Photographing children - how do you navigate the ethical risks?

andy700 said:
Really?

"There is some suggestion he called the victim a paedophile when, in reality, he was a completely innocent visitor taking photos of the gardens in Sidmouth."
Click to expand...

i guess im not making my point very well.

im trying to say that he was out of his head so could've easily have laid into someone for dropping litter or looking at him funny.
 
kb119 said:
I do understand the role of the war photographer, as Steve Smith said, other photographers were taking the same shots
Click to expand...

That's not what I wrote. I mentioned that two other photographers assisted the children involved.

Wikipedia says it was Nick Ut and one other but I'm sure I read that it was two others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc

Before delivering his film with the Kim Phúc photo, he took her to the hospital. The publication of the photo was delayed due to the AP bureau's debate about transmitting a naked girl's photo over the wire:
“ ...an editor at the AP rejected the photo of Kim Phuc running down the road without clothing because it showed frontal nudity. Pictures of nudes of all ages and sexes, and especially frontal views were an absolute no-no at the Associated Press in 1972...Horst argued by telex with the New York head-office that an exception must be made, with the compromise that no close-up of the girl Kim Phuc alone would be transmitted. The New York photo editor, Hal Buell, agreed that the news value of the photograph overrode any reservations about nudity.
Click to expand...


Steve.
 
I remember reading about the Nirvana album Nevermind and Kurt Cobain saying he would only agree to the cover being censored if the sticker read "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile".
 
andy700 said:
Really?

"There is some suggestion he called the victim a paedophile when, in reality, he was a completely innocent visitor taking photos of the gardens in Sidmouth."
Click to expand...

As I said on the other thread the background to this is that there'd been some indecent behavior locally (someone exposed himself to some children near those toilets - i forget the who/why/what) and the culprit in this attack while peed out of his head formed the mistaken impression that the innocent visitor was that offender when he saw him "lurking near the toilets"

This isnt a case of has camera therefore must be pervert, the triggering factor might just as easily have been that he was hanging arround outside the toilets (plus the attacker was out of his tree and is reputed locally not to have all his paddles in the water anyway)
 
kb119 said:
....say a little girl of say 2 years or upwards to say 6 or so was taken to a studio by her parents and their parents wanted her to be photographed in just her underwear or naked from the waist up....
Click to expand...

Then the photographer should refuse as mentioned in post 102:

Indecent images of minors is covered under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/i...s_of_children/


kb119 said:
One way of solving this is to go out at the weekend and try taking photographs of children in public and see the response you get! Let me know how you get on if anyone does…
Click to expand...

Have you actually read any of this thread? I have done/do this and have posted examples.


Do you have an age limit? Is it acceptable to post baby photos in your view? How do you feel for instance about the Tracey Raver images that appeared all over the press worldwide?

i.e.: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ies-photographers-adorable-baby-pictures.html
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
:shrug:

im saying if the guy was prepared to attack a stranger with an axe, i suspect not much would have pushed the guy to that point. he was clearly a) very drunk as the article says and b) not firing on all cylinders upstairs.

i dont think it was a well thought out specific targeting of a photographer.
Click to expand...

Neil

My view was contextual on the allusion to the drunk himself taking the view that the photographer was up to no good and fair game for using a camera near a public toilet.

It would be interesting to read the transcript of the trial when it is published.

As he has been gound guilty of GBH (assault occassioning GBH) The sentencing guidelines are (for Section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (without intent) up to 5 years in prison or Section 18 (with intent) minimum 5 years up to Life.

If the transcript shows that the guilty person used a dubious " I thought he was a P****" excuse and then goes after the victim with an axe the may well get a long prison sentence. The Judge should also take account of the Victim Impact Statement.

I went through this kind of court case when my youngest son was subject to an unprovoked attack by a very drunk person (who was 6 foot 7 inches tall). The attacker pleaded guilty before a magistrate to GBH (he was not carrying a weapon) so was a Section 20 offence. At Crown Court before a judge, the offender apologised etc. He was given an 18 month prison sentence.

