Concerned mum wants law changed

Messages
1,320
Edit My Images
Yes
It's a question of law.
Person takes photo of child walking down the street.
Mother of child says "I dont like you taking photo of my child".
Person says "why"
Mother says "how do I know your not a peadophile"?
Person say's "what do you mean not a peadophile, I am".
Mother calls police man and tells him that peadophile has taken a photo of my child
Policeman says "this is a public place and the child is dressed appropriatly no offence has been committed".
 
Messages
5,481
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
It's a question of law.
Person takes photo of child walking down the street.
Mother of child says "I dont like you taking photo of my child".
Person says "why"
Mother says "how do I know your not a peadophile"?
Person say's "what do you mean not a peadophile, I am".
Mother calls police man and tells him that peadophile has taken a photo of my child
Policeman says "this is a public place and the child is dressed appropriatly no offence has been committed".
Man sues woman for slander :)
 
Messages
17,414
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
No nothing, perhaps you can explain to me why you clearly think it is?
Better still give some evidence that people taking pictures in a park is linked to anything sinister.
Like I have said - child could have a protection order, I take a random pic, post it somewhere and abusive person may deduce where that child is. Bit of a long shot i know but understandable.

The rest I think is just good manners and courtesy. Taking a landscape picture of a park is one thing, but zooming in or getting close to a child I think is bad manners and rude. Why the need to do that? Would you really be happy if I walked up to your kid on a slide for example and snapped away and walk off?
 
Messages
812
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
So the assumption these days is guilty until proven innocent rather than the other way round. It seems that the 1%ers of malevolent photographers have caused excessive public scepticism for the 99.

so she’s not worried about photos going up on the internet she’s worried about everyone else’s. Does seem a little befuddling what her point is When she queries the photos being posted but she’s ok to post them herself.


there’s a subtle nuance of photos of your daughter and photo that includes your daughter. I guess it’s about what the aim of the photo is. Ie a street scene that includes a person or a person who is situated within the scene of a street. Very fine line.



but everyone has to start somewhere. It’s rare for a first timer to do well street photography. You have to practise and are we discouraging people from doing street photography for fear they’ll be branded.
No it’s not guilty until proven innocent. I think my point has been taken the wrong way, ether my fault of not communicating it correctly or otherwise. I in no way want to ban people from taking photos of people in public. I think it should stay perfectly legal. However I also think that it’s perfectly reasonable for the person taking the photo to have to be prepared to explain why he took and to delete it if the person doesn’t want to be a part of it. I’m not sure the deletion part is such a hurdle for some people. I do have think there are a few exceptions where not deleting could be justified though. Where the person is a just a shape with no way of telling who the person is or crowd photos for example. However if you’ve taken a photo like Bruce Gilden, maybe not quite as extreme as him though, where the person is clearly the subject and can be identified then I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the person to ask for it to be deleted if they don’t want to be involved
 
Messages
407
Edit My Images
Yes
I think this really needs locking, especially as we now appear to be infighting and blaming each other for what started out as a coherent sensible discussion on the subject between fair minded adults as to the rights and wrongs of the case.
 
Last edited:
Messages
812
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
I think this really needs locking, especially as we now appear to be infighting and blaming each other for what started out as a coherent sensible discussion on the subject between fair minded adults as to the right and wrongs of the case.
I know! Lol to be honest I was just about to sum up my opinion and leave it there lol. What’s funny is I don’t think anyone on here is actually disagreeing a huge, just a couple of nuances
 
Messages
6,343
Edit My Images
Yes
OK all you lot who think I should go and take photos of kids that arent mine, and please read it.

I was working for Turning Point that deals with Drink/Drugs and Mental Health, a young mother was in the rehab as she was going through hell with some bloke who was near on stalking her but with a camera and she had a young son who was the main reason this man was following her and guess what HE loved taking photos of her and the son. I got to know her very well but I never got the chance to met her son, because he sadly took his own life as he did not know how to handle the bloke who`d follow them everywhere taking photos of them and even when he`d come out of school the bloke was there with his camera. That is the reason why I don`t go and take photos of children that are not mine, so NOW will you please RESPECT my wishes and not tell me to take photos of kids that are not mine. Thank you.
Dave, would you not agree that there is a significant difference between someone "near on stalking" repeatedly taking photographs of the same person or people, and somebody taking a one-off photograph of people that may, or may not, include someone under the age of 16, or 18 (depending on your definition of a child/vulnerable person)?

