How do you react to your picture being taken without permission?

sportysnaps said:
pemission to take a photo in public? - what next permission to look?

i don't care if somebody wants to take a photo of me in a public place - bring it on...
Click to expand...

Agreed people's attitudes these days is all wrong to many great captures will be missed because of this
 
Werecow said:
There's also too many photographers jumping to this way of thinking.
I agree the huge majority of photographers have innocent intentions but i also think that a large percentage are also inconsiderate in the way they take photos of people. I see a lot of discussions on the internet with the 2 opposing views of "the photographer looked a bit dodgy" or "why should anyone mind having their photo taken? so i just take the photo".

There's another view of this situation and that's that you should spare a thought for people who you might severely affect personally through taking a photo. I've had personal experience of several anxiety disorders at various points in my life and i can tell you that an overly pushy photographer at certain moments would have either made me feel suicidal or violent towards the photographer out of fear. Not many of you even think of that perspective when someone objects to having a photo taken i bet?

There are a LOT of people out there who are secretly in terror at even managing to walk down a street, look at someone or utter a word to anyone let alone dealing with that.

Consideration is key on BOTH sides of the camera.
Click to expand...

Recent figures suggest there are over 4.5m CCTV cameras in the uk. Your photo/ image is recorded many times a day. We're not talking paparazzi stuff a camera in your face type of photography in the original post but someone standing at distance taking a photo of a beach scene. At no point was this an overly pushy photographer - no one is saying that is correct.
 
cam1986 said:
If i found someone taking a photo of my daughter then they had better be able to run fast!
Click to expand...

This is sad and a completely over the top reaction. What next, join the mob with flaming torches and pitchforks? "burn his house down. He's either a witch stealing our souls or a P****" .

Is this how you'd like to be treated the next time you take a photo?
 
footman said:
You need to qualify that statement otherwise it's a shocking attitude from anyone, let alone a photographer.
Click to expand...

He's still looking for a camera, so doesn't really qualify..... :p

w9i62s.jpg
 
Byker28i said:
This is sad and a completely over the top reaction. What next, join the mob with flaming torches and pitchforks? "burn his house down. He's either a witch stealing our souls or a P****" .

Is this how you'd like to be treated the next time you take a photo?
Click to expand...

I agree I welcome anyone who I take a photo of to come challenge me I dare them if they don't like it stay in the house
 
specialman said:
- if some hot Kelly Brook-type wants to get my portrait, blow it up to A2 and put it on her wall and then do bad things to herself, I'm fine with that... ;)
Click to expand...

happens to me all the time, but usually they ask first so they can try to get my phone number as well :p

that aside i would guess that the issue for the OP was not taking pictures of him, so much as the taking pictures of his daughter

and my take on that kind of thing is if someone wants to take a few quick shots and move thats fine, but if they are lurking suspiciously and continually taking pics then i'm going to say something
 
born-shooter said:
I agree I welcome anyone who I take a photo of to come challenge me I dare them if they don't like it stay in the house
Click to expand...

the bravado in that is quite sad as well though - i mean you "dare them" :shake:

and when they stroll up and say 'scuse me mate , why are you taking lots of pictures of my kid' what exactly are you going to say ?
 
Byker28i said:
Recent figures suggest there are over 4.5m CCTV cameras in the uk. Your photo/ image is recorded many times a day. We're not talking paparazzi stuff a camera in your face type of photography in the original post but someone standing at distance taking a photo of a beach scene. At no point was this an overly pushy photographer - no one is saying that is correct.
Click to expand...

i think you need to stop using this comparison, i see you writing it a lot. It's not comparable.

One is about someone very individual taking a photo of you for their own collection or enjoyment.

The other is constant video of the scene in particular that you happen to be in, only focussing on you if you are up to no good and is for security reasons that will be deleted after a period of time automatically.

It's also private footage unless it needs to be released for some reason, whereas the candid can be put on the internet for all the world to see.

And i'm talking here about a photographer specifically taking a candid of you, not that the photographer happens to be taking a shot of a scene and you are in it. How would I know if he was taking a photo of me or the scene? Well, if i see him and then move out of the shot and he follows me, then it doesn't take a brain surgeon to work it out.
 
cjevans said:
A little while back I was playing on the beach with my daughter-about a year and a half old. Basically I saw someone taking pictures of us, I am well aware of the law and that I was in a public area and so fair game but didn't like it. I gave a few disapproving looks and after the guy soon moved on. He didn't seem to have any kid, wasn't dressed for the beach and so I assume was just out taking photos. Just wondered how others here would react. Would you always defend the right of the photographer to take a picture of what they want-even if you/your family are the subject matter?
Click to expand...

