their sons when the pleasant Sunday afternoon out turned sour.


He said: ‘The children wanted to go on an inflatable slide and I started taking photos of them having a good time. Moments later the woman running the slide told me to stop.


‘When I asked why, she told me I could not take pictures of other people’s children. I explained I was only interested in taking photos of my own children and pointed out that this was taking place in a public park.


‘I showed her the photos I had taken to prove my point. Then another woman joined in and said her child was also on the slide and did not want me taking pictures of the youngster.


I repeated that the only people being being photographed were my own children. She said I could be taking pictures of just any child to put on the internet and called me a pervert. We immediately left the show.’


Mrs Crutchley, 37, a teaching support assistant and qualified nursery nurse, said: ‘I was shocked by the reaction of those women.


'It is very sad when every man with a camera enjoying a Sunday afternoon out in the park with his children is automatically assumed to be a pervert.’


The slide was run by Tracey Dukes, 35, whose father Malcolm Gwinnett has an inflatables hire company.


Mr Gwinnett, 58, a LibDem councillor in Wolverhampton, said: ‘Our policy is to ask people taking photos whether they have children on the slide. If they do, then that is fine.


‘But on this occasion another customer took exception to what the man was doing and an argument developed between those two people that continued without any further involvement from staff on the slide.’




Notice he has a nikon --- this implies all nikon shooters are pervs -- he should have used a leica

[dcsang]

I'm more concerned that he works for a rubber manufacturer.... sounds kinky if you ask me..

Dave

[f/stopblues]

I hate that things like this happen, but on the other hand, perhaps incidents like this happening to "non-photographers" will catch the attention of the public more readily, and in turn, the issue addressed.

[memphis]

I'd have made a scene and not backed down...

and he was not being covert or sneaky...

[sepiareverb]

He could have legally made images of the irate parents in the US. :D

[Ronald_H]

I'd sue the b!tch calling me a pervert for slander. Ugh.

I don't have kids of my own, but I love taking pics of the kids of my friends. What does that make me?

Needless to say, the parents are delighted that I use my skills to capture snapshots of their offspring and make prints for them...

[Rick Waldroup]

I would have told the bitch to kiss my ass and kept on taking pictures.

You know, I used to be polite and calm and all that crap when questioned about what I was taking photos of- and I have been stopped and sometimes detained over a dozen times since 9/11, and I have found that being nice and all that **** does not work.

I now tell them to take a hike, and if it is a security guard, I tell them to call the police if they like. If it is an ordinary citizen who questions me, and my response does not suit them, then I tell them to take a hike and keep on shooting.

Enough is enough. Screw 'em.

[memphis]

i challenge anyone to prohibit me from taking pics of my own daughter ANYWHERE -- funny though, when we all went to chuck e cheese, nobody even noticed us or my camera

I've taken pics of emma in many public and private places - as a rule, I abstain from taking pics of kids I don't know, but I've also taken those pics with no problems

[sepiareverb]

...Enough is enough. Screw 'em.

Well said.

I've no patience for this either, not that even I'm out there shooting people in public- I just shoot buildings, cars, etc. when in town. Even this activity gets me suspicious looks regularly.

[f/stopblues]

You guys are angry..

Maybe a civil dialogue with the women once things calmed down would be more productive? Blowing up will only widen the gap, I'm afraid.

[memphis]

So, the question here is how much of a scene are you willing to make? I would make a pretty large one ,

[memphis]

the nice approach is what you start with --- you finish with the stronger more forceful approach ---- how many here would back down and leave with your own kids in tow... surely that sets a worse example for the kids and is a tacit implication of guilt

Also, how do you explain this lady to your young kids and why daddy's not taking pictures of them anymore

[memphis]

You guys are angry..

Maybe a civil dialogue with the women once things calmed down would be more productive? Blowing up will only widen the gap, I'm afraid.

just curious, do you have kids? I noticed most of the strong responses are from older males who have kids ---

[sepiareverb]

You guys are angry..

Maybe a civil dialogue with the women once things calmed down would be more productive? Blowing up will only widen the gap, I'm afraid.

Civil dialogue generally gets one nowhere if people start out mad at you, and I can't see anyone in this situation calming down unless he'd done what they said. A public place is a public place- one can make pictures in a public place in the US period. I usually say something about how I like the lines or shapes of whatever I'm shooting, and I suppose I look crazy enough to get them to just nod and walk away most of the time. When folks are mad I usually tell them to call the cops, finish my shooting and walk on. I also carry a printout of The Photographer's Right, and hand one out with every syllabus in every one of my classes.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

From USA Today:
The law in the United States of America is pretty simple. You are allowed to photograph anything with the following exceptions:

• Certain military installations or operations.