I try never to upset anyone in life, but I do like taking documentary style photographs and some street photography which, by definition, is going to include people. I don't know why, but that type of photography is what I seem reasonably good at capturing. It's something of a mystery to me, as I dislike portrait photography, and it's taken me years to realise where my photographic style actually lay. So there it is, as photography goes, taking a photograph of people in their natural environment is what I seem to be best at... not landscapes, not sports, not wildlife, not abstract, not still life, not studio glamour with models, but taking photos of people in the environment around me, our way of life, the way we live.

Now, because of the actions of a few despicable individuals, you appear to be saying that I'm supposed to stop doing that in case I cause any unintentional distress to someone who might see me taking a photograph and get the wrong idea that it's a photo of their child? If so, wouldn't that be pretty much the end of documentary and street style photography?

Here's a documentary style photo I took when I was still a 15 year old child myself (sorry for the poor quality image, it's a scan from a print as I no longer have the negative).



I didn't ask the person's permission to take that photo and, as far as I know, the chap wasn't even aware I'd taken it. So do you see anything wrong or creepy in that? Or do you see a photo of an elderly gentleman alone in his thoughts over a pint of beer, and perhaps feel just a little of the atmosphere of the moment this photo was taken?

So, should the age of the person in a documentary or street style photo matter? In an ideal world, the answer would have to be no. However, in today's world I wouldn't intentionally take a photo of a child as the main subject of a street or documentary photo in case it caused concern or distress to those involved, or it resulted in someone getting the wrong idea about what I was doing. And, to be honest, I think that's quite a sad reflection on the way things are.
 
Last edited:
Messages
414
Edit My Images
No
it is highly unlikely that if the photos were going to be used for immoral purposes , they would be unlikely to be in a group
Which is basically what I said, they would take more care not to be noticed.

and if she had taken a photo of them , would she have to get their permission , it cuts both ways.
To my knowledge it isn't the law that you must get permission to photograph in a public place so why would she need to ask, they didn't.

if you point a camera at a building or structure. if someone walk into the frame that's there problem.
Even if they were there before I pointed the camera I would still take the shot unless their presence 'spoil the image'

but targeting a single person is wrong without there permission
A matter of opinion, street photography is not my thing so doesn't affect me in that respect.

model release is for people who are involved in the shoot, if its in a place were the public can go freely , you cant control the public unless you can close off the area.
I had to sign a 'model release' as I walked past a film crew and at the time they didn't know if that bit of recording would be used. I was not part of the shoot but my image had been recorded and it may not have been possible to edit that section out.

at 5m even with the best phone camera the image would not be very good anyway
I get a pretty good photo at more than 5mtrs and my phone and photographic skills with camera phones are not the best but a person would not fill the screen as she claimed the image of her child did.

I neither support or condemn either party, It should be up to the photographer & their own conscience/decision and not forced on them by others. That is assuming the photos are taken in all innocence, If not then of course it is wrong to take the photos in the first instance.
 
Last edited:
Messages
407
Edit My Images
Yes
steve_lyt said: but targeting a single person is wrong without there permission

There is no requirement to legally do so, and in the one of the boy on the steps photo also practically impossible,
it was taken spontaneously with a 500mm to give compression and then was cropped, it was also shot from the opposite side of a river if I remember correctly.

I could see you walking up to the nutter on Westminster bridge with his knives out being subdued by men with a Narwal tusk, and fire extinguisher and asking for their permission to film / photograph it.
 
Last edited:
OP
jonbeeza
Messages
8,032
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
I have no interest really in taking individual photos of people, but I do like street scenes that may contain people. To capture a street scene, it would be with the intention of trying to capture the feel of the street.

I like street photos such as the following. http://philmaxwell.org/ and also http://www.nickhedgesphotography.co.uk/

I know these kind of streets and life so well, and that is why I like trying to capture such scenes. I would like to look back and remember such times as right now, but long into the future. But if we were unable to take such photos, we won't have any archives for the future, of what street life was like in the 2020s .
 
Messages
5,141
Name
mike
Edit My Images
Yes
Never photographed many children in the street so i found it easy to comply with the hysteria over it, now if a child is in my image its like this one.

