Candid photography involving children in public

[Eric Mc]

Oh dear !!!! ....:thumbsdown: i've just had to take the bunting and flags down and send the brass band away..... sorry Les :nono:but you seem to have mistaken my quote with regard to you having both a Moral & Legal stance

To be honest I thought at the time that you were being a little bit premature with the bunting

I understood the meaning of your reply to my post straight away but unfortunately "some" seem to read things that they hoped/would like to have been written and not what has actually been typed!

I think the majority of the posts you have made come across as over opinionated, misguided and in places wrongly interperated.

This is the exact point that I (and others) have been trying to make.......to no avail it would seem.

I'm afraid this has all become a little tedious now and is offering nothing in answer to the OP's questions......so if I may I will refer to the OP's first post.

Are there any specific legal issues or grey areas which may affect photographers?

As the law stands in England at this time there are no legal issues constraining photographers from taking candid photos in public.....there is however a grey area should you wish to publish said photos.

Would you be comfortable taking candid pictures which involved children in a public park for example?

That is is a moral/ethical judgment that each and every photographer must make for him/her self (no matter how much others think they have the right to make it for you)

 

[Les McLean]

Are we as photographers becoming collectively paranoid about the whole issue of being in the vicinity of children in a public place with a camera round our necks, and being branded a paedophile for doing so. Or is it a genuine reflection of societies anxieties around these issues.

For example , often I take my dogs walking along the river in the town I live, beside the river, is a childrens playground, and most days there are parents with the kids playing. Every time I walk past I automatically sling my camera behind me (rather than round my neck pointing forward), it's as though I'm subconsciously putting a sign up saying 'I'm not a p***', now does that reflect my own slight paranoia, in that I do it because I think that folk think every tog with a camera round their neck is a paedophile or are folk genuinely suspicious? I don't know.

Further on from the playground, there is a skateboard park, usually with older children/teenagers playing in it, although it would make for some great photography action shots, I don't even consider taking any shots. When I ask myself why? it's not totally clear, regardless of the legalities, if it was 'illegal' it's unlikely I would be 'caught' if I did take some shots, even less likely prosecuted. It's not very often there are parents around, so seeking consent is not an option, and even it it was, would I feel comfortable enough to approach a parent? I could seek consent from a youngster who was able to give informed consent (i.e. a 16 year old), but that is another minefield, as kids are often taught (rightly) to not talk to strangers? And as a parent, if it was my kids in the park, and when they returned home told me' we had a great time in the park today dad, and there was some bloke taking our pictures' my first reaction would be 'oh he'll have been snapping his own kids surely?'-'don't think so Dad' that's when I'd start to feel (as a parent) slightly uneasy about the whole situation.

So although I'm 100% clear that I won't even contemplate taking shots, I'm a little 'fuzzy' why I'm 100% clear.

There as been a noticeable shift if attitudes/legislation/mores over the last few years, now you can either consider it's political correctness gone mad, or a natural continuum of a shift in societies attitudes towards a more 'protective' society or a combination of both.

One of my favourite pictures of my youngest daughter is of her in the same playground as I mentioned, she is on the roundabout, with her friend , heads back screaming with enjoyment, there are other children on the ride in the shot also. This was taken about 12 years ago, if I was to consider taking the same shot today, I'd be extremely cautious about how I approached it, and certainly try and shoot it excluding other children from the image.

So is it a good or bad that things have changed so much?

My own very personal view, that on balance I think it's generally a good thing, but still feel slightly uncomfortable that society may think that because I'm out and about with my camera, my intentions could be suspicious.

 

[Witch]

Are we as photographers becoming collectively paranoid about the whole issue of being in the vicinity of children in a public place with a camera round our necks, and being branded a paedophile for doing so. Or is it a genuine reflection of societies anxieties around these issues.

.................................SNIP.........................

My own very personal view, that on balance I think it's generally a good thing, but still feel slightly uncomfortable that society may think that because I'm out and about with my camera, my intentions could be suspicious.

A good post IMO - although interesting in that as someone else states above, there does seem to have been a slight shift in what was previously a very "black and white" view on the subject from you Les. I wonder if perhaps reading others opinions as posted on this thread might have made you and others think more deeply on the issue and your own feelings on the subject? I know it has me, although I have to say my personal moral view on the situation hasn't changed any.