• People who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, people who are some place that's not easily visible to the general public, e.g., if you shoot through someone's window with a telephoto lens.

That's it.

You can shoot pictures of children; your rights don't change because of their age or where they are, as long as they're visible from a place that's open to the public. (So no sneaking into schools or climbing fences.)

Video taping has some more gray areas because of copyright issues, but in general the same rules apply. If anyone can see it, you can shoot it.

And yes, you can shoot on private property if it's open to the public. That includes malls, retails stores, Starbucks, banks, and office-building lobbies. If you're asked to stop and refuse, you run the risk of being charged with trespassing, but your pictures are yours. No one can legally take your camera or your memory card without a court order.

You can also shoot in subways and at airports. Check your local laws about the subway, but in New York, Washington, and San Francisco it's perfectly legal. Airport security is regulated by the Transportation Security Administration, and it's quite clear: Photography is A-OK at any commercial airport in the U.S. as long as you're in an area open to the public.

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-08-11-photography-rights_x.htm

[dcsang]

LOL. Was the company called Van De Lay Industries? Was he a latex salesman?

On a more serious note, the herd mentality is more to blame than anything else. People don't seem to think for themselves any more. We're too busy finding fault with everyone.

hehe.. Van De Lay... oh.. had me literally LOL at work on that one :D

I agree though - herd mentality - "Look at that man taking photos!! WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!"

Cameras are ubiquitous and so, it appears, is paranoia.

Dave

[sepiareverb]

Cameras are ubiquitous and so, it appears, is paranoia.

I'm filmed every time I get cash from a cash machine, enter a bank, fill my truck with gas, enter Walmart etc. etc. The list of places we are 'secretly' filmed is pretty darn long.

[f/stopblues]

Fair enough, I don't have children of my own.

I'm only suggesting that as a whole, not just in this situation, a person's point of view can be advanced much more effectively when it doesn't include name calling, threats, and the like.

I'm no Dalai Lama myself, but I've diffused a fair number of situations by taking what I see as the "correct" approach and it has been soundly effective.

Things can be horribly frustrating for sure, but I don't see any good use for anger whatsoever. Being calmly firm is an entirely different concept.

All this and I'm not even a tree-hugging hippy leftist! :D

[pesphoto]

was he shooting film or digital?

[35mmdelux]

Before jumping, we do not know the exact context or how the photog represented himself (ie, creepy). I generally take most reports as nothing more than propaganda to sell papers/ media time.

[sienarot]

If he had thought of putting black tape over the "Nikon" on his camera, nobody would've noticed him.

But in all seriousness, some people need to get a grip. It's funny how common sense really isn't all that common.

[dcsang]

Well he wasn't wearing a turban or a beard.

I don't know... that kid on the left of that photo looks pretty mischievous if you ask me.... I think they should have arrested him "just in case" the kid turns out to be another Timothy McVeigh...

Dave

[kshapero]

We live in a sick world. And people also have no common sense. I knew a guy who was shooting photos at a state park. the next evening he was visited by the police who asked to see the photos. Feeling totally scared and confused he obliged. seeing that there were no photos of children they wished him a good night and left. three things come to mind:
1. What are our rights?
2. What if he had innocently taken a photo of a child or just included it in a landscape shot?
3. What if he shot film and could not show the police any photos?

This stuff scares the hell out of me.

[sepiareverb]

Without a warrant they cannot look at your images, nor can they confiscate your camera etc. without a warrant. Images of children are taken every day by security cameras- but that's ok?

[Al Patterson]

I'm filmed every time I get cash from a cash machine, enter a bank, fill my truck with gas, enter Walmart etc. etc. The list of places we are 'secretly' filmed is pretty darn long.

You might be on to someting. Those places are taking video, not stills. maybe we should ditch our RFs and buying video cameras..

[hunghang]

I'd tell the mothers to get their freakin' kids out of the way if she does not want them photographed!!! I am not moving my camera in a different direction/angle.

[memphis]

unfortunately, my child is too well mannered to kick her in the shins and say "leave my daddy alone."

I would never back down on this, and they'd probably end up having to call the cops if the lady were particularly insistent ...

[memphis]

In the article quoted, it was the photog who called the cops, and they agreed with him.

Yes, and I think he was used a lot of restraint just to get a cop to validate his presence... I have a hot temper about stuff like this --- if it was me personally, I'd not have left to go get the cops...

[thomasw_]

Very lame women.