MIK_0549.jpg

I would always aim for the child being unrecognizable except perhaps to its mother due to clothing
 
Messages
993
Name
Jamesev
Edit My Images
No
I also think that it’s perfectly reasonable for the person taking the photo to have to be prepared to explain why he took and to delete it if the person doesn’t want to be a part of it. I’m not sure the deletion part is such a hurdle for some people.
morally reasonable - yes. legally required - no.

the latter is defined, the former varies from person to person depending on their position, thats where the conflict of views arises.
 
OP
jonbeeza
Messages
8,032
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
Me and the missus are going to a school assembly thingy in an hour, and our granddaughter wants us to go. The missus normally does a little video with her phone, all the other parent and grand parents do the same at the school. I certainly would not take a DSLR, but I might take my little compact. But as I said, missus gets video on her phone, so I wont bother.
 
Messages
3,055
Edit My Images
No
the latter is defined, the former varies from person to person depending on their position, thats where the conflict of views arises.
This is correct and if you follow the evolution of the law in Britain you'll find that the purpose of statutes has been to remove this conflict.

Your morality may be widely different to mine but we are both subject to the same laws. It is therefor not for anyone to impose their opinions on others in the ad hoc fashion demonstrated by some of the previous posts. In the absence of a law prohibiting an action that action is permitted no matter how much it offends your personal morality.

Think on this: if you approach someone taking a picture in a public place and "demand to know what they are doing", you may well be in breach of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 section 39 by "making that person think they are about to be attacked": https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/blog/post/assault-offences-explained/
 

Fuji Dave

Teacher's Pet
Messages
15,705
Name
FUJI SON
Edit My Images
No
Take care of yourself. This thread has obviously upset you, probably due to the experience you related. I’m sorry if anything I’ve written has contributed to that :(.
Know need to say sorry, what really gets my back up more than anything is women can come and go taking images of children and know one will say why did you take my child`s photo Yet when a man does the same it`s like OH my god it`s the end of the world. IMO the mother went well OTT and should of approached it in a better way. I do think it is sad in todays day and age that men get the rough end of the stick if seen out and about with a camera. On a good note I`d love to be able to photograph one young girl that some might of heard of and she is a Skate boarder by the name of Sky as she has been on the News for being so great at it. Plus if I came across as too harsh then I am Sorry about that.
 

Fuji Dave

Teacher's Pet
Messages
15,705
Name
FUJI SON
Edit My Images
No
Last edited:
Messages
438
Edit My Images
Yes
Know need to say sorry, what really gets my back up more than anything is women can come and go taking images of children and know one will say why did you take my child`s photo Yet when a man does the same it`s like OH my god it`s the end of the world. IMO the mother went well OTT and should of approached it in a better way. I do think it is sad in todays day and age that men get the rough end of the stick if seen out and about with a camera. On a good note I`d love to be able to photograph one young girl that some might of heard of and she is a Skate boarder by the name of Sky as she has been on the News for being so great at it. Plus if I came across as too harsh then I am Sorry about that.
No worries, man. And you are 100% right about Sky - she has a phenomenal talent already. The shapes that she casts as she performs are amazing, and a stills camera could capture beautiful out-of-context moments.

FWIW, the innocence and beauty of candid street photography that just happens to include (and should not exclude, IMHO) children is very well exemplified in the shots that Nick Turpin got in his Trieste trip:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rA8BB3LyB0
 
Messages
6,343
Edit My Images
Yes
Which isn't at all creepy. :LOL:
It's not a style of photography I've ever done, or would want to try (I find most posed portrait photography a bit formulaic and dull), but as it's a recognised genera I included it in the list of different options. Whether or not it's seen as being creepy is probably down to individual opinion. Perhaps it highlights the levels of suspicion and 'guilt by association' that some types of photography can draw though?
 
Last edited:
Messages
438
Edit My Images
Yes
It's not a style of photography I've ever done, or would want to try (I find most posed portrait photography a bit formulaic and dull), but as it's a recognised genera I included it in the list of different options. Whether or not it's seen as being creepy is probably down to individual opinion. Perhaps it highlights the levels of suspicion and 'guilt by association' that some types of photography can draw though?
Me, too, on glamour photography. But it's an interesting enough subject that it's also worth documenting. Not shooting the glamour model, per se, but the photographers, the session, the pressures.