Jump forward to the case og the Axeman , I cannot see his offence being othrr than Section 18 and therefore a minimum of 5 years in clink.

If the excuse of someone inniocent with a camrra being attacked then I would hope the judge's summary would also include a statement that the mere use of a camera is not an excuse to do harm to that person.

Likewise when comments on here that people taking pictures of their children. should be getting a severe beating, all I would say is that doing just that may see you facing a criminal trial with prison sentences that will truly be life changing.

On a personal note I regard "kiddg fiddlrrs" as the vrry lowest of the low.

Steve
 
neil_g said:
i guess im not making my point very well.

im trying to say that he was out of his head so could've easily have laid into someone for dropping litter or looking at him funny.
Click to expand...

No, I think you do make it well and agree.
 
ditto - as I said on the other thread the initial report in the sidmouth herald didn't mention cameras at all it just said "a 30 year old has been detained for making an unprovoked attack with an axe on a 61 year old man who was walking in the gardens with friends , returning from Methodist church"

its entirely possible he did it because the pixies in his head told him to - the word locally is that he allegedly isn't wrapped too snug at the best of times
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
ditto - as I said on the other thread the initial report in the sidmouth herald didn't mention cameras at all it just said "a 30 year old has been detained for making an unprovoked attack with an axe on a 61 year old man who was walking in the gardens with friends , returning from Methodist church"

its entirely possible he did it because the pixies in his head told him to - the word locally is that he allegedly isn't wrapped too snug at the best of times
Click to expand...

Which is why I shall look at the transcript of the trial.

I do attend court a few times a yearbut only as an expert witness for cases involving environmental issues like pollution and other environmental issues. I like the processes in court and some cases are worth reading up on
 
Last edited:
Wow!!!! what a lot of ideas and opinions...

I shoot what I like when I like... never had any problems..ever. But I'm built like a brick **** house so only rugby players ever approach me to ask who i play for? Never played rugger or footy.

Few facts I tell some school teachers and others in convo's like this is.

For a child to be taken /Kidknapped by a stranger off the street is rare as Rocking Horse Poo!

Cast your minds back over all the missing kid stories in the news for the last 10 years if you can.....

It has and is almost always a Family member . Mother/Step mum. father /Step father, a relitive. Or a close friend of the family.

some one in a position of trust. not a complete stranger.

In 7 years with Thames Valley Police we never had any cases come up...child neglect yes! loads of. 99% of the time it's a famliy member.
 
So because you're all 'ard, you bully your weight about and shoot whatever you like? Hmm, must try that, as not many want to tangle with me in general either. Brill idea.
 
Daryl said:
It has and is almost always a Family member . Mother/Step mum. father /Step father, a relitive. Or a close friend of the family.

.
Click to expand...

brady and Hindley

Ian Huntley (okay he was the school care taker I know)

Madeleine McCaan

okay so its rare - but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Also ones which are 'just' an assault rather than a murder don't normally make a big splash in the national news
 
big soft moose said:
brady and Hindley

Ian Huntley (okay he was the school care taker I know)

Madeleine McCaan

okay so its rare - but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Also ones which are 'just' an assault rather than a murder don't normally make a big splash in the national news
Click to expand...

It was reported that Hindley got friendly with 2 of the families of 2 victims before abducting them.

She was then supposedly instrumental in bringing Brady into their presence.

The Huntley character was truly evil. I am sure that had he not been caught he would have continued his murderous ways. Unlike Hindley, his partner was not involved in covering up for him but did give him a fals alibi and was given over 3 years in prison.

The latest brutal piece of filth was Mark Bridger......

S
 
As i said Pete..

Family member or Position of trust.

Rare to be a complete stranger.

If I was parent would not worry at all.... this country is full paranoid ignorant pillocks.

Nothing to worry about.... Europe is not paranoid as the Brits are about this.....

Can't believe this awful horrid subject has gone on for so many pages.