But it makes me wonder what Dave and I and other canuck shooters would have to stand on legally. Are our photographic 'rights' the same as in the USA? Dave do you know? Regards, Thomas

[SolaresLarrave]

I think the guy handled it expertly. I would have lost it, or made a major scene... And I don't have kids. :confused:

[35mmdelux]

Well he wasn't wearing a turban or a beard.


Then he has nothing to worry about, no? I read this nonsense all the time on these blog sites and its usually no more than hearsay and wives tales. The world is what it is - including all the knuckleheads and the would be smart guys. There is no fairness so don't expect any.


My attitude is I do what I want to when I want to and if someone don't like it sue me -- just be ethical and have some integrity.

[nikon_sam]

Can't "they" do what they want under the patriot act?

No...They can't...Read our First Amendment...I mean really read it and understand what it's saying...Once you understand it, keep a copy with you while shooting...
The Patriot Act doesn't supersede the First Amendment...

We need to know when our Rights are being trampled on and we need to know how to protect what we still have...or else we're going to lose them...:bang:

[35mmdelux]

No...They can't...Read our First Amendment...I mean really read it and understand what it's saying...Once you understand it, keep a copy with you while shooting...
The Patriot Act doesn't supersede the First Amendment...

We need to know when our Rights are being trampled on and we need to know how to protect what we still have...or else we're going to lose them...:bang:

It takes a Constitutional Law scholar to make any sense out of the Constitution. Nobody cares what the First Admendment says; its all about power and politics.

Who respected Martin Luther King for speaking out? He got his head blown off. Remember the Free Speech Movement of the late 1960's, when people tried to speak out against VietNam? It was brutal and got three students at Kent State killed.

The reality on the street is far different than what the Founders had hoped for.

[monkeypainter]

A few days ago I was at the swimming pool with my M2 and took this picture of a barely clothed 6-8 years old boy... I didn't know if the parents were around or not, I just thought it would be a nice pic.

http://www.pbase.com/monkeypainter/image/99986898/medium.jpg

Don't know what's the big deal.

I have a 8 months little daughter, and I wouldn't mind her being photographed by strangers on a public place. I would feel happy to see a good pic of her in some street-photographer's gallery.

[timmyd18]

isn't the daily mail pretty lowly regarded in the UK? one would think that for this to be a "news" story they might have thought to ask someone else who was there.

there's gotta be some reason why the others took exception, because it just doesn't make sense otherwise. i've never heard of anything like this, and i've worked in a place with a high volume of children and parents who photograph them.

there's been several forums posted recently where a street photographer has returned from an event and said "man, i'm a street photographer but there was a dude there who was really over the top and really made me feel uncomfortable."

i wonder if this was such a case and we're just hearing the rude person's point of view.

[Gabriel M.A.]

What is the world coming to when anybody seen with a camera is assumed to be doing things that they should not?

I get that crap all the time. Last Friday, I was asked in a rather accusatory way "what are you taking photos of? Why are you taking photos? Why do you want to take a photo of that?"

I said "because I want to", and kept on shooting. I was taking photos of people dancing, people enjoying a show, and my gf's nephew and niece (with their grandfather).

There's a saying in Spanish, "el león cree que todos son de su condición". When people ask you questions like that, it tells you more about them than you needed to know.

[Gabriel M.A.]

there's been several forums posted recently where a street photographer has returned from an event and said "man, i'm a street photographer but there was a dude there who was really over the top and really made me feel uncomfortable."

i wonder if this was such a case and we're just hearing the rude person's point of view.

That can also be the case. I've seen some guys (male and female) really being in your face. I do take grave exception, however, in the fact that people are immediately suspicious of the male, but never of the female.

[35mmdelux]

There are intrusive busy-body people in every culture and society. You want challenging try shooting at a Teamsters demonstration or at a Hells Angels bar, then everything else becomes moot. If you appear insecure all the bullys will come out of the woodwork.

Check out the movie by War Photographer by James Nachtwey and you will see that us shooting civilian life isn't a big deal compared to what he does. If the knuckleheads are invading your privacy or freedom of movement, this is one thing. Remember your subject has as many rights as you do. Sometimes they feel their rights have been trampled rightly or wrongly.

Whatever the case, don't be like the media, not caring whose rights are being violated.

[SolaresLarrave]

Gabriel, you're right: "el leon juzga por su condicion" is the way I learned that saying (something like "it takes one to know one").

That's the idea that pops in my mind whenever these stories crop up in the forum.

Who in their sane and sound mind would use a camera so conspicuously, if the intent is to do something salacious? Why don't these people chase all those who walk around with cell phones, even if they're not using them? You know, they could take photos too...

Time to go for dinner. The world, after all, ain't that bad... ;) I got my Scala rolls yesterday and I'm happy with the results.

