and please use their services
Candid photography involving children in public
- Thread starter Scuzi
- Start date
- Messages
- 2,731
- Name
- Robyn
- Edit My Images
- No
no i didnt..
I made my point.. it got mudded along the way with everyone asking questions nothing to do with the thread.. questions about watching and adults and crikey even dogsi repeated my point many times but yet here you are again twisting it.. and yes your going to respond with another quote arnt you...
why are you hanging on my every word witch? its getting scary...
butter pie was excellent... thanks for asking..
Spot on - you indeed did not say that and I apologise. I misread an earlier post completely. I'm sorry for that.
Glad the dinner was nice...!
- Messages
- 312
- Edit My Images
- Yes
i travelled africa last year and took hundreds of photos of the children there. not once did i feel the slightest bit guilty and i never asked for permission.
however what is interesting is that I wouldn't even attempt this in the UK unless I knew the child first and the parent/guardian.
i think the problem lies more with society/attitudes in the UK than the actual physical act of photographing a child.
however what is interesting is that I wouldn't even attempt this in the UK unless I knew the child first and the parent/guardian.
i think the problem lies more with society/attitudes in the UK than the actual physical act of photographing a child.
dod
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 16,678
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not quite but close
I'll give my opinion. For responsible photographers the legality isn't in question.
That leaves the moral issue. I don't see anything immoral in it, it's taking a picture of a kid. People do it all the time, some people even get paid for it and there's nothing in place to control the picture once it's been taken. Anything could happen to it if we're going to be paranoid in our thinking. If anything it may simply be rude or ill advised not to ask for permission in the current environment :shrug:
Now the emotional side which is what has derailed this thread somewhat
I can understand in this day and age why a parent would be cautious about someone they don't know taking pictures of their kids, particularly if it's someone taking shots while trying to hide in the bushes. That's not what this thread is about though, never was, it's about respectable photographers taking respectable photographs. Provided the situation is handled responsibly by the photographer, if they get challenged, then it should be enough to reassure any parent that there are no ulterior motives. I've only once taken a candidish picture of a kid and immediately gave the mother a card and said email me and I'll give you a copy. Having said that it was at an equestrian event, I'm not sure I could or would do it in the park.
Why not? Because as a white, hetrosexual male, employed, own a 4X4, pay taxes and have a camera :razz: I am the most distrusted and discriminated against element of society (See that, a sweeping generalisation which I may or may not justify
) Everything I do is obviously highly suspicious and I couldn't be bothered with the potential hassle which would ensue. I don't even like kids anyway, they smell, IMHO 
I have. I've had a girl over the age of 18 claim I was stalking her when I was in Toronto. Before anyone twists it I simply saw her and took her photo. No different to any other candid photograph taken by anyone in the history of photography. Similar to Mike's recent candids around Liverpool. I was stopped at an event, the Mathew Street Festival, in Liverpool by the organisers and told I needed a press pass to take photographs. It was a public place. Apparently they were stopping parents taking photos too. Why? Well apparently its written in the Child Protection Act that you can't take photos of children. I read through it, searched it and found no references. Another time I was working for a construction company who own a shopping centre in Liverpool. I was wearing a security pass and some old woman came up to me to have a go. She was really irate, telling me I can't take photos and that security would throw me out. I calmly explained that I was working for the company who owned the building, showed her my pass and guess what? She kept telling me off. I was at the Wirral Show a few years ago and I haven't returned since. Some chavs threw beer at me and called me a p***.
In all these instances I did nothing wrong and was well within the law. Its bloody hard being a photographer some days with such idiots out there. I hate that we live in a society I'm apparently in the wrong and yet their actions are stupidly justifiable. "Duh man with box point at kid. Me hurt man good."
SimonTALM
Linford Christie
- Messages
- 3,268
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
tigerimages
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,178
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You're not wrong but you'll never explain that to some people, therefore you will always put yourself in harms way (verbal or physical) whilst doing your job / hobby. You have to ask yourself is it worth sticking to your guns?
dod
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 16,678
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
good point made well
It is, isn't it
I'll throw something else into the equation. Henri Cartier Bresson is revered as a photographer. Who would say that the kid candids in this link are immoral? If yes, why, if not, why?
http://www.artnet.com/Artists/ArtistHomePage.aspx?artist_id=3702&page_tab=Artworks_for_sale
- Messages
- 2,731
- Name
- Robyn
- Edit My Images
- No
They're not immoral from what I've seen - I've clicked on the first few, not gone further because they're not really my thing TBH. Why are they not immoral? Because they're just pictures of kids. I see no more reason for them to be immoral than a pic of an adult, or even that dog that cropped up earlier!