The only good thing is these sad low life people will get caught sometime and our soft justice system will give them a naff prison sentence.... And with luck they will be got at by the other cons and in some cses they won't come out at all.
 
Last edited:
Been reading this thread with intrest and one time sticks in my mind with my grandson who was 14months old at the time we were in the park just me and him and like any parent/grandparent with a camera we take photos of our kids so there we were in the park just me and him I was lying on the floor he was on a swing I was taking photos of him having a rare time next I heard a voice asking me to STOP taking photos of that child so I looked up and there was a special constable(nearly spelt that wrong then)asking me to put my camera away I tried explaining that he was my grandson I had every right to photograph him next thing he said was the height of common sense from him when he asked can you prove he is your grandson I couldn't believe what I heard so asked him to repeat it and he said same thing so I said are you being serious how can a baby walk down to the park on his own and he said if I don,t stop he will have no hesitation than calling for someone to come and warn me all I said to him he was lucky I had my grandson with me otherwise I would do him some serious harm I was fizzing with that I put my grandson in his buggy and took him home so where was that officers common sense .
 
Daryl said:
Wow!!!! what a lot of ideas and opinions...

I shoot what I like when I like... never had any problems..ever. But I'm built like a brick **** house so only rugby players ever approach me to ask who i play for? Never played rugger or footy.

Few facts I tell some school teachers and others in convo's like this is.

For a child to be taken /Kidknapped by a stranger off the street is rare as Rocking Horse Poo!

Cast your minds back over all the missing kid stories in the news for the last 10 years if you can.....

It has and is almost always a Family member . Mother/Step mum. father /Step father, a relitive. Or a close friend of the family.

some one in a position of trust. not a complete stranger.

In 7 years with Thames Valley Police we never had any cases come up...child neglect yes! loads of. 99% of the time it's a famliy member.
Click to expand...

True,but the public would see rather the bogeyman out there make a better story :(
 
simonblue said:
True,but the public would see rather the bogeyman out there make a better story :(
Click to expand...

No, sorry, I think the media would see rather the bogeyman out there, make a better story.

Last year I shot an assignment in our local park over about 6 months, how the park was used, who used it and actually more interestingly, how people found their own private spaces.

In all that time I only had one mother approach me angrily, which was a shock at the time and I posted about it on here. However I was calm, explained what I was doing, happily showed her the image. She still insisted she was calling the police to which I happily said I'd wait with her and explain that she was the one breaking the law by using threatening behaviour and by that time i had a number of witnesses ;)

The image? A silhouette of a 11-12 year old boy on a go-ape style course
148282682.jpg



Most of the time if I've noticed I just smile and move on, sometimes I stop and chat. Despite what's often typed on the internet, most peoples British reserve stops them from saying anything. Lets face it, we're a nation of people who Tut :D

However I do feel it's important to challenge those opinions that suggest photographers are instantly up to no good, are perverts or those responses that offer violence.

There was a phrase in an earlier post how many steps removed from paedophilia is it really. Lets put it a different way (and I'm not talkign about members of this forum but the public in general) for those that offer violence as a solution or suggest that photographers are up to no good, do you think comments like that may affect peoples decisions, such as axe wielding maniacs?

Ok that's a long way to travel, but if there's a few loud opinions saying pervert, backed by the media, then some mentally disturbed person could be influenced.
 
Byker28i said:
There was a phrase in an earlier post how many steps removed from paedophilia is it really. Lets put it a different way (and I'm not talkign about members of this forum but the public in general) for those that offer violence as a solution or suggest that photographers are up to no good, do you think comments like that may affect peoples decisions, such as axe wielding maniacs?.
Click to expand...