[photogdave]

Very lame women.

But it makes me wonder what Dave and I and other canuck shooters would have to stand on legally. Are our photographic 'rights' the same as in the USA? Dave do you know? Regards, Thomas
Our law is very similar to the U.S. If we are on public property we are allowed to photograph anything within our visual range. We only need a person's permission to use their image to promote or advertise a product.
So if I am standing on a public road and I see Charlize Theron completely naked at her bedroom window of her private house, I may photograph her keep the photos for my own personal use. ;) If I want to sell those photos to Dove to advertise moisturizer, I need her permission. If I walk onto her lawn to get a tighter shot she can kick me off or probably shoot me.
This is the law as I understand it from my days as a news photographer.

[anselwannab]

It takes a Constitutional Law scholar to make any sense out of the Constitution. Nobody cares what the First Admendment says; its all about power and politics.

Who respected Martin Luther King for speaking out? He got his head blown off. Remember the Free Speech Movement of the late 1960's, when people tried to speak out against VietNam? It was brutal and got three students at Kent State killed.

The reality on the street is far different than what the Founders had hoped for.

That's why the second Amendment comes after the first and if that doesn't work, they can' t put troops in your house. I don't think the order was by pure chance.

[Keith]

The trouble with these sorts of situations is that the antagonists are generally non photographers who can't comprehend why other people want to take photographs in the first place. Even photographing still life objects in public arenas will often arouse curiosity on the part of others ... "why would you want to take a photograph of that?" is an oft asked question when you use a camera regularly. Add children into the mix with the current level of pedophile paranoia and you have volatility mixed with fear!

A recently released convicted pedophile in Australia is causing a nightmare for the authorities. He is now a free man and has been relocated to several areas to live by the relevant parole authorities ... but in no time at all some vigilante group finds out where he is and organises rallies and protests outside his abode. The protests, abuse and rock throwing persist until they move him somewhere else ... then the whole process starts again! :rolleyes:

[jmkelly]

You guys are angry..

Maybe a civil dialogue with the women once things calmed down would be more productive? Blowing up will only widen the gap, I'm afraid.
Ummm... no.
1) Both women who confronted the father were being unreasonable - correction, FAR beyond unreasonable.
2) A dialog implies two; there were three and two of them were being unreasonable to a third, who was within his rights.
3) Same thing goes for "civil" - this takes two (or three) to have a civil conversation, and it seems that especially the second woman was anything but.

Heck yes I'm angry. I too have lost patience with this kind of unreasonable, uncivil paranoia. Sadly, I have found that with with people who exhibit this kind of behavior nothing one can do or say will "calm things down".

One does not have to "blow up". What works is calmly calling the police (what these women did could be construed as criminal assault), calling an attorney (start a lawsuit and not just for defamation, but also for a civil rights violation - try to get it defined in the filing as a hate crime) and calling the media - ask them to send a photographer :rolleyes:.

[Keith]

Hey Pitxu ... you deleted the post. I was havin' a larf at that! :p

But I guess you never know what other Aussies may be offended and send out a spare criminal or two to track you down and avenge their honour! :eek:

[f/stopblues]

One does not have to "blow up". What works is calmly calling the police (what these women did could be construed as criminal assault), calling an attorney (start a lawsuit and not just for defamation, but also for a civil rights violation - try to get it defined in the filing as a hate crime) and calling the media - ask them to send a photographer :rolleyes:.

Exactly right. I was addressing the guys who were saying, "I'd tell that b*tch blah blah blah." The way the guy in the article handled it, if it's written accurately, sounds like a good way to handle things.

[Keith]

Exactly right. I was addressing the guys who were saying, "I'd tell that b*tch blah blah blah." The way the guy in the article handled it, if it's written accurately, sounds like a good way to handle things.

I think it's always best to deal with these types of people in a calm considered manner ... as the photographer did. They are generally looking for a confrontation and when they don't get one it will destroy their confidence often as not.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Time to go for dinner. The world, after all, ain't that bad... ;) I got my Scala rolls yesterday and I'm happy with the results.

At least you've got the right attitude. This sort of stuff makes me fume. What I find close-to-appalling is that women who behave this way towards men aren't even slightly aware that they're doing the same that men of "less than enlightened thought" would in their narrow sexist little mind.

:bang:


"Honi soit qui mal y pense" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honi_soit_qui_mal_y_pense)

heh. Doesn't quite translate into English so naturally, does it? I think it should be more like "shame on you for thinking that!" (vergüenza al que mal lo piense)

The irony is, the more zealous people are, the less close to their god they become.