I think the answer is obvious. If you felt uncomfortable why on earth didn't you just go over to the photographer and politely ask what he was doing?

If the photographer became unreasonably persistent, intrusive, or pushy, then that raises the question of harassment. But it doesn't sound to me like you were being harassed.
 
I couldn't care less. It's already been said that cameras are everywhere anyway.
In fact, I'd probably start posing eccentrically :LOL:
 
But for someone to take a photo of a 5 year old without asking is really wrong. It would be black eyes for the tog. I wouldnt dream of taking a pic of kids without permission.
 
cam1986 said:
But for someone to take a photo of a 5 year old without asking is really wrong. It would be black eyes for the tog. I wouldnt dream of taking a pic of kids without permission.
Click to expand...

You are really not doing yourself any favours are you? Have you ever heard of candid or street photography? Do you realise that some of the best images are spontaneous, just taken on the spur of the moment?
Can you please explain what is so terrible about taking an innocent photograph of a child?
It does however speak volumes about you and your character, that you would be willing to assault someone for something so trivial.
 
99% of people would not like pics taken of thier young children without permission. People on here are bound to be on the side of the tog as this is a tog forum. Doesn't mean i have to agree to having a pic taken of my daughter without permission even though i am interested in photography.

I would indeed be very angry if some person decided to take pics of my young daughter without asking. Its not about the 'p***' aspect, its about privacy for my daughter.
 
I actully agree with Antony here. Street Photographers can justify it however they want but i think you will find that most people would not be happy with strangers taking photos of there kids be it in the street, on the beach or anywhere without permission.

Simply calling it street photography does not change the risk of a black eye. This is not an accusation of pedophilia to photographers its about the privacy of an individual and a child.

Yes in the eyes of the law a photographer has the legal right to do so but if the wish of the individual or the parent is not to then this should be respected.

I dont even have have images of my boy on facebook as there are people out there i dont want to see my son so if a photographer started taking shots of him they would get a black eye from me and some.

I would like to say again there is a big difference between taking a shot of a beech scene than taking a shot of an individual. By all means shoot the later but except that some people wont like it and maybe respect that a little.
 
Last edited:
Why not be sensible, and speak to the photographer about it, instead of being a violent mindless so-and-so, and punching them.

This statistic is plucked out of thin air, and is obviously a load of old cock:
cam1986 said:
99% of people would not like pics taken of thier young children without permission.
Click to expand...

I've taken plenty of photos of the public, adults and children included, and thankfully haven't yet met anyone so keen to treat violence toward another person as a first resort. As it happens, I've not even been confronted in a non-violent way yet (which rather kills the 99% statistic stone dead). I have no doubt that I may well be approached at some point, but I hope that whomever it is has a certain degree of common sense and decency, and isn't a mindless thug.
 
asphotographymk said:
I would like to say again there is a big difference between taking a shot of a beech scene than taking a shot of an individual. By all means shoot the later but except that some people wont like it and maybe respect that a little.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the vast majority of photographers would respect that and would (and should) stop if an individual unwillingly becomes the main subject. Personally I always ask if I want to take a picture of somebody or their child/pet etc. However, if they are distant and part of the general scene it is completely impractical to seek permissions from everyone present. Personally I would be unhappy if I were enjoying a few hours to myself shooting scenes and landscapes in a public place and one individual amongst dozens of others told me to stop - or worse, attacked me.

The prospect of assault for what is an innocent and legal act is something I find unacceptable and I hope that in your prior agreement with him you're not condoning Anthony's threats.
 
Last edited:
cam1986 said:
But for someone to take a photo of a 5 year old without asking is really wrong. It would be black eyes for the tog. I wouldnt dream of taking a pic of kids without permission.
Click to expand...


Resorting to violence is not the way to sort out any issue you may have.


cam1986 said:
99% of people would not like pics taken of thier young children without permission. People on here are bound to be on the side of the tog as this is a tog forum. Doesn't mean i have to agree to having a pic taken of my daughter without permission even though i am interested in photography.

I would indeed be very angry if some person decided to take pics of my young daughter without asking. Its not about the 'p***' aspect, its about privacy for my daughter.
Click to expand...

People here are not on the side of "the tog". They are on the side of the law.

Getting angry just shows a lack reason and self control. Why should you be angry at someone behaving legally. The photographer has the right to be there as much as you and your daughter.

As has been said just go and speak to the photographer if you actually spot him shooting, you may be pleasantly surprised..

I'm a father and don't mind at all so again your 99% statistic does not work.
 