Regarding the woman in the shopping centre I did. If it came down to it security would have removed her as I was employed by the company who owned the building. So I felt secure doing my job. Regarding the event were I was quoted the child protection I left them to it. What they were saying was stupid but as I was surrounded by families and wanted to cover more events in Liverpool I wasn't going to cause a scene. Annoyingly they hold the passes so I have to play along.
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Taking pics of people, including children, in public is completely legal. I'm amazed that anyone here would question the motives of anyone doing so. Unfortunately we all have to be aware of the current political situation, but speaking purely personally, I'll continue taking pics of people and kids in public places when I wish to. Getting stupidly defensive when we have no legal obligation to is just nuts and only compounds our problems, allowing the objectors to take the high ground.
If a parent confronted me in a reasonable manner, then I would happily delete the shot(s) but not without trying to convince them otherwise. As someone said earlier, the offer of a print usually goes a long way to removing any objections.
Certainly anyone who came at me slugging had better be prepared to go the distance.
If a parent confronted me in a reasonable manner, then I would happily delete the shot(s) but not without trying to convince them otherwise. As someone said earlier, the offer of a print usually goes a long way to removing any objections.
Certainly anyone who came at me slugging had better be prepared to go the distance.
dod
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 16,678
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Fair point, I asked the wrong question, although it leads in naturally
Was it immoral of him to take them? If yes, why, if not, why?Or, as I suspect may be the case, is it a function of the time we live in?
Steep
Nutcrack Rapids
- Messages
- 16,669
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think it's more than that. If I go on holiday to India and take photos of Indian children the general response here in the UK would be "oh aren't the local kids cute/starving/whatever" do the same in the UK and the lynch mobs start to gather.
My opinion on the main subject is.. if you're (say) out for a walk taking candid shots wether of kid or adults, as long as you are not poking your lens up someones nose then you are doing no harm, not infringing on their personal liberty, not encroaching on their personal space and in no way should you be subjected to critisism for doing it.
- Messages
- 3,836
- Name
- Trev
- Edit My Images
- Yes
When I posted yesterday, this was the post that I was refering to, After reading the whole thread, its this one that stuck in my head the most and replied to that bit mainly.
As said on here already. I do photograph children playing football and if any parent said "No" to photographs being taken then I would understand. Especially as they will be posted on the internet.
So to clarify my thoughts..
IF a togger was taking pix in a park of kids including mine I would feel uncomfortable. I would approach him and find out what he was doing.
IF a togger was hiding in the bushes with a fast glass (or any glass) THEN YES... I would give him a smack on the nose.
- Messages
- 5,288
- Name
- Andy Jones
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The problem for photographers is all the assumptions being made here. Bloke in park could be shooting his own kids or on a paid shoot or simply an innocent tog looking to get some nice candids of family life or any of dozens of other perfectly innocent reasons for being there. Your reaction is to feel uncomfortable which is a perfectly natural response and the action it leads to is sensible and just.
Tog in bushes could be shooting macro, local wildlife, etc. Again there are plenty of valid and innocent reasons for him to be there. You don't know what he's shooting. But this time because he appears to be hiding the reaction is one of violence and not logical or rational.
As has been mentioned many times before anyone up to no good has far better options than to hide in a bush to get the shots they want. A cheap p&s with a 10x zoom is far less likely to be noticed than a DSLR with fast glass but the mental picture given to us by the press and our own imagination means a bloke looking like a tourist taking happy snaps is innocent and the guy dressed up for wildlife and some serious photography is a deviant worthy of a kicking.
We see time and time again innocent people who are serious about their photography finding their pursuit made difficult because of these assumptions. But what do to about it? If attitudes changed then the real criminals would simply start to use a DSLR and blend in that way - for photographers it's a lose lose situation
- Messages
- 4,379
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The problem for photographers is all the assumptions being made here.
Tog in bushes could be shooting macro, local wildlife, etc. Again there are plenty of valid and innocent reasons for him to be there.
I agree! I was once approached by 2 PC's for 'hiding' in a bush with a camera.
