Concerned mum wants law changed

Messages
17,339
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
To be honest, it would be pointless to ban photographing people. What about vehicle dash cams, capturing people walking about and in full HD. A person goes missing and Police ask, anyone got any dash cam footage. Nah..I think we should be ok. :)
There is a difference between street shots which has people in and someone getting close or using a zoom lens to focus on someone. as I said, it’s up to the parent to decide if a pic of their kids is made public.
 
Messages
1,643
Edit My Images
Yes
Knowone can answer any of those questions at all FACT. A child who might have bad mental health issues could take it badly if some man sticks a camera in their face and click.
I think we all agree that Landscapes, Buildings and Still Lifes are the only way to go...
 
Messages
489
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
I can't see how this would work, everyone has a mobile phone, kids take photos of each other all the time. Dash cams would have to become obsolete etc etc. There is no way this could be policed.
You simply need to be sensible about it. I don't think anyone would be complaining about kids just snapping away. No does anyone have a problem about things caught in a background on a dash cam.

However if your sole intent is simply to go out and take photos of strangers then that is very, vety different. The problem becomes exacerbated when you then published those photos online or elsewhere and all you are targeting people by taking multiple photos of them and chasing them around.
 
Messages
2,560
Name
Roger
Edit My Images
Yes
What does it matter where that photo is? There is nothing in that photo that wasn't seen by everyone else who walked past so why is now all of a sudden an issue what can be seen?
I don't understand how they suddenly have this disconnection once there's a photograph involved.
It isn't ,last week some poor old guy in the pub got verbally attacked by a young girls mother who, in a breathless rant called him a pervert because he was watching the girl as she shouted, screamed and jumped all over the furniture. Glad to say the landlord stepped in and promptly threw the woman and her daughter out. Such is the hysteria in our society when some parents think their little darlings might be threatened. The old guy was near to tears at the things he had been called. He used to be a regular popping in every day for a half whilst his wife was out shopping, we have not seen him since, rather sad imho.
 
Last edited:
Messages
407
Edit My Images
Yes
Luckily most of my photography involving females they are covered in feathers, though sadly they often turn around on branches just when I think I have the perfect shot and wave their private parts and tail at me..
 
OP
jonbeeza
Messages
8,029
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
There is a difference between street shots which has people in and someone getting close or using a zoom lens to focus on someone. as I said, it’s up to the parent to decide if a pic of their kids is made public.
Yes I know and as I said before, I am not defending the people who were accused of taking close up photos of a child. I would not take a photo of a stranger.
But what I am against is the changing of the law
, so you can't take a photo if a person might be in the scene.
 

Fuji Dave

Teacher's Pet
Messages
15,646
Name
FUJI SON
Edit My Images
No
After reading this thread from to to toe I am so glad I only photograph landscapes. At least all I have to worry about is the local farmer banging on my door to tell me that Daisy the Cow doesn't like her photo being taken! :LOL::beer::bat:

I swear I saw Daisy on Countryfile :D
 
OP
jonbeeza
Messages
8,029
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
You simply need to be sensible about it. I don't think anyone would be complaining about kids just snapping away. No does anyone have a problem about things caught in a background on a dash cam.

However if your sole intent is simply to go out and take photos of strangers then that is very, vety different. The problem becomes exacerbated when you then published those photos online or elsewhere and all you are targeting people by taking multiple photos of them and chasing them around.
Yes and that is NOT on. But simply snapping street scenes, and if the public happen to be in the scene. I mainly like taking photos of old building etc, but people keep walking in front of them. :)
 
OP
jonbeeza
Messages
8,029
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
I was gong to take a photo of a canal boat one summer, but one of the people on board was in a skimpy bikini. You can bet your life, her partner would never of believed I was interested in taking a photo of a scruffy looking canal boat.
 

Fuji Dave

Teacher's Pet
Messages
15,646
Name
FUJI SON
Edit My Images
No
OP
jonbeeza
Messages
8,029
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
After reading this thread from to to toe I am so glad I only photograph landscapes. At least all I have to worry about is the local farmer banging on my door to tell me that Daisy the Cow doesn't like her photo being taken! :LOL::beer::bat:

I still have to keep referring back to posts, to see who said what to what post.
 
