Photographing children - how do you navigate the ethical risks?

[big soft moose]

and you have the right to call the police if they are acting suspiciously

To be honest if someone walked past and took one picture of my 2 year old nephew (I don't have kids of my own) I wouldnt be too bothered - if someone started following him arround taking lots of pictures, I would brace them and ask (nicely) what they were doing

If they had a reasonable explanation that would be fine - if they went off the deep end about their rights as a photographer and how they can do WTF they want etc then i'd probably assume that to be that defensive they must have something to hide... and i might well call the police ( I might alternately just tell them to **** off and leave him alone - at 6'4" and 15 stone most people wouldnt argue)

If i caught some weirdo hiding in the bushes taking photos of him with a long lens while touching himself ... I would shortly be requiring the services of a solicitor, and the weirdo the sevices of a proctologist

 

[Toggerman]

The same way you'd know if they were doing some coursework or an assignment. ie you wouldn't. You could ask them about either, they could lie to you about either.

Exactly, people who are up to no good will lie about it, it's a part of human nature to avoid uncomfortable situations and lying is one of the best tools for the job. You'd have to judge to person's reaction to the question to draw your conclusion on that one.

If it's OK to take the photo if it's part of school coursework or an assignment, is it OK to take it if it's part of a self-initiated assignment?

Fair point, there are a fair few people on here alone that start their own projects. But then you can also have the situation where someone uses that as an excuse to justify their actions to themselves.

People don't have to get your permission to do anything. And while you have every right to question anybody on the street, they also have the same right to lie to you, or ignore you, walk away and carry on with their lives.

Quite right.

 

[Byker28i]

To your eyes, right now, they don't document much, but in twenty or thirty years time they will show how things were today. Fashions change, buildings get pulled down, trees grow. Today's crap snapshots are tomorrow's documents of social history.

As for the subject under discussion, I expect Martin Parr would be torn limb from limb by a braying mob if he were to try to replicate the photographs in The Last Resort today.

I wish I'd documented more of where I live. We used to huge huge paintings on the walls of houses that have all gone now, historic buildings or companies gone (it all used to be fields around here etc).

 

[Ed Sutton]

If they survive , which they probably won't

Also the reason that work from 30 years ago is valued now is that there were a lot less photos back then - these days when every man and his dog has a camera or a phone , the need for anyone to actually go out and document the lives of strangers is significantly lessened

Most photographs from the past haven't survived. No change there.

Apart from the fact there's no need to photograph anything as amateur/hobbyists, we don't know what is worth documenting, and every man and his dog doesn't photograph the same things as people who take their photography more seriously.

I agree that photographing strangers just for the sake of it is superficially pointless, but photographing strangers in order to make a decent picture, or as part of a wider project, isn't.

 

[Byker28i]

Lets say I'm walking along with my kids and a random stranger walks past and takes a picture of my kids just walking along.

In the context though it's not really going to happen. Have you often been walking along with your kids and someone just photographs you? Are you worried about the many cctv cameras then?

To be honest if someone walked past and took one picture of my 2 year old nephew (I don't have kids of my own) I wouldnt be too bothered - if someone started following him arround taking lots of pictures, I would brace them and ask (nicely) what they were doing

If they had a reasonable explanation that would be fine - if they went off the deep end about their rights as a photographer and how they can do WTF they want etc then i'd probably assume that to be that defensive they must have something to hide... and i might well call the police ( I might alternately just tell them to **** off and leave him alone - at 6'4" and 15 stone most people wouldnt argue)

If i caught some weirdo hiding in the bushes taking photos of him with a long lens while touching himself ... I would shortly be requiring the services of a solicitor, and the weirdo the sevices of a proctologist

So a basic common sense approach then.

 

[MartynK]

In the context though it's not really going to happen. Have you often been walking along with your kids and someone just photographs you? Are you worried about the many cctv cameras then?