I was setting up an image for a college evening class project. Near a carpark by our (then) local canal and no kids involved.It was all resolved amicably but obviously someone had seen me, been concerned and reported their suspicions and the police had responded quickly. Fair enough!I think this thread shows that child safety is a highly important issue (as it should be!) and also a highly emotive one. Sadly we live in an age where sesationalism sells newspapers and this leads to paranioa. We as togs should all be concerned about this as governments only ever think ahead to the next election and emotive issues are vote winners!
Yes, it's legal (for now) but do we want to cause distress to others (whether that distress is a media-fuelled knee-jerk reaction or not)?
I say 'tread carefully'. Do it if you want but be prepared for adverse reaction. Carry ID and a card with contact details to give to the parents if challenged. Offer prints. Do not ever inflame the situation just because you're in the right - this is one issue where emotions will take precedence over common-sense. "Common-sense is not that common!" (Voltaire)
WE know that mobile phones are a much more useful tool for any dodgy character than a DSLR but if a government wants to put on a show which are they going to ban (or licence) first... cameras or phones?
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Bit of a shame an attitude like that, but not surprising these days. I wonder how much of this is whipped up with general hysteria by the media.
I've got a couple of great shots of kids at various locations and usually make a point of going upto the parents, showing them the shot and asking if they'd like a copy.
Usually I'm out with my family and spot something special, kids running through a water fountain, of a mum and two kids sat intently making daisy chains springs to mind.
I have however been verbally assaulted at an under 11's football match by one mother who insisted I nneded everyone's permissiont o take photo's, despite being asked/invited by the club.
I have printed copies of the photographers rights, the data protection commisars press release at christmas and a copy of my extended crb check in my bag now.
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,036
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
You do at all the under 11 matches I attend. and theres two teams playing so where you invited by both clubs or just one? clubs pay for the use of the pitch and as far as I am aware (could be wrong) its not a public place if its been hired by the people using it.
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,036
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
every photographer in this thread has already agreed it isnt illegal.. no one suggested it was illegal... arnt we going around in circles here?
- Messages
- 9,634
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yep, I gave up with my son's team and just concentrated on the regular team photo for their website.
It's a terrible society we live in these days when the innocent are judged to be guilty before they actually do anything. But that's life...
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,036
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
It's a terrible society we live in these days when the innocent are judged to be guilty before they actually do anything. But that's life...
Agreed.. But we have photographers who can see that and adapt.. then we have photographers who just cant deal with it and want to fight it and bang on about the good old days...
I have kids and theres lots of times I wish I had taken pics but havent been allowed. karate comps. football matches, you cant even photograph them shopping with mum in a shopping precinct. school plays even
but thats the way it is and we cant change it. in fact it will probably get worse
- Messages
- 2,126
- Name
- Rikki
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'd like to add my thought to this thread.
I have 2 kids, ones aged 2 yrs, the other 4.
I love taking candids of my own kids, aswell as others. I do feel somewhat uncomfortable taking shots of other peoples kids, for the reasons mention in this thread, but it wont stop me doing it if I see a nice scene.
Likewise, if I saw someone taking pics of my kids, I would not mind in the slightest. I may or may not approach that person to ask for a look at the shot, and even a copy if it was a nice one. If that person was lurking in bushes pointing his camera at the playground, then I would simply phone the police.
As has been mentioned before, its sad that people should assume the photos are going to be used for unsavoury purposes, when in most cases (surely) they're not.
BB
I have 2 kids, ones aged 2 yrs, the other 4.
I love taking candids of my own kids, aswell as others. I do feel somewhat uncomfortable taking shots of other peoples kids, for the reasons mention in this thread, but it wont stop me doing it if I see a nice scene.
Likewise, if I saw someone taking pics of my kids, I would not mind in the slightest. I may or may not approach that person to ask for a look at the shot, and even a copy if it was a nice one. If that person was lurking in bushes pointing his camera at the playground, then I would simply phone the police.
As has been mentioned before, its sad that people should assume the photos are going to be used for unsavoury purposes, when in most cases (surely) they're not.
BB
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,036
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
Do it anyway and hope no one notices, if they do say "sorry I didn't realise" or play the slightly eccentric father card.
Les McLean
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 6,793
- Name
- Les
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Here's my two pennorth, having read the thread with interest, I'll try and give my view to 'why' it is a no-no to photograph children without consent.