Messages
437
Edit My Images
Yes
However if your sole intent is simply to go out and take photos of strangers then that is very, vety different. The problem becomes exacerbated when you then published those photos online or elsewhere and all you are targeting people by taking multiple photos of them and chasing them around.
You've just banned a huge volume of art!

Like it, or not, when you are out in public, by definition, you are not in private. How you walk on the street, the face you pull, your reflections in a shop window and the shadow you cast, they are now all part of other peoples' lives. The richness of human existence is documented by street and urban photographers. And not only them, but also everyone with a smartphone who's doing selfies in the High Street or tourists making videos of their holidays. You do not have the right to limit other peoples' recording of public space and life.
 
Messages
5,349
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
I was gong to take a photo of a canal boat one summer, but one of the people on board was in a skimpy bikini. You can bet your life, her partner would never of believed I was interested in taking a photo of a scruffy looking canal boat.
That’s exactly it. There are even some in this thread saying they would demand to know “what they are doing” if they saw someone taking a photograph. The only sensible answer is ”I’m taking a photograph”which will probably not satisfy them;). Most people only take photos of either their kids doing something daft or themselves while drunk (I’m judging by what I see on Facebok etc) so it would be impossible to explain you‘re interest is snapping old canal boats or documenting the changing high street or whatever.

Edit: typo
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,539
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
However if your sole intent is simply to go out and take photos of strangers then that is very, vety different. The problem becomes exacerbated when you then published those photos online or elsewhere and all you are targeting people by taking multiple photos of them and chasing them around.
That's almost all my photography kicked into touch then. No more poultry shows, no more sheep auctions, no more agricultural shows, no more... :confused:

People are the most interesting subject to photograph. Photographing people doing things naturally (i.e. not for the camera's benefit), makes for the most interesting pictures. If preserved these photographs also make for valuable historical records.

But let's sweep all that away and only have photographs taken by 'professionals' of consenting adults. :rolleyes:

b****x to that!
 
Messages
489
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
[QUOTE="TonyT, post: 8620114, member: 87800" define professional.[/QUOTE]

having a legitimate professional commission on a reason to be taking those photographs.

And it's not only about children. It's about general privacy.

But you just need to be sensible.

For example I recently shot a children's choir. They was singing for a charity and the celebrities who headed charity were there too. Through the magazine I was shooting for I'd already obtained permissions for every single child there from the parents or guardians.

Parents were there too and the parents were taking photos of their children, and I'm sure they were catching other children in the photo as well. Various other people involved with the event were also taking photos especially of the celebrities.

these people might not be professional but they had a legitimate reason to be there and to take photos. I don't think anyone has issue with this.

But if this has been in a park and some random photographer was taking photos for his own pleasure, then that is not on.
 
Messages
2,560
Name
Roger
Edit My Images
Yes
[QUOTE="TonyT, post: 8620114, member: 87800" define professional.
having a legitimate professional commission on a reason to be taking those photographs.

And it's not only about children. It's about general privacy.

But you just need to be sensible.

For example I recently shot a children's choir. They was singing for a charity and the celebrities who headed charity were there too. Through the magazine I was shooting for I'd already obtained permissions for every single child there from the parents or guardians.

Parents were there too and the parents were taking photos of their children, and I'm sure they were catching other children in the photo as well. Various other people involved with the event were also taking photos especially of the celebrities.

these people might not be professional but they had a legitimate reason to be there and to take photos. I don't think anyone has issue with this.

But if this has been in a park and some random photographer was taking photos for his own pleasure, then that is not on.[/QUOTE]

Personally I think a random photographer taking pictures in the park for his own pleasure is a perfectly legitimate reason, who decides what is legitimate and what is not?
 