Somewhat, but in the context of the state's increasing appetite for snooping and monitoring everyone's activities. That's another story.

 

[Toggerman]

In the context though it's not really going to happen. Have you often been walking along with your kids and someone just photographs you? Are you worried about the many cctv cameras then?

CCTV doesn't bother me much, given the quality of most CCTV they're not really much good for, well, anything. I would be concerned if someone used CCTV to follow my kids around but to be fair that's incredibly unlikely too.

 

[FlyingShrapnel]

A bit of courtesy where our kids are concerned. No real big deal. i think if you can't approach the parents, either pre or post shot, then you have to really ask yourself ... why?? Why did you 'need' that shot? And don't give me that 'capturing the times' BS - if it's so important, than you won't mind asking the question "Do you mind id your child is included in this shot?" - I think if you can't bring yourself to ask that, then you have a problem. You feel uncomfortable enough NOT to ask ...


That's enough not to shoot.


Stop debating. Kids are kids. They're not fish in an aquarium. A bit of respect, and a polite word, both go long ways

this has changed my mind a bit on the matter, i think from now on i would ask, no matter pre or post, and offer to send them the pic if they are happy with it

 

[djs]

As Keith said above, just ask the parents.

Pass them your business card, and explain who you are, and why you took the shot.
Don't ask for their details as they might leave thinking 'Wait, this stranger has a picture of our child and also our contact details where he could find our address?'.
So ask them to drop you an email and you'll send them a print or a digital copy.
Your business card has your telephone number on it, and also your reputation. Your reputation is your deposit.

 

[Byker28i]

I'd guess not many hobbyist tog has business cards, but it does make it a lot easier to validate what you are doing.

I have them as I used to hand them out to sell images from my website. easiest thing after a rugby game to upload the small jpegs to an ipad, stick the images on scrolling through with my cards next to it and a note saying all monies raised went towards running the team

 

[Cagey75]

Thank god I grew up in the safety of the sixties when we were free to play out and there was no such thing as a paedophile. :bonk: :bonk:

You should read up on your history. More children went missing back then than now i reckon. And if someone was snapping your kids in a weird manner and you were fine about it, id be very surprised.

 

[Cagey75]

I was talking to a Turkish chap, a keen photographer the other day, and he was telling me that at home (Turkey) he quite happily does street shots of people including children but has had hassle doing it in the UK so doesnt bother anymore really sad

Is that right? Well my experience of Turkey is my camera went missing until i called the cops in the hotel. The point?? There is none. Try taking pictures down the back alleys of Turkey willy nilly of . . . Anyone! You'll come across some resistance i can tell you. I wish people would just stop talking silly. Did your friend go about taking pictures of kids a lot?

 

[Phil V]

You should read up on your history. More children went missing back then than now i reckon. And if someone was snapping your kids in a weird manner and you were fine about it, id be very surprised.

As for the facebook thing, whoever said it, wtf?? People putting up pics, of their own kids, to share with strictly friends, same thing?? Jesus, se on here . . .

You missed my following post then

 

[viv1969]

I wish people would just stop talking silly. Did your friend go about taking pictures of kids a lot?

If he is Turkish, and was taking photos in Turkey (see the clue?), I'll bet he met with little or no resistance at all.

 

[big soft moose]

thing is at the end of the day something bad happeing to their kids is nearly every parents worse nightmare... so yes its not logical to fear that that photographer taking pics of your little one is a paedophile - but then most fears arent logical (I know i guy who's been decorated for bravery under fire 3 times who's absolutely terrified of spiders)

Media hype doesnt help, but its not the only motivating factor.

I'm not saying people shouldnt photograph kids, but I am saying that we should stop blaming the parents for wanting to protect them. If we (photographers in general) take ownership of our own behaviour and use our common sense in how we go about it then we'll be fine. If we act like idiots with no consideration for anyone but ourselves we won't and we might see a knee jerk law change to our detriment

 

[simonblue]

I was in the park a few weeks back with little one,we when over to the public play area,i started to take some photos of her playing,when this chap walked over to me and ask me to stop taking photos because his children were about.
I just looked up,and looks at him squarely in the eye,and told him i had taken the shots i needed and his kids were not in my shots.
As i walked away back to sit on a bench and let her carry on playing i notice a few of the other parents who were their just glance over my way quickly.