To answer the points you've raised above, yes, I think there is a danger of a certain degree of paranoia creeping in - although there's no point in doing something that makes you feel uncomfortable, I think as photographers we need to consider if it's a fear of what others will think, or a genuine feeling that we're doing something wrong. If the former, then time to challenge your boundaries, but if you genuinely feel that what you are doing is wrong, then perhaps time to take a step away from it.

I think something that this forum and others like it can play a major part in is removing some of the stigma from the act of being out and about with cameras. The more of us who ARE comfortable with doing candid street stuff, regardless of the subject matter, that go ahead and do that, the more commonplace it becomes, therefore there is something less "odd" about seeing someone with a camera in those settings. Perhaps the stigma as it stands at the moment is more because it is percieved as unusual?

You make reference to "society's anxieties about these issues" - but to a large extend those anxieties are whipped into a frenzy thanks to input from the media who would have you believe that there is a paedophile behind every lamp-post just waiting to pounce! Some are more open to such suggestion than others - and before anyone pounces on ME, I'm not pointing the finger in any direction! Personally I'm not a reader of any of the "red top" papers, I read a paper on an occasional basis and generally rely on radio and TV news to catch up on goings on in the world.......I find that way you tend to get a slightly straighter reporting of straight events, rather than editorial spin being applied.

 

[CT]

One of my favourite pictures of my youngest daughter is of her in the same playground as I mentioned, she is on the roundabout, with her friend , heads back screaming with enjoyment, there are other children on the ride in the shot also. This was taken about 12 years ago, if I was to consider taking the same shot today, I'd be extremely cautious about how I approached it, and certainly try and shoot it excluding other children from the image.

.

Les - you cannot be serious! Photographing your own child in a public place and being wary because other kids are in the vicinity is just loopy!

 

[Les McLean]

Les - you cannot be serious! Photographing your own child in a public place and being wary because other kids are in the vicinity is just loopy!

Yes I think I would be more cautious (in my approach, not specifically approaching children)than 12 years ago, firstly, I would consider if I could achieve the image I wanted (of my daughter) without including other children in the shot, if this was not possible, then I would seek the parents consent before I took the shot?

Although I would be aware of other children in the vicinity, I don't think I would wary of them?

 

[Wraith]

This thread actually makes me sad, the extents some people believe they have to go to so they can avoid breaking some kind of moral code that has no basis in law. The threats of violence that come from togs towards people who might take photos of their children....

 

[jolsterj]

as a photographer [ametuer] and a mum, can i comment.

i have read this right through and i personally would not take photos of children in a park ect and i would be very nervous about someone taking phots in a park if they have no children with them.

it is sad to say but thats the world of today.

if i take a pic of my son i make sure their are no other children in the shot.

 

[Canon Bob]

as a photographer [ametuer] and a mum, can i comment.
.....and i would be very nervous about someone taking phots in a park if they have no children with them.
....

A natural protective reaction.....

I'm also guessing that similar feelings would come to the fore if the same person was just standing there watching ?

You don't specify what course of action you'd take if this scenario presented itself.

Bob

 

[chuckles]

A natural protective reaction.....

------ snip ------

Bob

Protection from what?

Nobody has still really addressed this issue which is germane to the whole thing!

Come on ... from what are parents/carers protecting their children? Somebody PLEASE tell me! I just don't get it :shrug:

 

[Canon Bob]

Protection from what?

Nobody has still really addressed this issue which is germane to the whole thing!

Come on ... from what are parents/carers protecting their children from? Somebody PLEASE tell me! I just don't get it :shrug:

A protective reaction if the individual is concerned about a situation. (I wasn't implying that I thought there should be concern...far from it)
Like you, I have no idea why the concern should manifest itsself in so many people simply by seeing someone with a camera.
Until this thread started I had no idea that so many people thought them to be threatening....and these are all people who presumably have and use one.:shrug:

Bob

 

[Les McLean]

You make reference to "society's anxieties about these issues" - but to a large extend those anxieties are whipped into a frenzy thanks to input from the media who would have you believe that there is a paedophile behind every lamp-post just waiting to pounce! Some are more open to such suggestion than others - and before anyone pounces on ME, I'm not pointing the finger in any direction! Personally I'm not a reader of any of the "red top" papers, I read a paper on an occasional basis and generally rely on radio and TV news to catch up on goings on in the world.......I find that way you tend to get a slightly straighter reporting of straight events, rather than editorial spin being applied.