I was in Regensburg last year, and there was a group of about 5 togs who had hired a young woman to pose for some sort of 'pretty in the city' shots. So she was made-up, coiffed and quite scantily clad (but not risque). And sort of leaning against or draped over various bits of historic and modern street furniture. And they were all blokes of middle-age, all in the same sort of clothes, all with 70-200 white lenses, and a rucksack of gear, all standing together and pointing their cameras at her.

The whole scene - them and her - was definitely worth photographing. Plenty of shots to tell a story: age gaps, exploitation (of/by whom?), (re)capturing youth, etc.

Typically, I didn't even have my phone with me. :(
 
OP
jonbeeza
Messages
8,032
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
Just got back from our grand children's school, they had an assembly play. Parents and grandparents were allowed to take photos and video, but were told they should not post them on social media. The children's mother took a video on her phone, she even managed to get other parent's pesky children in the frame. :)
 
Messages
3,055
Edit My Images
No
Parents and grandparents were allowed to take photos and video, but were told they should not post them on social media.
...and the question then arises: why not? Here's a note from the Ann Craft Trust, a safeguarding charity:

It’s not illegal for parents to take pictures of their children, or of other parents’ children. Nor is it illegal for children to take pictures of themselves, or their friends. And despite what many parents seem to think, there’s nothing in UK law to say that it’s illegal for strangers to take photos of children.

In every case, the law only comes into play if the photos can be classed as “indecent”.

https://www.anncrafttrust.org/is-it-illegal-to-take-a-picture-of-a-child-or-young-person-under-18/
Nor is there any UK law that I can find against posting any picture on social media (or anywhere else) UNLESS it is "indecent". Please note that word "indecent". There is no legal definition of it so what it actually is in court comes down to the infamous "I know it when I see it" - see here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-images-of-children-guidance-for-young-people
 
OP
jonbeeza
Messages
8,032
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
...and the question then arises: why not? Here's a note from the Ann Craft Trust, a safeguarding charity:



Nor is there any UK law that I can find against posting any picture on social media (or anywhere else) UNLESS it is "indecent". Please note that word "indecent". There is no legal definition of it so what it actually is in court comes down to the infamous "I know it when I see it" - see here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-images-of-children-guidance-for-young-people
I was just stating what the head teacher told us, as we all came in. A lot of the parents were doing video, and probably most would post to social media sites anyway.
 
Messages
5,481
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
I was just stating what the head teacher told us, as we all came in. A lot of the parents were doing video, and probably most would post to social media sites anyway.
Exactly. This thread started from the actions of a person who, as far as we can tell (not enough detail, we weren’t there) is complaining of someone doing more or less what she/her husband does herself. People are getting ‘nameless fears’ as far as I can see.
 
Messages
2,849
Edit My Images
No
I was just stating what the head teacher told us, as we all came in. A lot of the parents were doing video, and probably most would post to social media sites anyway.
I think you were lucky and that is very fair of them. I think most schools now don’t allow any photography or video. Rather sad I think.

I can understand them asking you not to share them as there may be fostered children amongst them, or children from abusive homes.
 
OP
jonbeeza
Messages
8,032
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
I think you were lucky and that is very fair of them. I think most schools now don’t allow any photography or video. Rather sad I think.

I can understand them asking you not to share them as there may be fostered children amongst them, or children from abusive homes.
I was surprised that they let people take photos and video, I am probably used to being told no you cant do this or the other.
 
Messages
993
Name
Jamesev
Edit My Images
No
It's a question of law.
Person takes photo of child walking down the street.
Mother of child says "I dont like you taking photo of my child".
Person says "why"
Mother says "how do I know your not a peadophile"?.....
How does the Person know the "mother" hasn't abducted the child and wants the photos deleted because they could be used to convict the abductor or is not a evil spirit masquerading in the form of a human that needs to be banished back to the underworld.

The point being you can assume that any person is a lot of things but realistically the chances of them being a person with malevolent intentions of any sort is significantly minuscule compared to the chances of them doing something for innocent reasons. Its a sad world when everything someone does is assumed to be with the wrong intentions.