OP
jonbeeza
Messages
8,029
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
That’s exactly it. There are even some in this thread saying they would demand to know “what they are doing” if they saw someone taking a photograph. The only sensible answer is ”I’m taking a photograph”which’s probably not satisfy them;). Most people only take photos of either their kids doing something daft or themselves while drunk (I’m judging by what I see on Facebok etc) so it would be impossible to explain you‘re interest is snapping old canal boats or documenting the changing high street or whatever.
I love looking at old video archives, yes even of people walking the streets. A few people I watch on YouTube walked around, and even drove around with a big clunky VHS video recorder, and some of those video clips are amazing. Yes there are people in the video as well, the person had walked around town, with a camera, I am glad he did. Seeing how we used to live in the 1980s, and how we dressed, yes even children.

I like doing my own little archive, just noting how things have changed over the years. Yes and some people are in the shots I have, I did not get them intentionaly, they just happen to be there when I was doing video, or photos.
 
Messages
407
Edit My Images
Yes
The term professional has been destroyed to a certain extent by the paparazzi who will go to often extreme levels to get a picture, if one wants to do streets photography bereft of people, one would sadly suggest Shanghai or Wuhan.
 
Last edited:

Fuji Dave

Teacher's Pet
Messages
15,646
Name
FUJI SON
Edit My Images
No
The term professional has been destroyed to a certain extent by the paparazzi who will go to often extreme levels to get a picture, if one wants to do streets photography bereft of people, one would sadly suggest Shanghai or Wuhan.
Or just go to town and wait for a moment to take the shot.
 
Messages
17,339
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
having a legitimate professional commission on a reason to be taking those photographs.

And it's not only about children. It's about general privacy.

But you just need to be sensible.

For example I recently shot a children's choir. They was singing for a charity and the celebrities who headed charity were there too. Through the magazine I was shooting for I'd already obtained permissions for every single child there from the parents or guardians.

Parents were there too and the parents were taking photos of their children, and I'm sure they were catching other children in the photo as well. Various other people involved with the event were also taking photos especially of the celebrities.

these people might not be professional but they had a legitimate reason to be there and to take photos. I don't think anyone has issue with this.

But if this has been in a park and some random photographer was taking photos for his own pleasure, then that is not on.
Personally I think a random photographer taking pictures in the park for his own pleasure is a perfectly legitimate reason, who decides what is legitimate and what is not?[/QUOTE]

So there is nothing creepy about taking pictures in a park like that if someone else’s child?
 
Messages
5,349
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
Personally I think a random photographer taking pictures in the park for his own pleasure is a perfectly legitimate reason, who decides what is legitimate and what is not?

So there is nothing creepy about taking pictures in a park like that if someone else’s child?
No.

Edit: correct quoting.
 
Last edited:
Messages
414
Edit My Images
No
From what I understand you only need a model release from everyone in a photo if you intend to use it commercially which may or may not involve making money either directly or indirectly from the image. Many/most agencies won't allow photos containing images of people on their sites without model release forms.

As we only have the story from the mother's side and she states only one of the 3 men had a photo on his phone we can only speak with confidence what we as individuals would do. If they were 'up to no good' and sneakily taking photos they were not very good as they got caught. Surely they would have taken more care not to be noticed. If she felt that strongly why did she not take their photo and get her husband to call the police. To fill the frame of a zoomed in phone camera it's likely you would have to be very close, about 5 meters. Were they really that close?????
 
Messages
2,560
Name
Roger
Edit My Images
Yes
So there is nothing creepy about taking pictures in a park like that if someone else’s child?
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.
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,002
Edit My Images
No
But if this has been in a park and some random photographer was taking photos for his own pleasure, then that is not on.
It has been the law of this land for a very long time that: "in public your face is public". This has created a rich vein of social photography that has recorded the history of Britain for well over a century. There are candid pictures of the British in peace and war; at work and play; in happiness and sadness. These images, for the most part taken by amateurs, tell us and our descendents who we are and where we came from. Before we had to get these pictures into the limited space of printed publications. Now we can share them much more freely through the internet, further enriching our shared heritage.

So I suggest you ask yourself: if you support the suppression of this freedom, how long will it be before they come for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
 
Last edited:

Fuji Dave

Teacher's Pet
Messages
15,646
Name
FUJI SON
Edit My Images
No
Personally I think a random photographer taking pictures in the park for his own pleasure is a perfectly legitimate reason, who decides what is legitimate and what is not?
So there is nothing creepy about taking pictures in a park like that if someone else’s child?[/QUOTE]


Yes it is just plane creepy, why would a man go to a park and take photos of other peoples children is a worry.
 