Thanks, and I generally agree with your well reasoned response, the only issue I would take up is the paragraph above, where my disagreement is a difference in emphasis rather than a totally different argument.
I see the 'whipping into a frenzy' by the media as a consequence of a heightened awareness around societies anxieties, rather than a cause of some of the anxieties.

Perhaps it's because I'm probably a generation older than you, although not more knowledgeable, and certainly not wiser, I can look through a slightly longer lens .

I've lived through the massive changes in attitudes over particularly the last 30-40 years, a lot of the cultural shift was kick started by changes in social legislation, particularly around equality issues concerning gender/race/religion/sex/employment/disability etc, so nowadays attitudes that subscribe to the 'Bernard Manning school of philosophy ' are generally distasteful to society.

In tandem with the changes in social legislation, have been changes in reactive social legislation, unfortunately quite often as a response to serious failures in society, such as Cleveland child abuse tragedy, resulting in legislation such as the Children's Act, Every Child Matters, Climbie report etc, and their spin-offs (directly or indirectly) child protection teams, Minister for Children, childline etc.

All this has brought an increased awareness, particularly around the rights of children in the example given.

So perhaps 30 years ago, a good percentage of the 'crimes' against children would never see the light of day, hopefully, in today's climate, they would, as a consequence we are more and more aware of these unsavoury issues.

So, although I agree that the media do 'whip up the frenzy' at times, the heightened awareness is already in place, and the anxieties are a consequence of this, leading to (some) parents not being comfortable/suspicious of strangers with cameras around their children, and some togs feeling slightly uncomfortable with the whole issue of shooting children in public places.

 

[jolsterj]

Protection from what?

Nobody has still really addressed this issue which is germane to the whole thing!

Come on ... from what are parents/carers protecting their children? Somebody PLEASE tell me! I just don't get it :shrug:

i am protecting my child from paedophiles.
is that not obvious do you have children?

 

[jolsterj]

A natural protective reaction.....

I'm also guessing that similar feelings would come to the fore if the same person was just standing there watching ?

You don't specify what course of action you'd take if this scenario presented itself.

Bob

i would watch very closely and see what happens if he/she was there for a long time phone the police

 

[jolsterj]

A protective reaction if the individual is concerned about a situation. (I wasn't implying that I thought there should be concern...far from it)
Like you, I have no idea why the concern should manifest itsself in so many people simply by seeing someone with a camera.
Until this thread started I had no idea that so many people thought them to be threatening....and these are all people who presumably have and use one.:shrug:

Bob

my concern would not be just someone with a camera but taking pics of kids he/she does not know is just not right in this day and age and surely people must be aware of this

 

[Tony Smith]

Hi I am new to this site I joined today. I steer well clear of deliberately taking "Candid" pictures of children, despite the word "candid" meaning Open,Truthful, and Law Abiding. If I see what could be a good picture of children I would always ask the parent, give them my details, and offer them a copy of the image. I have looked at some of the comments here and wonder if we have not become confused with the words candid and covert.

Tony

 

[NathanJT]

Look guys/gals I'm due to become a parent in August. At the moment the thought that camera=paedophile really does smack me as being a knee jerk reaction to the tabloid press.

The odd thing is that I don't honestly think my opinion will change come August either.

Sorry, I just don't buy into it.

I'll admit that Jane and I are seriously considering leaving the country BUT it's not because things like this ARE a risk, more the way Joe public is lied to, led by the media, taxed to the hilt and generally the last in the queue for decent returns on their "investment" into the country.

 

[jolsterj]

Look guys/gals I'm due to become a parent in August. At the moment the thought that camera=paedophile really does smack me as being a knee jerk reaction to the tabloid press.