In my previous existence (before I retired) I managed a city wide child and adolescent mental health service, and on a daily basis, staff had to work with children and their families who had been physically and sexually abused. All cities and large towns have paedophile rings, and part of the rings function is to 'groom' children for abuse. One way of doing this is to photograph children in parks, public areas, and these images are sent around the ring for 'selection' possibly leading to grooming and abuse.
Prior to the Internet, this wasn't an issue, but since the advent of the web, and the ability to circulate images so easily and effectively means the childrens' images can be quickly distributed.
I'm not suggesting for one second that photographers are paedophiles , but, and it's a big but, by making it morally/socially unacceptable to take photographs of children without consent, if it saves just one child from being groomed and abused, then it's a price worth paying.
I know the absolute heart breaking damage abuse can do to a child, it destroys not just the child but the whole family.
In my previous existence (before I retired) I managed a city wide child and adolescent mental health service, and on a daily basis, staff had to work with children and their families who had been physically and sexually abused. All cities and large towns have paedophile rings, and part of the rings function is to 'groom' children for abuse. One way of doing this is to photograph children in parks, public areas, and these images are sent around the ring for 'selection' possibly leading to grooming and abuse.
Prior to the Internet, this wasn't an issue, but since the advent of the web, and the ability to circulate images so easily and effectively means the childrens' images can be quickly distributed.
I'm not suggesting for one second that photographers are paedophiles , but, and it's a big but, by making it morally/socially unacceptable to take photographs of children without consent, if it saves just one child from being groomed and abused, then it's a price worth paying.
I know the absolute heart breaking damage abuse can do to a child, it destroys not just the child but the whole family.
- Messages
- 3,836
- Name
- Trev
- Edit My Images
- Yes
InaGlo
TPer Emerita
- Messages
- 8,683
- Name
- Glo
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Im sure the P****/grooming subject has been in touched on in all our minds during this thread.
Im also sure that there are at least one or two of us who like Les, have some kind of personal experience of such from one side of the fence or an another.
But can I ask a question here regarding what you say Les, and if its a dumb one I appologise, but it is a genuine thought in my mind and not an argument for arguments sake...
Of course, like everyone I have read so much about how Paedos use the internet to circulate, and how it has made things easier for them. But I wonder, has it really made things so much easier for them?
Is it all so one way?
I certainly hear of more paedophile rings being infaltrated, & smashed these days than ever before, and I have the feeling that though the internet can work in their favour, it can just as easily work against them and make them easier to find.
I know that internet grooming goes on, but isnt it fair to say that most child sexual abuse tends to happen between a child and adult that they know & trust very well, and so are less likely to speak out against.
I can certainly see your argument Les, & I think Candid child photography all comes down to acting with sensitivity and common sense, and there will never be a concrete right or wrong answer to how to go about it.
Im also sure that there are at least one or two of us who like Les, have some kind of personal experience of such from one side of the fence or an another.
But can I ask a question here regarding what you say Les, and if its a dumb one I appologise, but it is a genuine thought in my mind and not an argument for arguments sake...
Of course, like everyone I have read so much about how Paedos use the internet to circulate, and how it has made things easier for them. But I wonder, has it really made things so much easier for them?
Is it all so one way?
I certainly hear of more paedophile rings being infaltrated, & smashed these days than ever before, and I have the feeling that though the internet can work in their favour, it can just as easily work against them and make them easier to find.
I know that internet grooming goes on, but isnt it fair to say that most child sexual abuse tends to happen between a child and adult that they know & trust very well, and so are less likely to speak out against.
I can certainly see your argument Les, & I think Candid child photography all comes down to acting with sensitivity and common sense, and there will never be a concrete right or wrong answer to how to go about it.
On the flip side its basically saying you can't take photos of kids because you might be a p***. Its also then branding every photographer near a kid as a p*** and creating a state of fear where by everyone with a camera might be a p***. I know you yourself are not saying that photographers are pedos, but look at it from the Daily Mail point of view and thats basically where we'll end up. "Is that guy on his phone or taking photos of my kids so he can rape them later?"
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,036
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
Its not just us/togs though is it.. the same women having a go at the 11 yr olds football match can probably remember the days she popped out to the shops and left her front door unlocked. Or didn't have to worry who was following her home from the post office and didn't have to triple check the leccy man come to read her meter..
It's life as we know it
It's life as we know it
I don't recall signing up for that. So you'll forgive me if I stand up for my rights to take photographs as I see fit. I'm not a p***. I'm not doing anything wrong. If someone sees my work in that way then there's something wrong with them.