Messages
5,349
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
So there is nothing creepy about taking pictures in a park like that if someone else’s child?

No it’s not. It‘s worrying that you think that :(.
 
Last edited:

Fuji Dave

Teacher's Pet
Messages
15,646
Name
FUJI SON
Edit My Images
No
Yes it is just plane creepy, why would a man go to a park and take photos of other peoples children is a worry.
No it’s not. It‘s worrying that you think that :(.[/QUOTE]


Well imo I think there are some very creepy members in here, why the hell would a grown man go to a park and photograph children that are NOT his is beyond words :(
 
Messages
5,349
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
No it’s not. It‘s worrying that you think that :(.


Well imo I think there are some very creepy members in here, why the hell would a grown man go to a park and photograph children that are NOT his is beyond words :(
I’m struggling to understand you. The only explanation I can think of is that you see children as sexual objects, is that the problem? Not everyone does!

Edit: to correct quoting.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,560
Name
Roger
Edit My Images
Yes

Fuji Dave

Teacher's Pet
Messages
15,646
Name
FUJI SON
Edit My Images
No
Now you are talking cr*p I`m sorry but I just dont understand why a grown man would go to the park and take photos of children that are not his is wrong, and just to shut your stupid sad pathetic comment down I NEVER LOOK ON CHILDREN AS SEXUAL OBJECTS SO DON`T EVEN GO THERE WITH THAT (n)(n)(n)(n)
 
Messages
2,560
Name
Roger
Edit My Images
Yes

steve_lyt

Bottoms Up!
Messages
1,710
Name
steve lythgoe
Edit My Images
Yes
From what I understand you only need a model release from everyone in a photo if you intend to use it commercially which may or may not involve making money either directly or indirectly from the image. Many/most agencies won't allow photos containing images of people on their sites without model release forms.

As we only have the story from the mother's side and she states only one of the 3 men had a photo on his phone we can only speak with confidence what we as individuals would do. If they were 'up to no good' and sneakily taking photos they were not very good as they got caught. Surely they would have taken more care not to be noticed. If she felt that strongly why did she not take their photo and get her husband to call the police. To fill the frame of a zoomed in phone camera it's likely you would have to be very close, about 5 meters. Were they really that close?????
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.
and if she had taken a photo of them , would she have to get their permission , it cuts both ways.
if you point a camera at a building or structure. if someone walk into the frame that's there problem.
but targeting a single person is wrong without there permission
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.

at 5m even with the best phone camera the image would not be very good anyway
 

Fuji Dave

Teacher's Pet
Messages
15,646
Name
FUJI SON
Edit My Images
No
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.
 
Messages
992
Name
Jamesev
Edit My Images
No
I`m sorry but I just dont understand why a grown man would go to the park and take photos of children that are not his is wrong,
This does seem to be the culture of guilty until deemed otherwise. I guess the outcomes of the 1% who are guilty are far more abhorrent than the 99% who have benevolent intentions.
 

Fuji Dave

Teacher's Pet
Messages
15,646
Name
FUJI SON
Edit My Images
No
I`m leaving it at this, if folk want to go and take photos of kids then best of luck to them, me I wont be doing that.
 
Messages
992
Name
Jamesev
Edit My Images
No
I`m leaving it at this, if folk want to go and take photos of kids then best of luck to them, me I wont be doing that.
Fair enough, that’s your choice based on your legitimate beliefs, I don’t think anyone disputes that. However to suggest everyone else should follow suit is questionable as 99% of people will do so with genuine intentions. It’s the minority that do not that have led to people being wary and the assumption there is always wrongdoing.
 
Messages
5,539
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
NOW will you please RESPECT my wishes and not tell me to take photos of kids that are not mine. Thank you.
Nobody was telling you to go and photograph other people's children, they were taking issue with your apparent belief that nobody else should do it because you don't want to.
 
Messages
5,349
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
I`m leaving it at this, if folk want to go and take photos of kids then best of luck to them, me I wont be doing that.
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 :(.
 
Top