.

paedophiles are out there.........fact

lets see if you feel the same when your child is on the beach running around in his/her swimming costume and some bloke is taking pics of him/her i bet you 'll be on your feet in a flash asking him what he hell he is doing.

 

[Witch]

paedophiles are out there.........fact

lets see if you feel the same when your child is on the beach running around in his/her swimming costume and some bloke is taking pics of him/her i bet you 'll be on your feet in a flash asking him what he hell he is doing.

Yes, they are - in TINY miniscule numbers. Just what percentage of the population do you honestly think are a risk to your child? Trust me - if someone is interested in taking photos in that scenario for their own perverse pleasure then you are highly unlikely to see them doing it! By the very nature of the stigma (rightly)n attached - most paedophiles would do ANYTHING to avoid drawing attention to themselves, and I would have to suggest that standing on a beach using a DSLR in the way one might if taking candid shots is just a touch noticeable!

 

[NathanJT]

paedophiles are out there.........fact

So is bird flue, terrorists on every street corner, muggers, rapist, man made global warming and a million and 1 other things that the gutter press would have us cowering under our duvets for.

If some guy was taking pics with a dSLR on the beach I think I'd be more interested in the shot I'D MISSED! The fact is that unless he WANTS confrontation he'll be using a bloody long lens and be hiding behind a sand castle. In which case I won't know he's taking said pictures anyway will I!?

 

[jolsterj]

ok ok

i am protective of my son and for that i do not apoligise.

i am new to this forum and dont want to get in any strife with anyone so this is my last post on this subject.

just remember a social services fact.

you are always within two miles of a paedophile and from a friend who is a social worker there is probably one living in your street.

its the ones that have not been caught yet that we most have to worry about.

so on a more cheerful note im back to takig some pics

 

[NathanJT]

It strikes me really that there is a HUGE problem brewing. dSLR sales have rocketted recently and look to start to challenge the P&S market soon. If that's the case then when are these people ever going to use them? They can't use them in public or in the presense of children, etc, so....?

Oh right, yes I forgot, they'll be taking pictures of their kids at home! OH MY GOD THEY'RE ALL PAEDOPHILES!!!!

 

[Jimmy_Lemon]

you are always within two miles of a paedophile

How are these 'facts' made? Didnt want to get involved in this thread really but 'facts' like that always get me! How is it even slightly possible to statistically work that out, it cant possibly be just known paedophiles, unless there are a hell of a lot more than I thought and they have really nicely and usefully spread themselved evenly around the country.

My favourite fact is that 97% of all facts are made up on the spot (yes including that one)

 

[NathanJT]

Jolsterj, you have nothing to apologise for. I'm sure I'll be just as protective, I just don't buy into all this hype we're fed as a nation.

I also stand just as much chance of being wrong as the next person.

 

[Canon Bob]

paedophiles are out there.........fact
.....

Certainly they are and I'm sure everyone on this forum finds them abhorrant.

Several people, including yourself, have stated or alluded to this being the basis of the fear or trigger for an action but we haven't had it explained why the camera is seen as a threat to a child.
Why would this type of candid shot be different from something like local press coverage of a school sports day when the images are circulated for the local populace.

I'm not disputing your right to feel as you do but trying to understand why you feel that way and how you differentiate specific situations where the end result is the same....ie, a photograph of a child.

Bob

 

[jolsterj]

cool i really did nt want this to get heated.


so its all good then and good luck with the baby [nathan]

 

[chuckles]

i am protecting my child from paedophiles.
is that not obvious do you have children?

Frankly, no - it's not obvious. Yes, I do have children.

Photographer + beach = paedophile

Photographer + park = paedophile

Photographer + football match = paedophile

Photographer + railway station = paedophile (possible terrorist)

And the taking of a photograph of a child is on the way to becoming a criminal act? Sorry, doesn't wash with me....

Ok, money on the line.... how is the child harmed?

You might just as well ban photography now.... or every photographer has to be CRB checked. But even that doesn't work. You'd have to license photographers... but then you would get some unscruplulous togs open to bribes. "Ere, can you get a shot of a kid sitting on a swing for me?"

Then you'd have to ban all Mothercare catalogues. Or ban all men with dirty macs from entering Mothercare shops!