I am easily flabbergasted by flabbergasting people. I should eat more vegetables. :angel:

[memphis]

the polite approach is a good place to start, sometimes when all else fails, you have to stand up and be a little aggressive -- my huffiness would stem from "I've every right as much to be here as you do lady... " ---- also, it has to deal with her telling me I can't take pictures of my own daughter.... What if the photographer were a woman taking pics of her boys... she probably never would have been questioned... but if a man was questioning her, he's a pig and an arse and would deserve what he gets for interfering with parents and their child on an outing ---- you mess with a mama bear's cubs and you're likely to be momma bear's dinner


don't believe me? tell some woman that her child is ugly or stupid...

Why is the father vilified for the same course of action -- his approach was very restrained....

[memphis]

when given the chance, humans tend to see the worst in others... stories like this help spark her fear that a normal man is up to no good

http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=fc13e4d2-0a43-4b70-9061-cc4e4ff1f1b2

A man whose shirt proclaims him as the "world's greatest dad" has been arrested on charges he tried to use the internet to arrange a sexual encounter with a minor. He was caught in one of Attorney General Mike Cox's cyber stings.

From the Attorney General's office:

LANSING - Attorney General Mike Cox announced today the arrest of Daniel Allen Everett, of Clarkston, Michigan, for using the Internet to arrange a meeting for sex with a minor.

"Today's arrest is a reminder that a parent can pose a threat to our children," said Cox. "And no matter how "great" a criminal thinks they are, if you intend to harm or solicit children, my office is coming after you."

Mr. Everett's photo has been provided in order to encourage other possible underage victims to identify the perpetrator.

Attorney General investigators arrested Everett, 33, for chatting online with who he thought was a 14-year-old girl that he met in a chatroom. Everett allegedly engaged in graphic sexual conversation with an undercover agent and propositioned the agent, who was posing as a 14-year-old girl, to meet him for sex.

This afternoon, Everett was arrested in Novi where he is alleged to have appeared to meet the minor for sex. He was arrested wearing a T-shirt with the words, "Worlds Greatest Dad" on the front, a sad reminder that Internet predators come from all walks of life.

Everett was arraigned today in the 52-1 District Court in Novi, before the Honorable Andra Dudley, on 1 count of Child Sexually Abusive Activity, a 20-year felony, and 1 count of Using the Internet to Commit Child Sexually Abusive Activity, a 20-year felony.

Judge Dudley set bond at $50,000 cash and Everett will be back in court to face trial. The date is to be announced.

Parents are encouraged to check their children's "buddy lists" for the screen name(s) Everett used including "danmichelle2004". If they believe their child had contact with Everett, parents should contact the Attorney General's office at (313) 456-0180.

A criminal charge is merely an accusation, and the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

Cox's Criminal Division has arrested 198 Internet sexual predators since 2003. Attorney General Cox encourages parents to visit www.michigan.gov/ag for tips on safe Internet usage for children. Citizens can also report suspected Internet child predators via the Report Internet Abuses Against Children link, or by calling the Child and Public Protection Unit at (313) 456-0180.

[SolaresLarrave]

I am easily flabbergasted by flabbergasting people. I should eat more vegetables. :angel:

I really like that line, Gabriel! Can I quote you?

Had a good dinner (sans camera): burger and shake at a local greasy-spoon (felt like a beer, so I just opened one here at home). Now... back to work on class plans!

BTW, Pitxu, that kind of entrapment is widely celebrated here... and one must wonder to what extent do the L&O agents actually provoke this type of crime with their teasing.

Fodder for another thread. Long live Hoegarten! :)

[thomasw_]

Our law is very similar to the U.S. If we are on public property we are allowed to photograph anything within our visual range. We only need a person's permission to use their image to promote or advertise a product.
So if I am standing on a public road and I see Charlize Theron completely naked at her bedroom window of her private house, I may photograph her keep the photos for my own personal use. ;) If I want to sell those photos to Dove to advertise moisturizer, I need her permission. If I walk onto her lawn to get a tighter shot she can kick me off or probably shoot me.
This is the law as I understand it from my days as a news photographer.

Thanks for taking the time to explain it, Dave.

[jan normandale]

Here's my response to the piece..

Busy bodies are running average peoples lives through weird ideas fermented in their idle minds. The best idea is to mock these people for the silly interfering busy bodies they are and which the police have encouraged (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/04/london-cops-declare.html) them to become. In practice these photographers are sincere hobbyists being stigmatized by "Barney Fifes" of the world. Photography is not illegal and when it is then the UK security agencies will have a significant problem (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1553090/Majority-of-UK's-CCTV-cameras-'are-illegal'.html) because more photographing of people, children, homes and businesses is done by police agencies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-circuit_television) than all amateur photgraphers in England.