Whilst the mother does have the right to protect their child the photographer also has rights (in public places). As mentioned before it would be quite sad if these were eroded due to a small off chance as the same could be applied to anything.
 
Messages
1,688
Edit My Images
Yes
I occasionally take photos in schools. Each school has a list of kids that are not to be photographed. These are for various reasons, but I don't get to see this. The teachers sort the kids out. Occasionally kids from the list stray into the photographs, especially when they are of interesting and fun activities. All photos are vetted by the school before use. I think there is a clear difference between difficult home situations and what might be called a snowflake response based on social media barrack room lawyers.
 

Fuji Dave

Teacher's Pet
Messages
15,705
Name
FUJI SON
Edit My Images
No
The sad thing about it all though is, a man with a big camera is doing something wrong and that stigma is bang out of order. Thank god the law on street photography will never get changed for the worse as for me I`d be gutted as love shooting people with the camera while they are going about.
 
Messages
5,481
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
How does the Person know the "mother" ... is not a evil spirit masquerading in the form of a human that needs to be banished back to the underworld.
.
:cool::cool::cool: lots of those about, it’s recognising them that‘s the problem :(
 
Messages
5,481
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
The sad thing about it all though is, a man with a big camera is doing something wrong and that stigma is bang out of order. Thank god the law on street photography will never get changed for the worse as for me I`d be gutted as love shooting people with the camera while they are going about.
Yes and they are singling out the wrong person, who is more likely to be that nice friendly person with a phone cam. If dodgy people are using big cameras with large white lenses they are more likely to be far enough away that you can’t spot them :j
 
Messages
17,414
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
Just got back from our grand children's school, they had an assembly play. Parents and grandparents were allowed to take photos and video, but were told they should not post them on social media. The children's mother took a video on her phone, she even managed to get other parent's pesky children in the frame. :)
Our school is the same, all around safeguarding
 
Messages
17,414
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
...and the question then arises: why not? Here's a note from the Ann Craft Trust, a safeguarding charity:



Nor is there any UK law that I can find against posting any picture on social media (or anywhere else) UNLESS it is "indecent". Please note that word "indecent". There is no legal definition of it so what it actually is in court comes down to the infamous "I know it when I see it" - see here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-images-of-children-guidance-for-young-people
It may not be illegal but it may be discourteous. Same way I dont HAVE to hold the door open for someone but it is the right thing to do, or when taking a chair from a table in a pub, asking the people sitting there if I am ok to take it,
 
Messages
812
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
morally reasonable - yes. legally required - no.

the latter is defined, the former varies from person to person depending on their position, thats where the conflict of views arises.
Yes...that’s been my argument the entire time
 
Messages
993
Name
Jamesev
Edit My Images
No
Same way I dont HAVE to hold the door open for someone but it is the right thing to do.
However if one believes someone should hold the door open there is no right to challenge them if they do not do so and ergo align to the same beliefs, in the same way one has no right to challenge someone taking photographs within the confines of the law.
 
Messages
2,591
Name
Roger
Edit My Images
Yes
Like I have said - child could have a protection order, I take a random pic, post it somewhere and abusive person may deduce where that child is. Bit of a long shot i know but understandable.

The rest I think is just good manners and courtesy. Taking a landscape picture of a park is one thing, but zooming in or getting close to a child I think is bad manners and rude. Why the need to do that? Would you really be happy if I walked up to your kid on a slide for example and snapped away and walk off?
You stated it was creepy and have provided no evidence but went off on a tangent about being bad manners and rude!
 
Messages
23,189
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
Just got back from our grand children's school, they had an assembly play. Parents and grandparents were allowed to take photos and video, but were told they should not post them on social media. The children's mother took a video on her phone, she even managed to get other parent's pesky children in the frame. :)
I was pleased to get the same instruction at our granddaughter's nativity play - free to take photos/video (and everybody did) but don't post on social media. Seems reasonable (y)
 
OP
jonbeeza
Messages
8,032
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
I was pleased to get the same instruction at our granddaughter's nativity play - free to take photos/video (and everybody did) but don't post on social media. Seems reasonable (y)
It is lovely to be able to get memories of our grandchildren, it is amazing how fast they grow. We love looking back at old videos and photos, when they were toddling about. So it is nice to get some school day memories also. In a few more years, they will have left school, and we might not get the chance to see them much after that.
 
Top