Concerned mum wants law changed

goldtop said:
Yes, it is you. It tells us that the motives come from your own mind. You have internalised the paedogeddon thing that Chris Morris satirised so well. The stats are clear: the biggest risk to children (sexual or physical abuse) comes from their parents and close relatives. Not someone taking a photo in a park/street/etc.

We're a mixed bag here - some dedicated to wildlife, some to landscapes with no people at all, some to family/friends, but opinions of those photographers about what urban/street/reportage photographers can and can't shoot is not on. (IMHO.)

There are lots of philosophies about human subjects in street photography, but erasing a significant part of humanity from artwork would be ... well, inhuman.
Click to expand...


You are wrong as three of us in here think the same way.
 
Pound Coin said:
So, is that you don't care if there are none of those groups, or that you have a blindness towards the ethnicity or sexuality of the actors?

The point, as I understand it, is that the current and past makeup of the movie industry has favoured young, straight white actors. Which is suboptimal if you are not from that ethnic group.

Calling it out to raise the issue is one way, and an obvious one, of getting change.
Click to expand...


No as I stated, I am interested in the film and the quality of it, I am not blind to those facts you mention, just that if you start to make a point of rewarding films simply on that basis, you will not necessarily be awarding the best films.

As an example, Hidden Figures is one of the best films out there and it rightly deserves to be, but not because of the main actresses's ethnicity, but because of their outstanding acting, cracking story line and super film making.
 
Last edited:
Pound Coin said:
So, is that you don't care if there are none of those groups, or that you have a blindness towards the ethnicity or sexuality of the actors?

The point, as I understand it, is that the current and past makeup of the movie industry has favoured young, straight white actors. Which is suboptimal if you are not from that ethnic group.

Calling it out to raise the issue is one way, and an obvious one, of getting change.
Click to expand...
Well, it’s OT but that’s another area that’s gone daft. There are complaints of actors playing characters who are not of their race/disability/gender/etc/etc. It‘s acting, that’s almost the whole point.
Not against campaigning for more diversity in the movie industry etc!
 
I'm outraged that Marin Parr's The Last Resort is still in print. Every copy should be rounded up and burned and the man hung drawn and quartered.

Google it.



Warning: This post may contain nuts. :ROFLMAO:
 
TonyT said:
No as I stated, I am interested in the film and the quality of it, I am not blind to those facts you mention, just that if you start to make a point of rewarding films simply on that basis, you will not necessarily be awarding the best films.

As an example, Hidden Figures is one of the best films out there and it rightly deserves to be, but not because of the main actresses's ethnicity, but because of their outstanding acting, cracking story line and super film making.
Click to expand...

However, I thought the problem was that the winning films weren't representative. Not that they were, and they were substandard?
 
Dave70D said:
Reading through this thread again while logged out I have to laugh at some stupid things, so a family take their children to the park and then you get some god almighty photographer taking photos of your children laughing while on a swing so creepy indeed but if that`s their thing then best of luck to them as the police would soon need to talk to them. You do have to worry about some people though now days, I`d go in to town to take photos and the only time I`d take a photo in a park would be for my family and not for some creep to photograph.
Click to expand...

Do you have that many people on ignore? :)
 
GreenNinja67 said:
You lot are going to be a bit red faced sticking up for these "photographers" if they ever end up in court on a p*** charge.

I for one find it rather worrying that a man would "always take photos of children" as stated (or words to that effect).

Of course if they are innocent the mother could be sued for libel considering what she wrote in her Facebook post.
Click to expand...

I was not sticking up for these people, whoever they were. What I would not like, is the law being changed, so we could not take street photos, and other public photos, that may contain people in the photos.
 
Dave70D said:
You are wrong as three of us in here think the same way.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're in a position to state that. What you might usefully say is that you disagree with him and that others agree with you. Mind you, given the way some of the contributions have been written I'm not sure if some of the writers even agree with themselves! :naughty:
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I don't think you're in a position to state that. What you might usefully say is that you disagree with him and that others agree with you. Mind you, given the way some of the contributions have been written I'm not sure if some of the writers even agree with themselves! :naughty:
Click to expand...