It's time to shame these mean spirited people back into their little holes.
Here are some resources.

Photo Rights, a UK based photographers resource and blog
www.photorights.org/node

UK Photographers Rights
A short guide to photographers rights in the UK
www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php

[jan normandale]

Very lame women.

But it makes me wonder what Dave and I and other canuck shooters would have to stand on legally. Are our photographic 'rights' the same as in the USA? Dave do you know? Regards, Thomas

Thomas here are some useful links for Canadian photographers

Canadian based links and information

A website for photography in Canada , more specifically Ontario.
www.ambientlight.ca/laws.shtml


Criminal Code ( R.S., 1985, c. C-46 ): on line version
www.laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/?noCookie

Charter of Rights and Freedoms
www.laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/index.html

Trespass to Property Act
www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes...

The Toronto Transit Commission
www.toronto.ca/ttc/by_law1.htm

[Al Patterson]

Thanks for the links Jan. I do keep the Krages "Photographer's Rights" with me at times. Good to see what other countries have, in case one wishes to travel. One can't assume what's legal where you live is legal where you may be going.

[timmyd18]

dave, you better be careful with charlize theron. i've seen her throw a guy through a wall

[photogdave]

dave, you better be careful with charlize theron. i've seen her throw a guy through a wall
I'd pay money to be that guy!

[timmyd18]

to be will smith? heck yeah i'd pay money! :)

anyway, i really think that this story is much ado about nothing. i wouldn't be trying to use this as proof that my views of gender and society are true, or anything of that nature. it's just bad reporting and we'll never know what really happened.

basically, the guy who spoke for the company was doing everything he could to stay out of legal trouble. and that's the sad truth with the media today... they're a bunch of bloodhounds who try and dig up a story that isn't really there. they get one side of the story, ask for the other side, and are told "no comment." so they write a biased story and influence our opinion.

sometimes "no comment" doesn't mean that i don't have a good explanation... it just means that i'm legally forbidden from telling it or that it could get me into legal trouble.

[neelin]

I think you guys are missing something, Helen Mirren in a bikini on the same page!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1035510/Helen-Mirren-bikini-queen-reigns-supreme-63.html

robert

[timmyd18]

i should be more careful, i forgot how easy it is to prove libel in the UK.

so every time i said "bad reporting," please replace it with "allegedly bad reporting" :)

[aizan]

let's start a campaign for "national photography day", a day to celebrate our civil liberties to photograph legally, and to educate the ignorant!

[jan normandale]

@ timmy, why you're downplaying this I'm not sure. Bottom line is a man was accosted verbally by two people who decided they had a "legitimate reason" to attack or harass this man when common decency would suggest leaving him, his wife and two children in peace while at a park enjoying a family moment. It's intrusive, uncalled for and potentially stigmatizing. It's unacceptable and indefensible public behaviour. It's people behaving badly and it's time for it to end.

[timmyd18]

i'm not downplaying it at all, i just think it is symptomatic of a different problem in society than others do.

nowhere in the article does it say the man was "attacked or harrassed." a ride operator asked him to stop taking photos and another woman agreed with her.

most people on this blog have automatically blamed these women for this request without hearing their side of the story.

my points are twofold

1.) we don't know what happened here, as the mail has neglected to ask why these wome might have made their request. since we don't know what happened here, it is inappropriate to try and make stereotypes (some of which have been pretty misogynistic) based on these "facts"

2.) this isn't news. three people argued in a park. one called up the daily mail. hence the article, and this debate.

[photogdave]

2.) this isn't news. three people argued in a park. one called up the daily mail. hence the article, and this debate.

Agreed. It's about as newsworthy as another celeb D.U.I. As a former newspaper reporter I'm pretty disgusted with the quality of "journalism" these days.
However, we give it power with our conjecture and hypotheses. Maybe we ourselves are gong a little overboard jumping on the "protect our rights" bandwagon before looking at all the facts.

[Darren Abate]

Well said.

I've no patience for this either, not that even I'm out there shooting people in public- I just shoot buildings, cars, etc. when in town. Even this activity gets me suspicious looks regularly.

It's just further proof that the great Flock is still responding well to the fear-mongering. Caution! Perverts and Terrorists are everywhere, photographing your kids and cities for their own sadistic jollies and sinister plans!

[timmyd18]

Agreed. It's about as newsworthy as another celeb D.U.I. As a former newspaper reporter I'm pretty disgusted with the quality of "journalism" these days.
However, we give it power with our conjecture and hypotheses. Maybe we ourselves are gong a little overboard jumping on the "protect our rights" bandwagon before looking at all the facts.