Also if you want to quote statistics, records show that most "paedos" are part of the family, not necessarily a stranger with a camera..
 
joescrivens said:
i think you need to stop using this comparison, i see you writing it a lot. It's not comparable.
Click to expand...

I think twice in this thread Joe - that's not a lot :shrug:
It was in context to the person saying he doesn't like his photo being taken at all - specifically to:
for people who you might severely affect personally through taking a photo. I've had personal experience of several anxiety disorders at various points in my life and i can tell you that an overly pushy photographer at certain moments would have either made me feel suicidal or violent towards the photographer out of fear

I was pointing out that images are taken all the time (there that's three times now Joe). If you watch the cameras you'll be surprised sometimes how they track you.
 
It'll be a sad day for the youth sport photography I do if 99% of parents wished I didn't take photo's. Usually I find it the other way around.

It's a real eye opener finding so many people threatening violence. I hope this is just keyboard warrior talk otherwise it's a very sad reflection of our society.

Speak to the photographer. I've once been asked to delete a photo which I did as we'd had a very reasonable chat. At other times I've been asked if I could send the image on.

Anyhow that's my last word on this subject before Joe tells me off for asking people to talk too many times ;)
 
GrittyShaker said:
Why not be sensible, and speak to the photographer about it, instead of being a violent mindless so-and-so, and punching them.

This statistic is plucked out of thin air, and is obviously a load of old cock:


I've taken plenty of photos of the public, adults and children included, and thankfully haven't yet met anyone so keen to treat violence toward another person as a first resort. As it happens, I've not even been confronted in a non-violent way yet (which rather kills the 99% statistic stone dead). I have no doubt that I may well be approached at some point, but I hope that whomever it is has a certain degree of common sense and decency, and isn't a mindless thug.
Click to expand...


all these people jumping on someone for using a term like a giving someone a black eye, try not to be so pedantic.

It's an expression meaning they would not be happy with it, it's does necessarily translate literally. You guys have heard of idioms right? When someone says they have a chip on their shoulder it doesn't actually mean there is a frozen or cooked piece of potato on somebody's shoulder
 
This is a forum. We don't know the person typing. There was no smiley to indicate humour, the tone of the post was not humourous, so taking it at face value is reasonable.
 
PsiFox said:
This is a forum. We don't know the person typing. There was no smiley to indicate humour, the tone of the post was not humourous, so taking it at face value is reasonable.
Click to expand...

no, taking it at face value just results in petty arguments and people clinging on to a statement of violence and away from the thread topic

It doesn't have to be humorous, they are expressing their anger with words. I could say:

If someone took a photo of my daughter and then continued to do so when I had made it clear I wasn't happy about it I'd be really angry.

of I could say


If someone took a photo of my daughter and then continued to do so when I had made it clear I wasn't happy about it they'd see the wrong side of my fist.

They both mean the same thing, but the second is a more expressive way of putting it, it doesn't actually mean I would walk up to them literally and punch them in the face. Use a little discretion when literally reading peoples posts.
 
If someone took a photo of my daughter and then continued to do so when I had made it clear I wasn't happy about it I'd be really angry.
Click to expand...

Says to me fine you get upset easily but some people do.

If someone took a photo of my daughter and then continued to do so when I had made it clear I wasn't happy about it they'd see the wrong side of my fist.
Click to expand...


Gives me an impression of someone that is a thug.

Of course you and I have specifically pointed these out for the sake of debate but as I said before in a post I don't know whether or not he means it, and strangely, not everyone on the internet and probably even here will be nice people, apart from you and I who are having an interesting debate.:)
 
PsiFox said:
Says to me fine you get upset easily but some people do.




Gives me an impression of someone that is a thug.

Of course you and I have specifically pointed these out for the sake of debate but as I said before in a post I don't know whether or not he means it, and strangely, not everyone on the internet and probably even here will be nice people, apart from you and I who are having an interesting debate.:)
Click to expand...

:D

and if I said

I talk a lot

or I said

I can talk the backend off a donkey

what would you think?
 
joescrivens said:
no, taking it at face value just results in petty arguments and people clinging on to a statement of violence and away from the thread topic

It doesn't have to be humorous, they are expressing their anger with words. I could say:

If someone took a photo of my daughter and then continued to do so when I had made it clear I wasn't happy about it I'd be really angry.

of I could say


If someone took a photo of my daughter and then continued to do so when I had made it clear I wasn't happy about it they'd see the wrong side of my fist.

They both mean the same thing, but the second is a more expressive way of putting it, it doesn't actually mean I would walk up to them literally and punch them in the face. Use a little discretion when literally reading peoples posts.
Click to expand...