Think I will stick to WRONG :D
 
goldtop said:
Yes, it is you. It tells us that the motives come from your own mind. You have internalised the paedogeddon thing that Chris Morris satirised so well. The stats are clear: the biggest risk to children (sexual or physical abuse) comes from their parents and close relatives. Not someone taking a photo in a park/street/etc.

We're a mixed bag here - some dedicated to wildlife, some to landscapes with no people at all, some to family/friends, but opinions of those photographers about what urban/street/reportage photographers can and can't shoot is not on. (IMHO.)

There are lots of philosophies about human subjects in street photography, but erasing a significant part of humanity from artwork would be ... well, inhuman.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying you shouldn’t or can’t take the photos. I just think that if their not happy and want it deleted then that’s fine, just delete it.
 
Ben johns said:
I’m not saying you shouldn’t or can’t take the photos. I just think that if their not happy and want it deleted then that’s fine, just delete it.
Click to expand...

I can`t see what the problem is with some here who wont delete one photo if asked, it`s not the end of the world but then again it might be for them :D
 
Dave70D said:
I can`t see what the problem is with some here who wont delete one photo if asked, it`s not the end of the world but then again it might be for them :D
Click to expand...
Who knows lol. It’s not the sort of photography that I do so maybe I don’t get it. I only take family photos and landscapes. Though when street photography is done well (which is rare in my opinion) its my favourite. John Free is really good, as is Fan Ho. Though I think of Fan Ho as doing more urban landscapes that incorporate people as elements in his photos as opposed to the people being the subject themselves. I like Fred herzog too but I prefer black and white photos mainly
 
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. :)
 
Dave70D said:
I can`t see what the problem is with some here who wont delete one photo if asked, it`s not the end of the world but then again it might be for them :D
Click to expand...

Likewise, it's not the end of the world if you appear in someone else's photo. (FWIW, we all appear in many thousands of images every day of our lives.)

I'll ask again, the unanswered (perhaps unasked) questions in this:
  • what is the supposed ill that is done by taking candid photos of children?
  • how is that different to taking candid photos of adults?
  • do those who object not understand that the genuine harm being done to children through photos is between themselves (sexting epidemic)?
 
Ben johns said:
And neither do you, for all you know the intent might have been dodgy.
I think we’re arguing for the wrong reasons! I don’t disagree with anyone here really, I just think that people need to understand the other side.
maybe no one here has gotten angry as such but I’ve read YouTube comments on photography channels on the subject and they tend to be angry towards parents
Click to expand...
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.

cambsno said:
But is HER child so surely up to her if she posts it? You also dont know about if that child is subject to a child protection order or similar. I always ask at my sons football as I could post a pic online that could identify a vulnerable child.
Click to expand...
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.

Ben johns said:
if I saw someone taking photos of my daughter without asking and explaining why I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask to see the photos, ask questions and have them deleted if I wanted.
Click to expand...
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.

Ben johns said:
Who knows lol. It’s not the sort of photography that I do so maybe I don’t get it. I only take family photos and landscapes. Though when street photography is done well (which is rare in my opinion) its my favourite. John Free is really good, as is Fan Ho. Though I think of Fan Ho as doing more urban landscapes that incorporate people as elements in his photos as opposed to the people being the subject themselves. I like Fred herzog too but I prefer black and white photos mainly
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
goldtop said:
Likewise, it's not the end of the world if you appear in someone else's photo. (FWIW, we all appear in many thousands of images every day of our lives.)

I'll ask again, the unanswered (perhaps unasked) questions in this:
  • what is the supposed ill that is done by taking candid photos of children?
  • how is that different to taking candid photos of adults?
  • do those who object not understand that the genuine harm being done to children through photos is between themselves (sexting epidemic)?
Click to expand...


1, I do not like to photograph other peoples children as I think it`s wrong.=Answered
2, A child is a lot more innocent then a adult=Answered.
3, Can you say what every male might think when he takes a photo of a child that is not his=Answered.
 
jonbeeza said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

Dashcams are illegal in some countries. Austria being the best example.
 