Oh, then there's Freemans, Littlewoods, Argos, Next, etc. They've all got pictures of kids in.

Oh, if we're protecting children. Ban Raliegh cycles from making bicycles. Kids get hurt from riding them (Ok falling off of them). Oh, marbles. That's something injurious to children. My grandson got one stuck up his nose!

Media hype and something the Public can have a go at! All wrapped in "Privacy" Laws of a Nanny State.....

You simply cannot legislate for everything. And it would be a terrible place if that's what we end up with.

Who would we have to blame? Nobody but ourselves - because we're creating a cotton wool society. Woolly laws for woolly consciences and nobody having the 'bottle' to severely punish offenders. Give criminals a ball and chain and get them to dig some more canals!

 

[Snugglepuss]

Protection from what?

Nobody has still really addressed this issue which is germane to the whole thing!

Come on ... from what are parents/carers protecting their children? Somebody PLEASE tell me! I just don't get it :shrug:

Phew this thread has taken some reading and digesting!

I'm just going to reply with my feelings about how my opinion has changed over the years and why I feel like I do!

I am a mum of 5 boys 26, 22, 18 - 8 and 5

When the biguns were little (IYKWIM), there wasn't as much awareness as to the dangers in the big bad world - I knew of them because I had suffered with various "stuff" but the media wasn't as in yer face as it is now, so Joe Public wasn't as aware of the problems like they are now! Also, legalities were not as complex, and therefore, far more easily understood!

I believe 20 or so years ago, folk generally, were far more family orientated and therefore a lot of the photographic captures which were taken, were of the whole of the family - in the street, in the park with next doors kids etc etc. I can honestly say that I can never remember any situation where either myself with the children or the children on their own were candidly photographed by a stranger - if we had been, I never realised and I don't believe that I would have been too concerned if we had, because at that time of my life I didn't feel threatened - it wasn't in the forefront of my mind and I hadn't had it ingrained into me that danger was only a few seconds away, even though I had experienced it -does that make any sense??

I also knew that if my children were photographed - I would in the main have made that choice and the photographs would have been made available to me, and the people I cared for.

Life has now changed and my littleuns have been born into a totally different world. Technology is far more readily available for all. Life has changed in many ways for me but the "stuff" I endured is still there in the forefront of my mind! NOW I am FAR more protective why?? Well, day in day out we are told of the evils of the world - lurking at every corner, we are watched, we are recorded, we are judged - others know as much about us as we do ourselves - the council knows exactly what time I take my boys swimming, the school uses the school photos on their computers to record details about each and every child with in the school - the school knows exactly what time I start work each day (I work at school and we have to key in a code to enter the school) The DR presses a button on his/her computer and every treatment is displayed within seconds. The police know when I walk down the main street with my children and which gate I use to go into my local park - we have very little privacy these days! The "stuff" is brought to my attention every time I switch the TV, radio or computer on - I know that "evil" does lurk around every corner! I really do feel that we are living out George Orwell's 1984!

So if I caught someone (a stranger) taking a picture of my children, my natural instinct is "WHY?" why are they doing that? I have been conditioned into believing that everyone has a hidden agenda - that no one is interested in me or mine without an ulterior motive! (especially if it is more of a candid close up rather than a candid long shot - again I hope I am making sense!) These days I know that anyone can view a picture of my beautiful littleuns without my permission (some will go aww and some will do some other perverted "stuff") and I find this hard to take in, that someone, albeit a small percentage want to use a photograph of my littleuns for their own perverted pleasure :thumbsdown:

I feel that my privacy has been invaded and that I have no control over how my littleuns are viewed - I can no longer protect them fully, because society has made me believe that there are no longer any good and decent people (or very few) left in the world! We are led to believe that negativity prevails over positivity - negativity eventually brow beats us into submission .....................

Sorry for the long post but hope it helps folks understand a bit of why some have become so protective of their children!

 

[Snugglepuss]

With regard to the CRB check - Chuckles you are spot on - it wouldn't work!

I have a CRB check, but it is only valid for the school I work at! If I want to help out at a different school, then I have to have another one done - I was discussing this with one of the teachers at our school only the other day.