Thanks, Dave. I think that hits what I'm trying to get at.

Here's another recent posted article with the same problem

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61364

It isn't clear from the article that the author of the article has read the police statements about the incident he's writing about. Because of this, we are left with a very negative impression of the police from that night, but when you look more deeply, it gets a lot more complicated.

I guess the lesson is to always do your own research and try and see things from multiple angles.

have a good night everyone



timmy

[c.poulton]

The interesting thing is that this happened to a man. If it was the wife who was the one taking photographs of her children, I bet there would not have been any problems. It appears that society immediately labels any man with a camera taking photographs of children a pervert or paedophile! How many women do you hear about getting hassle for taking photograhs of children?

[peterm1]

I am a bit crapped off with society right now. This kind of stuff certainly influences my enjoyment of photography and inhibits me from taking photos in many situations. Just recently I was photographing a piece of street art in my home city when a kid wandered into frame and started climbing on the fixture. Rather than shooting what possibly would have been a charming scene, (or even continuing to shoot while taking care to keep him out of the shot) I felt constrained to stop immediately and go elsewhere. Just because a damned ankle biter was in scene! And of course if I was there with my wife - it could have been a different story!

PS Helen Mirren still scrubs up pretty well for an old chook.

[memphis]

http://dlisted.com/files/imagecache/photo-preview/files/galleries/helenhotness2.jpg

Helen Mirren does look really god for any age

[Solinar]

Memphis - a public park may not be as public versus private as we'd like to think. I believe that here in Austin, Texas there is a Ministry of Photographic Permissions that collect 50 US bucks for the privilege of taking photographs in our city parks. The intent was to prevent commercial photographers from setting up shoots in a city park, but once there is a bureaucracy set up to collect a fee, we know where that road leads.

[jan normandale]

i'm not downplaying it at all, i just think it is symptomatic of a different problem in society than others do.

nowhere in the article does it say the man was "attacked or harrassed." a ride operator asked him to stop taking photos and another woman agreed with her.

most people on this blog have automatically blamed these women for this request without hearing their side of the story.

my points are twofold

1.) we don't know what happened here, as the mail has neglected to ask why these wome might have made their request. since we don't know what happened here, it is inappropriate to try and make stereotypes (some of which have been pretty misogynistic) based on these "facts"

2.) this isn't news. three people argued in a park. one called up the daily mail. hence the article, and this debate.

timmy, you might do one last 're read' on that link regarding the event. Despite your statement that the reporter neglected to “ask the women” you will see the reporter noted, the first woman/ride operator stated it was “policy for photos of your children only on the ride” and the father showed her his images of his boys on the ride. The reporter subsequently enquired up the line and got further clarification from her operator/father which corroborated her ‘stop taking photographs’ order. The father/photographer’s statement is

"I repeated that the only people being photographed were my own children. She said I could be taking pictures of just any child to put on the internet and called me a pervert. We immediately left the show"

The fact this article is or is not a newsworthy item is beside the point. That comment is totally out of line and is unacceptable and inappropriate. What’s interesting is you attribute no credence to the photographer, and discredit the press by saying that the press is sensationalist and mysognystic. How would you react to being called a pervert in a park full of adults and children in front of your wife and children?

I'm glad I wasn't that man with my wife and children at that park. I wouldn't want to have to answer to my children "daddy, what's a pervert, and what does it have to do with your photography?" I shudder to think what their children will get in a school yard if some of the neighbourhood kids saw this event. "Your dad's a pervert" is not out of the realm of children's taunts. Stigmatizing people for family photography is totally wrong. This kind of behaviour and response to photographers should stop.

I’ve said my piece and I’m done on this one.

[BigSteveG]

The man handled things very well and was an example to his children. I get dirty looks now and again. But I keep doing what I'm doing.

[timmyd18]

i'm done too- it doesn't make any sense for us to get heated over something we'll never know any more about

i agree too that the second woman (not the ride operator) was completely out of line.

[jan normandale]

i'm done too- it doesn't make any sense for us to get heated over something we'll never know any more about

i agree too that the second woman (not the ride operator) was completely out of line.

yeah and I like your Oklahoma shots, so give me a tour if I pass thru ;D

[gb hill]

Damned ol evil DSLR's will get you in trouble everytime. Man should have bought a RF.

[memphis]

I would think people should be more concerned about this:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/a0f3/

Hidden camera with remote control

We all remember seeing those incredible ads for x-ray specs in the back of comic books and some of us probably even mailed in the $3 to a PO Box in New Jersey for rush delivery. "Surprise your friends with amazing x-ray vision" the ads would read. Yeah, someone is going to be surprised but it's not going to be your friends.