Not really - the axe weilding maniac (in general terms) is much more likely to be influenced by being a complete head case

appropriate force is a solution to actual paedophiles (I'm not talking about someone in the park with a camera, but rather the example i gave earlier on of the guy shooting over the top of a changing cubicle while a terified child cries inside)

In that situation , laying hands on the perpetrator to make him stop is perfectly appropriate - i still wouldnt advocate hitting him with an axe (however tempting that might be)
 
DavidMartin said:
http://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co.uk/news/report_that_man_took_photographs_of_children_on_winterton_on_sea_beach_1_2322495

Here's what was in our local press this week. Hysterical parent or dodgy character? No matter which way you view the article it unfortunately leads some people to think having a camera in a public place and you're up to no good.
Click to expand...

Pretty inconclusive report, it's not clear how many pics were taken. If it was a couple over a couple of minutes, that's totally different to half an hour and 100 pics.
 
DavidMartin said:
http://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co...._children_on_winterton_on_sea_beach_1_2322495

Here's what was in our local press this week. Hysterical parent or dodgy character? No matter which way you view the article it unfortunately leads some people to think having a camera in a public place and you're up to no good.
Click to expand...

Again only half the story bloody press.

Was he taking photo of her children ?
The police said it was unacceptable behavior what having a camera on the beach or taking photos.
Their was never any mention in the story if that was what he was actually doing :cautious:
 
simonblue said:
Again only half the story bloody press.

Was he taking photo of her children ?
The police said it was unacceptable behavior what having a camera on the beach or taking photos.
Their was never any mention in the story if that was what he was actually doing :cautious:
Click to expand...

It is actually just the kind of story which gives some (Many?) members of the general public, the idea that photographers are not allowed to take images in public places. The fact that the story alleges that the police regard it as unacceptable behaviour will simply reinforce this view.
Difficult times ahead I think.
 
Wow, everything there summed up in just a few paragraphs in a local paper.

No detail in the story, what of the photographers actions were inappropriate, his taking of images, his intrusion into the families personal space, or the altercation with the parent?

All that really does is reinforce the standard media driven perception that all photographers are dodgy.
 
or an example of an idiot photographer getting others a bad name ... but hey lets not take any responsibility for our actions and blame the press for reporting them

I'm not talking about taking the photos , but the way he did it - according to the article the mother noticed him sneaking discrete shots and then confronted him as he left... by which time the up to no good paradigm is pretty much entrenched and the whole situation is primed to go south

if he'd openly approached the parents and said "hi , great day isn't it, blah... anyway i'm taking a few photos today for (insert reason) is it okay if I include your kids in some of them ?" chances are they'd have said yes and then he could " that's great thanks , here's my card, if you'd like copies please drop me an email on address there, fantastic, have a great day " and left them thinking 'what a nice guy' instead of mumbling darkly and thinking of calling 999

If they said no the tog goes " sure, no problem i'll certainly respect your wishes - i'll be taking some other shots here today but i'll be careful not to include your kids, have a great day" and they are still left thinking "what a nice guy"

I can hear the hackles rising and people muttering "he doesn't need their permission, he has a right to take photos" which is true - but equally the parents have the "right" to call the police if they think he's up to no good which spoils the day for everyone... so why not show a little common courtesy and nip all that in the bud while also giving an object lesson that photographers are nice guys , doesn't that work better for everyone ?
 
Last edited:
A lot depends on circumstances, if I was taking general photos on a beach and was approached by some irate parent, I'd tell them to get their kids out of my photos. Usually when shooting a scene trying to get it without people is the problem.
 
big soft moose said:
or an example of an idiot photographer getting others a bad name ... but hey lets not take any responsibility for our actions and blame the press for reporting them

I'm not talking about taking the photos , but the way he did it - according to the article the mother noticed him sneaking discrete shots and then confronted him as he left... by which time the up to no good paradigm is pretty much entrenched and the whole situation is primed to go south

if he'd openly approached the parents and said "hi , great day isn't it, blah... anyway i'm taking a few photos today for (insert reason) is it okay if I include your kids in some of them ?" chances are they'd have said yes and then he could " that's great thanks , here's my card, if you'd like copies please drop me an email on address there, fantastic, have a great day " and left them thinking 'what a nice guy' instead of mumbling darkly and thinking of calling 999

If they said no the tog goes " sure, no problem i'll certainly respect your wishes - i'll be taking some other shots here today but i'll be careful not to include your kids, have a great day" and they are still left thinking "what a nice guy"

I can hear the hackles rising and people muttering "he doesn't need their permission, he has a right to take photos" which is true - but equally the parents have the "right" to call the police if they think he's up to no good which spoils the day for everyone... so why not show a little common courtesy and nip all that in the bud while also giving an object lesson that photographers are nice guys , doesn't that work better for everyone ?
Click to expand...