Anyway after about 5 more min this man and his wife got up and left with his kids,the all of a sudden camera started to appear and other parents started taking photos of their children.
Which made me think before i arrived,had he be saying the same thing to them ,did he have the right to after all its was a public play area ?.
My answer is no he did not have the right,was he just being a bully ?
The other sad thing i notice before he left all the other kid were playing with each other,but his were not no other children approach his.

 

[Byker28i]

I'm not saying people shouldnt photograph kids, but I am saying that we should stop blaming the parents for wanting to protect them.

I've no issue with that but even on a photographers site you get comments like:

if you caught some pervert taking indecent pictures of your child, I think violence is a perfectly reasonable response ...

but if you were taking pics of my child specifically and without asking first then you are making a big mistake.

..how many steps removed from paedophilia is it really

OK so I'm pulling quotes slightly out of context and this isn't to have a go at those people but to point out that increasingly this is the attitude seen as a default response and this is on a (mostly uk) photographers forum.

Have we really got so far with the horror stories presented by the media that we see a pervert around every corner? I've no problem with protecting the children under my care, they'll probably say I've been over protective at time but lets apply a little reasoned thought before jumping to the instant conclusion that a photographer is a pervert and needs a good thumping.


It’s understandable that any parent will feel protective towards their family and no parent should be criticized for that, but very often that is manifested in unreasonable or aggressive demands which have no legal or rational merit. In turn no photographer can be expected to respond positively to threats, demands or insults. The reality is that we are all seen every day by members of the public and a plethora of CCTV cameras, as are our children, as we come and go from school/the shops/our homes/our friends’ homes and countless places of habit or interest. However anyone persistently or covertly photographing children in a manner which could be viewed as suspicious is understandably likely to attract the attention of parents and the authorities. It is also my personal feeling that if a member of the public asks you to stop photographing them then it is simply a matter of common sense and politeness that you comply.

Just found that at: http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/photographing-people-and-children-in-public-places/

 

[big soft moose]

I've no issue with that but even on a photographers site you get comments like:

if you caught some pervert taking indecent pictures of your child, I think violence is a perfectly reasonable response ...

.

Yeah but the key words there are pervert and indecent

Is it is reasonable to smack the crap out of some random photographer just because he takes a photo of your child ? No of course it isnt

My point was if i caught some creep taking for example explicit pictures of a childs genitals while they were getting changed in a swimming pool changing room (which has happened though it wasnt me that caught him) ... then he might well be heading for a "fall in the showers"

We can all agree that 99.99% (or so) of people taking pictures of kids arent doing so for sexual gratification (or power which is often a paedos main motivator in fact) , but that still leaves the )0.01% who are - and we can't blame parents for finding even a 1/10000 chance of their kids being harmed unacceptable.

If we want to blame someone we should blame the sick *******s who nonce up kids

 

[neil_g]

did i dream it or was this locked earlier?

 

[Steve Smith]

taking indecent pictures of your child

How can they possibly be indecent?


Steve.

 

[big soft moose]

How can they possibly be indecent?


Steve.

My point was if i caught some creep taking for example explicit pictures of a childs genitals while they were getting changed in a swimming pool changing room (which has happened though it wasnt me that caught him) ... then he might well be heading for a "fall in the showers"

 

[Byker28i]

How can they possibly be indecent?


Steve.

Sorry - not sure of what context that refers to but

Indecent images of minors is covered under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/

Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 creates a new offence of possession of a prohibited image of a child, punishable by up to three years' imprisonment.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/prohibited_images_of_children/

Those should explain what uk law defines as acceptable or not.