She has too have a CRB to help out at the cross country, and has to tell parents that she may be taking photos for school use - however, parents can take photos of the event taking place - not close ups though.

If at lunch time we see a person looking over the wall of our school, we have to go and challenge them as to why they are there! In the main they are just parents who are looking for their child - how is this wrong?

My hubby was made to feel like he was some sort of pervert one day when he was waving at me and my sons (when I first started at school) and one of the lunchtime supervisors went marching upto him demanding to know why he was stood at the wall/gate of the school - he's never done it since!

 

[kevshore]

How are these 'facts' made? Didnt want to get involved in this thread really but 'facts' like that always get me! How is it even slightly possible to statistically work that out, it cant possibly be just known paedophiles, unless there are a hell of a lot more than I thought and they have really nicely and usefully spread themselved evenly around the country.

My favourite fact is that 97% of all facts are made up on the spot (yes including that one)

I'll only respond to this statement by saying that a very close friend of mine was in a very high position within the local council. He once confided in me about some of the cases put in front of him and told me how many and where paedophiles are in our area. (these are the ones they know about)
I was stunned as to the extent of the problem.Genuinely stunned. he assured me that we weren't any different to most area's. It would appear that it is a problem everywhere and we are mostly blissfully ignorant to it.

 

[BenMottram]

>>I was stunned as to the extent of the problem.
>>It would appear that it is a problem everywhere and we are mostly blissfully ignorant to it.

Probably still less chance of a local paedophile doing your child damage than them getting run over on a pedestrian crossing.

What exactly is the problem?

I live in a street with ~100 lethal weapons openly owned, used and abused, controlled by persons of greater or lesser competence. Any one of which can easily kill my offspring. There is a pub at the end of the road, as well as a working men's club, the presence of which virtually ensures a percentage of the weapons in the area are controlled by someone who is legally over the limit.

The nearest Paedophile is somewhere in a circle of 2 miles radius (according to another post).

Which poses the most threat to my children? Which is the biggest problem?

B.

 

[Wraith]

Which poses the most threat to my children? Which is the biggest problem?

B.

Paranoia and people who believe everything they read in the media?

 

[karfeef]

Hello all. i have read this thread with great interest. An area of photography i have a lot of interest in is candid shots of kids...well..being kids. for me, not much can beat that wide eyed wonder and enthusiasm for the little things that as adults, we take for granted and often miss due to our daily lives being filled with adult type stuff.

sadly, the only real chance i have of pursuing this area of photography is shooting the children of my family members, nieces, nephews etc. many may times i have been out and about in town or walking through a park and so on - and have seen things that would have made a lovely photo - but fear of reprisal from a protective parent and/or being branded a p**** prevents these images from ever being taken. I live in an area which has quite a high concentration of what has been described as the 'idiot nation' (those who would lynch mob the paediatricians, or the guy who lives down the street wearing a neckbrace becuse he looks like the picture of the child abuser in the paper (who was also wearing a neck brace in the photo) - so much so, i barely feel comfortable leaving my house with my camera, let alone anywhere out in the open, such as a park.

i totally agree with the fact that media hype is to blame for the unease i feel at raising my camera towards anyone in the street, whether it be a child, teenager or otherwise. however, if this hype has gotten at least one P**** off the street, the i would rather it be like it is now than for them to be allowed to get away with it.

personally, i would be more inclined to be wary of someone using a camera phone or p/s camera than a dslr with a huge zoom lens - like someone said earlier in this thread, these 'people' will want to make themselves as unobvious as possible (not the same wording used, but the same point.)

(quick edit) i regularly take my dslr into work, and walk around the area i work in because it is a nice setting to photograph - and because sometimes i have a 70-300 zoom lens attached, my work colleagues regularly make comments that i must be taking picture of 'kiddies'. it maybe a joke, but it's just another product of media hype.

one other thing that pricked my visual ears upon reading was the various comments around 'images being used for dodgy purposes' (or similar, i can't remember the exact terms used in this mammoth thread). like others have said, how would anyone know what the photog was going to use the images for?. i'm amazed at the double standards of the law and the media and even joe public around what is ok and what isn't. what about the various naturism magazines that can be purchased in many high street stores depciting nudity of adults and minors? what about the book that is available at any bookstore, including amazon, the name of i don't know (in america i believe it can be purchased at walmart or similar) showing images of a preteen brooke shields nude?