You could say either of those things, and I wouldn't question or argue with them. The difference is that you are getting angry/violent towards someone that's harassing your family.

This
But for someone to take a photo of a 5 year old without asking is really wrong. It would be black eyes for the tog.
Click to expand...

And this
If i found someone taking a photo of my daughter then they had better be able to run fast!
Click to expand...

are immediate threats of violence toward a member of the public that is doing nothing wrong whatsoever.

Read the offending posts again. There isn't a hint of a suggestion that they would approach the photographer and speak to them about it, and perhaps mention they would prefer not to be the subject of the photo.

The photographer goes straight from taking a photo to getting a smack in the face.
 
GrittyShaker said:
You could say either of those things, and I wouldn't question or argue with them. The difference is that you are getting angry/violent towards someone that's harassing your family.

This


And this


are immediate threats of violence toward a member of the public that is doing nothing wrong whatsoever.

Read the offending posts again. There isn't a hint of a suggestion that they would approach the photographer and speak to them about it, and perhaps mention they would prefer not to be the subject of the photo.

The photographer goes straight from taking a photo to getting a smack in the face.
Click to expand...

you are reading into them what you want. I read them and get that the two posters wouldn't be happy about what was happening. I don't literally take when someone uses an expression like "better be able to run fast" that he means he will literally run after someone to harm them physically ..... but then I'm not dissecting someones post to the point of pedantry
 
I was out on a general photo walk (just along a quayside), when a bloke came up out of the blue and told me "point that at my kids and I'll break your legs".

How is that ever acceptable?

More amusing considering the camera slung over my shoulder and the he was actaully walking behind me (he had to run to catch up).

Why should I be subject to threats when I'm not doing anyone any harm?

(incidently I don't as a rule photograph strangers, just don't find them interesting enough)
 
joescrivens said:
you are reading into them what you want. I read them and get that the two posters wouldn't be happy about what was happening. I don't literally take when someone uses an expression like "better be able to run fast" that he means he will literally run after someone to harm them physically ..... but then I'm not dissecting someones post to the point of pedantry
Click to expand...

You've interpreted it in one way, and I've interpreted it in another. Neither of us know for certain what he meant, so don't pretend you're not reading into it how you want either. If someone can't do us the decency of posting what they mean in a legible way, then they should be prepared to be misunderstood.
 
GrittyShaker said:
You've interpreted it in one way, and I've interpreted it in another. Neither of us know for certain what he meant, so don't pretend you're not reading into it how you want either. If someone can't do us the decency of posting what they mean in a legible way, then they should be prepared to be misunderstood.
Click to expand...

you're right, i'll make sure from now on that i'll type everything exactly as I mean it literally, not use a single idiom or exaggeration in anything i write. In fact I'll also make sure I don't use the smilie with the green face :)D) in case people think I am actually green.
 
I don't mind having pics taken of me out and about. Personally, I choose not to take pictures of children outside of an agreed session. Don't think there's anything wrong with it as long as permission is asked for.
 
Greenninja said:
I was out on a general photo walk (just along a quayside), when a bloke came up out of the blue and told me "point that at my kids and I'll break your legs".

How is that ever acceptable?

More amusing considering the camera slung over my shoulder and the he was actaully walking behind me (he had to run to catch up).

Why should I be subject to threats when I'm not doing anyone any harm?

(incidently I don't as a rule photograph strangers, just don't find them interesting enough)
Click to expand...

This is of course an extreme example. Walking up to you and threatening you when you have done nothing is again different to being angry at someone for continued aggravation.

If a photographer was taking a shot of a scene and my son was in that scene. I would most likely move or stay depending on how much i felt my son was involved. If however the photographer then decided to follow me and take photographs specifically targeted at me or my family then i would happily land a straight right to there jaw with no regrets.

Any reasonable person would of course talk to the photographer before reaction it is how the photographer acts after this that would matter. If they do not understanding they are PI**ING someone off then they get what they need.
 
Last edited:
asphotographymk said:
If however the photographer then decided to follow me and take photographs specifically targeted at me or my family then i would happily land a straight right to there jaw with no regrets.

Any reasonable person would of course talk to the photographer before reaction it is how the photographer acts after this that would matter. If they do not understanding they are PI**ING someone off then they get what they need.
Click to expand...

I'll presume from the way that was written, that you're actually serious?

I think you might just regret it Andy, if you end up facing an assault charge. Not great for business, nor does it set a particularly good example to your family - or to the public at large should they then think it's OK to dish out the same even when faced with the most innocent photographer.

The mature response might be to tell them to stop, and if they persisted in an intrusive way, threaten to report them based on harassment, and act on that if necessary. I think that would normally do the trick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top