 

[big soft moose]

did i dream it or was this locked earlier?

you dreamt it (although i predict it will be sooner or later)

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

Sorry - not sure of what context that refers to but

Indecent images of minors is covered under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/

Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 creates a new offence of possession of a prohibited image of a child, punishable by up to three years' imprisonment.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/prohibited_images_of_children/

Those should explain what uk law defines as acceptable or not.

I think it's more that, if someone takes a photo of your child playing on a swing in a park or whatever, and you consider that photo to be indecent. Then you may want to re-think how you're dressing your children before taking them out in public.

 

[big soft moose]

I think it's more that, if someone takes a photo of your child playing on a swing in a park or whatever, and you consider that photo to be indecent. Then you may want to re-think how you're dressing your children before taking them out in public.

The original example that summer sammy gave was someone using a long lens to photograph a child having its nappy changed

the example i later gave was someone photographing a child changing at the swimming baths

Neither of these really fall into how you are dressing your child (also the childs dress thing is a short step away from the "she was asking for it" rapist defence)

 

[Steve Smith]

Sorry - not sure of what context that refers to

My point is that if they are out in public and are not indecent, then taking a photograph of them will not transform it into an indecent scene.

If a child is out in public in a 'normal' manner then a photograph of that child cannot be indecent.


Steve.

 

[big soft moose]

The bloke my mate caught held his DSLR over the top of a cubicle in a swimming pool changing room and fired off a long burst

Now its clear that that wasnt normal behaviour , but the explanation he advanced (which didnt fly with my mate or with the police) was very similar to that given here " that he wasnt a pervert or anything he was just trying to get some unusual shots"

Now personally I'd subscribe to the view in this circumstance that he's a lying scum bag nonce who wants a good kicking... but in the very unlikely case that his explanation was true, i'd hope we'd all agree that thast kind of behaviour isnt on even if motives were 'innocent'

 

[supersammy]

The bloke my mate caught held his DSLR over the top of a cubicle in a swimming pool changing room and fired off a long burst

Now its clear that that wasnt normal behaviour , but the explanation he advanced (which didnt fly with my mate or with the police) was very similar to that given here " that he wasnt a pervert or anything he was just trying to get some unusual shots"

Now personally I'd subscribe to the view in this circumstance that he's a lying scum bag nonce who wants a good kicking... but in the very unlikely case that his explanation was true, i'd hope we'd all agree that thast kind of behaviour isnt on even if motives were 'innocent'

Completely agree - however in context.

I was in the Army before getting medically discharged. Once we set up a videcamera and caught ourselves chucking a few buckets of water on a mate of ours when he was having a ****. We considered it good banter - however if it had been a women rather than a bloke I'm sure many would be calling it perverted.

EDIT - I'm only putting this out there for context. To people seeing up videoing this bloke having an intimate moment on the toilet as very weird and wrong. To everyone at Battalion it was hilarious.

 

[big soft moose]

To everyone at Battalion it was hilarious.

That's the army though - most civvies wouldnt find the dance of the flaming arse holes amusing either , or setting off 'MRE bombs' under someones bed , or dropping a very light cartridge down someones chimney, or wrapping a drunk and sleeping freind in 30 ft of climbing rope and balancing his bed on two chairs outside the block

thing is though squadies (and indeed officers) will do this crap to each other, but I can't see them videoing a child in that circumstance either... all the soilders I know (regardless of rank) think that nonces ought to be introduced to the business end of an SA80 (except for my freind paul who came up with the idea of dressing them up as intelligence officers and abandoning them in the green zone, as a more fitting punishment)

 

[supersammy]

That's the army though - most civvies wouldnt find the dance of the flaming arse holes amusing either

Ex Sapper?

 

[big soft moose]

Ex Sapper?