there is a court case involving the webmaster of a site selling photosets of teenagers and 20+ girls in clothing, underwear and swimsuits and the like - no nudity i believe. (not something i am a fan of - just like to clear that up!) whereby he is being brought before the law because he takes/sells these images online. one of the points brought up by the plaintiff is the fact that the images 'are on the internet' - this apparently makes the images illegal. his point is what about magazines such as FHM, Maxim and a host of other 'mens' magazines which depict images of men and women, many uder 18 in various states of undress and even nude (although not showing anything which could be considered pornographic). from what i remember about reading through the case, the response is basically that they are in print, whereas his images are 'on the internet'.

so i guess the long and short of it is, you can take any images you like, as long as you take them in a studio setting (don't forget, consent is still required for minors, and model releases if any monetary gain is intended) and print them and they don't go anywhere near the evil internet, because then they become illegal.

apologies for the slightly haphazard, sometimes a bit off-topic blatherings above, just my feelings.

 

[bubblecatcher]

First off i have not read this whole thread, way to long.

This subject is a very emotive one, and as others have said is fuelled by the popular media sensationalising it.

My view is that candid photos of children are fine, so long as they fall within descent boundaries, however that boundary can be different for many people.

I have an image from the summer at a beach, a father is standing with a toddle who is naked except for headscarf to keep the sun off. My photo only shows the back of toddle and father looking down as they paddle in the sea.

I think it is great photo, and perfectly innocent.

On the issue of paranoia about paedophiles and the how it affects society.

Having work as Youth Worker for 11 years i can give an insight as how this affects children and adults.

I have seen young girls who are afraid of men, and male youth workers who were afraid to speak and work with young girls. All of this stemming from the paedophile paranoia that seems to grip society today. Not that we should not be vigilant and educate children to the dangers.

Children need strong role models of both sexs. The relationships they form with adults of the opposite sex influence the relationships they have as adults.

I have also experienced this in my personal life. While taking photos of my godchildren in park play area, their mother was worried about what other people would think of me taking photos, even though i was only taking them of my godchildren.

I even know of a father who will not be in his own house when his daughter has her friends around because he fears being labelled a paedophile.

Owning a camera and taking photos does not make you paedophile. The danger we run is that a whole generation of kids will not have the social observations photos that we can now look back on from kids in the past.

Some of favourite photos are of street urchins playing in the rubble and bomb runes that still existed in the cities many years after the second world war.

 

[bubblecatcher]

Phew this thread has taken some reading and digesting!

I'm just going to reply with my feelings about how my opinion has changed over the years and why I feel like I do!

I am a mum of 5 boys 26, 22, 18 - 8 and 5

When the biguns were little (IYKWIM), there wasn't as much awareness as to the dangers in the big bad world - I knew of them because I had suffered with various "stuff" but the media wasn't as in yer face as it is now, so Joe Public wasn't as aware of the problems like they are now! Also, legalities were not as complex, and therefore, far more easily understood!

I believe 20 or so years ago, folk generally, were far more family orientated and therefore a lot of the photographic captures which were taken, were of the whole of the family - in the street, in the park with next doors kids etc etc. I can honestly say that I can never remember any situation where either myself with the children or the children on their own were candidly photographed by a stranger - if we had been, I never realised and I don't believe that I would have been too concerned if we had, because at that time of my life I didn't feel threatened - it wasn't in the forefront of my mind and I hadn't had it ingrained into me that danger was only a few seconds away, even though I had experienced it -does that make any sense??

I also knew that if my children were photographed - I would in the main have made that choice and the photographs would have been made available to me, and the people I cared for.