Pound Coin said:
Dashcams are illegal in some countries. Austria being the best example.
Click to expand...

Yes that is true, I know Austria is. We were watching this carnut youtuber, who videos his driving jaunts across various countries, and yes he turned it off when he got to Austria.
 
I have a dash Cam front and rear, last week it caught a car parking clipping my wing, while I was elsewhere, luckily it was done by one of the few honest people in the world who owned up, however my dash cam caught it and the cars reg.. It could have saved me thousands if he hadn't been honest. Thinkware F-800 Pro
 
Last edited:
jonbeeza said:
The mum goes on to say " I really feel there should be a law to prevent people from doing this. Where is that picture now?"
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dave70D said:
1, I do not like to photograph other peoples children as I think it`s wrong.=Answered
2, A child is a lot more innocent then a adult=Answered.
3, Can you say what every male might think when he takes a photo of a child that is not his=Answered.
Click to expand...
FTFY. ‘Replied’ does not equal ’Answered’ ;)
 
Dave70D said:
1, I do not like to photograph other peoples children as I think it`s wrong.=Answered
2, A child is a lot more innocent then a adult=Answered.
3, Can you say what every male might think when he takes a photo of a child that is not his=Answered.
Click to expand...

1 - not answered. I asked what harm is done.
2 - not answered, as you need to answer #1 first and then explain why the harm is not relevant to adults
3 - not answered. You said nothing to do with the far greater risk - a real risk causing harm right now - to children from their own smartphone photography
 
goldtop said:
1 - not answered. I asked what harm is done.
2 - not answered, as you need to answer #1 first and then explain why the harm is not relevant to adults
3 - not answered. You said nothing to do with the far greater risk - a real risk causing harm right now - to children from their own smartphone photography
Click to expand...


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.
 
Dave70D said:
Ok take off Answered, but that is what I think. If grown men want to go and take other peoples children photos then thats up to them not me, but I stick to what I`ve said... I don`t as to me it`s strange and creepy.
Click to expand...

So you don't care about any harm, after all. OK. Glad we cleared that up.
 
Marcel said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is what everyone is trying to figure out. :thinking:
 
goldtop said:
So you don't care about any harm, after all. OK. Glad we cleared that up.
Click to expand...

Dont tell me about care you dont know me at all, I care for all folk with mental health issues as been there seen it and done it and then worked with them. I DONT TAKE PHOTOS OF OTHER PEOPLES CHILDREN SO RESPECT THAT PLEASE (y)
 
I totally agree with this. The law should be changed so that only professional photographers with a press licence and taking photos at that particular point in time of a press worthy event should be allowed to photograph strangers.

I personally have to ask people's permission get releases signed etc all the time.
 
riddell said:
I totally agree with this. The law should be changed so that only professional photographers with a press licence and taking photos at that particular point in time of a press worthy event should be allowed to photograph strangers.

I personally have to ask people's permission get releases signed etc all the time.
Click to expand...
I think anyone who wants to take photographs should have proper training and be licensed by the state :) . Let’s get North Korea to advise us :).
 
riddell said:
I totally agree with this. The law should be changed so that only professional photographers with a press licence and taking photos at that particular point in time of a press worthy event should be allowed to photograph strangers.

I personally have to ask people's permission get releases signed etc all the time.
Click to expand...
But that infringes on my freedom.
 
riddell said:
I totally agree with this. The law should be changed so that only professional photographers with a press licence and taking photos at that particular point in time of a press worthy event should be allowed to photograph strangers.

I personally have to ask people's permission get releases signed etc all the time.
Click to expand...

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.
 
And perhaps Riddle we should have child detectors incorporated into all future cameras focus screens that jettisons ones battery at force into ones nuts.... Oh and remember it's not just men.

I think that's one of the most ridiculous ideas mentioned on here, define professional.... Considering there have been all sorts arrested in the past for abuse from police to the legal profession up to Members of Parliament, do you think that slapping the term professional on them will instantly prevent it happening.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top