Ex RGJ (but only very briefly) , but ive a lot of freinds still in the Rifles, and in RM commandos

 

[supersammy]

Ex RGJ (but only very briefly) , but ive a lot of freinds still in the Rifles, and in RM commandos

Fair play. My best mate is 4 rifles. Out on tour at the moment. If you are interested there facebook group has lots of very very good photo's on it, and they even have some professional videos with one of the lads playing his guitar (as background music, just incase you are thinking I'm advocating some bone video of a bloke playing an accoustic guitar).

 

[MartynK]

I think it's more that, if someone takes a photo of your child playing on a swing in a park or whatever, and you consider that photo to be indecent. Then you may want to re-think how you're dressing your children before taking them out in public.

I don't think many parents are worried about people taking 'indecent' photographs of their kids in public places as such, it's more about their perception of paedophiles targeting the children.

My own chidren grew up in another country where this wasn't a public issue, and I don't think we ever gave it any thought, but we would have noticed, and intervened, if a strange adult started taking a close and unexplained interest in our kids, and was specifically photographing them. Parents are much the same everywhere, and we all - well, most of us - have the natural instinct to protect our children.

 

[supersammy]

Most people who have a problem with photo's of fully clothed people and kids are those with too much time on their hands. I'd suggest they are the idle classes, who sit at home winging that the benefits arn't enough to feed the kids whilst smoking 40 a day. They generally have poor hygiene, and are looking for entertainment to fill their days. They have little intelligence and will kick up a fuss at the slightest opportunity. Everything has to be done on public with these sorts of people, and they will happily post tacky statuses on facebook about anything and everything to recieve "likes" from their underclass friends. Generally they life's losers and should be eradicated from the gene pool.

However - there is a difference between that, and people not having a certain level of respect. The limits are obvious. I don't actually think peadophiles stalk the streets with cameras, as I'm sure they can find it online without the hassle. I also prefer the idea of a kid having a photo taken fully clothed and someone getting of on that, rather than some poor kid being abused and having the photo's plastered all over the internet. Ultimately this is really a none issue - I think it's more in the minds of people taking the photo's than anything else.

 

[ghoti]

No problem here with people taking photos of my kids.
Paedophiles are few and far between, despite what tabloid England would lead us to believe.
I think it's a bizarre and disturbing attitude to assume sexually predatory intentions in people who take an interest in our kids. Kids are funny and interesting. To find what kids get up to amusing and charming is a NICE thing, and I'm a bit upset at living in a country where it's increasingly treated with suspicion.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

No problem here with people taking photos of my kids.
Paedophiles are few and far between, despite what tabloid England would lead us to believe.
I think it's a bizarre and disturbing attitude to assume sexually predatory intentions in people who take an interest in our kids. Kids are funny and interesting. To find what kids get up to amusing andobservation.

Steve charming is a NICE thing, and I'm a bit upset at living in a country where it's increasingly treated with suspicion.

Spot on statement full of common sense and clarity

 

[cambsno]

No problem here with people taking photos of my kids.
Paedophiles are few and far between, despite what tabloid England would lead us to believe.
I think it's a bizarre and disturbing attitude to assume sexually predatory intentions in people who take an interest in our kids. Kids are funny and interesting. To find what kids get up to amusing and charming is a NICE thing, and I'm a bit upset at living in a country where it's increasingly treated with suspicion.

It's not the p**** thing that bothers me particularly, although would think it very strange someone wants pics of my kids and I would not be happy. Context obviously comes into it.

 

[ghoti]

It's not the p**** thing that bothers me particularly, although would think it very strange someone wants pics of my kids and I would not be happy. Context obviously comes into it.

If not paedophiles (which I've already said I think is a massively exaggerated problem), what's your worry?

 

[cambsno]

If not paedophiles (which I've already said I think is a massively exaggerated problem), what's your worry?

I just don't see why people would want to take pics of my kids and just don't like it.

 

[ghoti]

I just don't see why people would want to take pics of my kids and just don't like it.

Kids are funny and cute and do funny, charming things.