Life has now changed and my littleuns have been born into a totally different world. Technology is far more readily available for all. Life has changed in many ways for me but the "stuff" I endured is still there in the forefront of my mind! NOW I am FAR more protective why?? Well, day in day out we are told of the evils of the world - lurking at every corner, we are watched, we are recorded, we are judged - others know as much about us as we do ourselves - the council knows exactly what time I take my boys swimming, the school uses the school photos on their computers to record details about each and every child with in the school - the school knows exactly what time I start work each day (I work at school and we have to key in a code to enter the school) The DR presses a button on his/her computer and every treatment is displayed within seconds. The police know when I walk down the main street with my children and which gate I use to go into my local park - we have very little privacy these days! The "stuff" is brought to my attention every time I switch the TV, radio or computer on - I know that "evil" does lurk around every corner! I really do feel that we are living out George Orwell's 1984!

So if I caught someone (a stranger) taking a picture of my children, my natural instinct is "WHY?" why are they doing that? I have been conditioned into believing that everyone has a hidden agenda - that no one is interested in me or mine without an ulterior motive! (especially if it is more of a candid close up rather than a candid long shot - again I hope I am making sense!) These days I know that anyone can view a picture of my beautiful littleuns without my permission (some will go aww and some will do some other perverted "stuff") and I find this hard to take in, that someone, albeit a small percentage want to use a photograph of my littleuns for their own perverted pleasure :thumbsdown:

I feel that my privacy has been invaded and that I have no control over how my littleuns are viewed - I can no longer protect them fully, because society has made me believe that there are no longer any good and decent people (or very few) left in the world! We are led to believe that negativity prevails over positivity - negativity eventually brow beats us into submission .....................

Sorry for the long post but hope it helps folks understand a bit of why some have become so protective of their children!

Hi, this post bares out a theory i have had for while.

Today are every movement is recorded, we are filmed where ever we go, CCTV is everywhere.

I think this results in people want to regain some control and this can be done by challenging the person with a camera, of being able to decide if this picture can be taken.

 

[Cagey75]

This thread is from 2008!

My quick thought on this: I don't purposely shoot "candids" of other people's children when out street shooting. It's not worth the hassle if an angry parent confronts you. No shot is ever worth the hassle. Plenty of other things to be shooting. The only kids I shoot are my own, and those of the people who specifically hire me to shoot portraits and candids of their young 'uns.

I don't see anything wrong with it, but many parents do. Don't test them on it or get all high and mighty with laws and regulations. I've seen photographers purposely shoot in areas they know they will run into trouble. And they get all high and mighty and produce cards with the law printed on them. Why bother? what are you trying to prove? Did you need that one candid of a random child eating an ice cream?? Be courteous when out shooting, parents have a right to be paranoid in this day and age. Leave them to it, don't go challenging them because you were so obnoxious you knew you had every right to take pictures of their child.

Not aimed at anyone whatsoever just my general view,since this was raised up from the dead for no apparent reason.

 

[knackers0191]

Paranoia and people who believe everything they read in the media?

Just a quick reply on this subject
About two year ago. I was in a park playground..with my grandson.. this guy was taking photos of his young son..playing in the sand pit...park ranger came over,told him not to take pictures. Guy told him it was his son..park ranger told him."its not allowed and if he didnt stop and put his camera away..they would call in the police...things started too get out of hand...police arrived...this guy was told by the police to leave the park..but too delete all photos first...

 

[chuckles]

This thread is from 2008!

~ clip ~

Not aimed at anyone whatsoever just my general view,since this was raised up from the dead for no apparent reason.

Just look at the post after yours then ask "for no reason?" Need I say more? The majority penalised for the sake of the minority.

 

[Cagey75]

It was raised up for no apparent reason. The person who did so could have made a new thread. A 4 year old discussion is a 4 year old discussion. Make a new one.

That one random post came later, and it could be made up for all we know. I'm highly doubting the cops made someone delete photos of their own child, let alone anyone else's - as it's NOT illegal to photograph anything in public.

 

[chuckles]

But that's the whole point... it isn't illegal and yet it raises it's ugly head again.

I find it refreshing that somebody can be bothered to read all through this and proffer an opinion on what is an extremely controversial subject that doesn't seem to want to go away or get resolved.

In my opinion, it's something that is getting worse - not better!

 

[Cagey75]

Do you actually believe that the Police came and forced someone to delete images of their own child?

I just can't believe that, or those cops should be in hot water for it.

Of course it's important, and I have nothing against discussing it. But a 4 year old thread? Start up a fresh discussion, a lot has happened in 4 years.