These camera sunglasses certainly aren't x-ray specs, but they do capture 1.3 megapixel still images (at a resolution of 1280x1024). The included RF remote-control is ideal for easy, stealth-style photo shooting. High-quality lightweight frame material and UV400 polarized flip-up lens. A polymer li-ion rechargeable battery provides a battery life of up to 9 hours (shooting 1 photo/minute). USB 2.0 interface via a standard Mini USB port for data upload and download & re-charging the battery.

The sunglasses also allow you to enjoy your music via MP3 playback. Built-in earbuds provide super convenient listen capability and can be hooked out of the way when not in use.



1GB of storage (can hold thousands of photos)
Plays MP3s and takes 1.3 Megapixel digital photos
Embedded ear buds for MP3 playback
Remote control for taking photos
RF remote frequency: 2.4GHz
Li-ion rechargeable battery (3.7V, 240mAh)
USB 2.0 connection for transferring files and re-charging the battery
Control buttons for Vol +/-, Fwd, Rwd, Play, Pause, Capture
Includes: sunglasses, remote w/ strap, USB cable, storage case, cleaning cloth, extra clear lenses



than a guy weilding a nikon

[amateriat]

This nonsense happens in my (http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/31/26/31_26_whats_wrong_with_this.html) backyard, too...


- Barrett

[Rick Waldroup]

This nonsense happens in my (http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/31/26/31_26_whats_wrong_with_this.html) backyard, too...


- Barrett


This is why I said before that it is time for NO MORE MR NICE GUY. Some folks on here said that we should all be calm and rational when approached by some dickhead with an agenda about taking photos in public. After having been harrassed over a dozen times since 2001, I have come to the conclusion that the nice and calm approach does not work.

The only folks who I will remain calm with are actual police officers. But as far as security guards and well-meaning but stupid civilians, etc- NO MORE. So, for the last few months, if I am approached in a hostile or stupid manner, I tell the people to take a hike, and if they pursue the matter, I tell them that I am going to be the one to call the police to deal with them. Let's turn the tables on the whackos.

Maybe if some of us really become confrontational about this crap, then we may see a difference in attitude. Screw these pinheads.

[Al Patterson]

This is why I said before that it is time for NO MORE MR NICE GUY. Some folks on here said that we should all be calm and rational when approached by some dickhead with an agenda about taking photos in public. After having been harrassed over a dozen times since 2001, I have come to the conclusion that the nice and calm approach does not work.

The only folks who I will remain calm with are actual police officers. But as far as security guards and well-meaning but stupid civilians, etc- NO MORE. So, for the last few months, if I am approached in a hostile or stupid manner, I tell the people to take a hike, and if they pursue the matter, I tell them that I am going to be the one to call the police to deal with them. Let's turn the tables on the whackos.

Maybe if some of us really become confrontational about this crap, then we may see a difference in attitude. Screw these pinheads.

I'm agreeing with you twice today...

Maybe it's time to have a "Critical Mass" group for photographers?

[Rick Waldroup]

I'm agreeing with you twice today...

Maybe it's time to have a "Critical Mass" group for photographers?

Alright, stop it Al. This will be bad for both our reputations. :p

I'll give you guys an example. My wife always thought I was kidding or making these stories up about being confronted by nitwits in public, until the other day. A couple of weeks ago, she and I were in downtown Fort Worth. I was shooting some arches of a really cool office building. When I was done, we crossed the street, on our way to a nice little park. I heard someone yelling and I turned around and it was a security guard. I walked back over and he asked if I was shooting pictures of the federal courthouse. It was right next to the building I was taking pictures of. To be honest, I did not even notice the courthouse. I told him what I had been shooting. He asked to see the photos. Well, that pissed me off, but I thought, okay, why not, let's try to be civil about this.

So I show the guy the shots. In one of them, I barely caught the corner of the courthouse in the shot. He told me to delete it. At that point, you know, I figured, this is enough of this bull****- I turned the camera off, told him to literally, take a hike, and that I would be in the park across the street if he wanted to call the police or if he needed to have his superiors talk to me. The whole time, my wife is watching this, scared to death. We walked across the street into the park and that was the last I saw of him or heard from anyone.

So maybe, just maybe, if some us start telling these jokers to take a hike- maybe that will get the message into their thick skulls that we are tired of this crap. Maybe......

Then there was the time in downtown Dallas when I was almost arrested for wearing a shirt that read "Street Photographer - Not a Terrorist", but that is another story for another thread....