I would agree in some way,but the story said she only suspected not that she noticed,what the story does not confirm that their were any photos of her children.
So it come across as anybody with a camera just walking or hanging about on a beach area now become a suspect.
Again i will stick to my point it was bad reporting :shake:
 
simonblue said:
I would agree in some way,but the story said she only suspected not that she noticed,what the story does not confirm that their were any photos of her children.
So it come across as anybody with a camera just walking or hanging about on a beach area now become a suspect.
Again i will stick to my point it was bad reporting :shake:
Click to expand...

Thousands of people are on beaches with cameras. I seriously doubt she would complain if he was taking general pics
 
cambsno said:
Thousands of people are on beaches with cameras. I seriously doubt she would complain if he was taking general pics
Click to expand...

In agreement it just would have just been good to know if there were photos of her children.
I know the area a bit,it can be quite remote at that beach say compared to the more popular beaches,i would say maybe anybody using this beach would be looking to get away from the crowd.

:)
 
Speaking both as a Mum and also as a photographer I had to get on the bandwagon. Firstly I don't ever remember my children looking "indecent" in public places and if anyone feels that kids running around on beeches/water areas without being covered from head to toe then its a sorry state - but its like that because the world has gone nuts all because there are some nutters out there ! if every parent was aggressive if you spot a camera then what does it tell your children too? - that its ok to punch anyone who looks in your direction ? who makes them feel safer ? they wouldn't leave your side to go off and play and join in ? to me its about being vigilant yes - keep an eye on what is around you - but you do this anyway as its kind of second nature as a Mum and Dad ?. As for the school activities that changed a lot too and sadly eventually the next generation possibly wont grown up with the school photo memories that some of us have.
 
Nickyj said:
Speaking both as a Mum and also as a photographer I had to get on the bandwagon. Firstly I don't ever remember my children looking "indecent" in public places and if anyone feels that kids running around on beeches/water areas without being covered from head to toe then its a sorry state - but its like that because the world has gone nuts all because there are some nutters out there ! if every parent was aggressive if you spot a camera then what does it tell your children too? - that its ok to punch anyone who looks in your direction ? who makes them feel safer ? they wouldn't leave your side to go off and play and join in ? to me its about being vigilant yes - keep an eye on what is around you - but you do this anyway as its kind of second nature as a Mum and Dad ?. As for the school activities that changed a lot too and sadly eventually the next generation possibly wont grown up with the school photo memories that some of us have.
Click to expand...

Good post.
 
Nickyj said:
Speaking both as a Mum and also as a photographer I had to get on the bandwagon. Firstly I don't ever remember my children looking "indecent" in public places and if anyone feels that kids running around on beeches/water areas without being covered from head to toe then its a sorry state - but its like that because the world has gone nuts all because there are some nutters out there ! if every parent was aggressive if you spot a camera then what does it tell your children too? - that its ok to punch anyone who looks in your direction ? who makes them feel safer ? they wouldn't leave your side to go off and play and join in ? to me its about being vigilant yes - keep an eye on what is around you - but you do this anyway as its kind of second nature as a Mum and Dad ?. As for the school activities that changed a lot too and sadly eventually the next generation possibly wont grown up with the school photo memories that some of us have.
Click to expand...

A very valid and pertinent response. As a parent and grandparent I have never had an issue with the kids in my care.

As I said earlier "Vigilance not fear".

Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top