Photographing Children

[John Doran]

For me as a photographer and a parent, I wouldn't just go to a park or anywhere and take photos of kids without seeking permission.

Whilst the law isn't being broken by taking random shots, it is certainly not worth the hassle. Because, me, being a parent would probably go mental at a random stranger taking photos of my kids without my permission.

If I want photos of my kids, I'll either do them myself or get someone to do them who I have asked.

I am a wedding and portrait photographer and have never had an issue at a wedding nor do I expect any issues anywhere as I play by the social rules. If you get asked to delete the images, do it, if approached by a disgruntled parent, show them the images, give them a business card, apologise and be polite.

The law is on our side as well as theirs. As long as the game is played and we as photographers remain professional (even amateurs can be professional), there won't be any stigmas attached.

However, ask why you would want to take photos of kids, and if you feel in anyway you might get in trouble for doing so, you probably shouldn't be doing it.

 

[cornishboy]

Sorry but if anyone is in a protective situation then they should not put themselves in a public situation

I' think you will find the child has a right to participate in a full curriculum - and this is more important than a parents right to take snaps

 

[cornishboy]

Ever heard of governing bodies and parents association, heck grand parents even doing ground maintenance.

Yep I have heard of all of those - ever heard of parents not reading with their kids, not ever paying for trips, abusing teachers when they don't get their own way? I have seen them as well.

The great majority of parents and schools have a very successful relationship, it is just when people at either end of the scale become petty and ridiculous and do not consider the needs of the children rather than themselves that we have problems.

Just look through the thread - How many needs have been expressed which relate to children???

ie "I need to take pictures " - no you don't, you want to ..

 

[KIPAX]

I am a wedding and portrait photographer and have never had an issue at a wedding nor do I expect any issues anywhere as I play by the social rules. If you get asked to delete the images, do it, if approached by a disgruntled parent, show them the images, give them a business card, apologise and be polite. .

I take it a slight step furthur.. for the last 8 years i ahve a notice on my website saying if anyone wants an image deleted for any reason just email me why and who you are and I will remove it... Some people on TP would tell them no.. and tell them all about how they had a right to take the picture and how they have a laminated printout from some blokes website to prove they can...

 

[John Doran]

Thread is certainly lively.....

Why may I ask, would a child who is under a protection agreement/care order should not be out in a public area/school play/ play park/ etc...??

Really??? Just because someone wants to take photos of kids?? Really??

Sorry but that's utter rubbish.

 

[dejongj]

but if i was at the swings with a young daughter or out shopping and someone just started snapping away at my kids i would stop them.. I have no idea why.. I would just find it wrong,....it must be a parent thing..

i cant believe the responses in this thread ...some people going way over the top...

Personally I think it is you who goes way over the top in stopping anyone taking a photo of of your child. As you say it yourself it is irrational you don't know why you do it and put it on a parent thing.

What is so bad, so wrong about a captured photo? I thought the myth it captures your soul has be debunked a long time ago.

There you go, that is the thread. Yes bad I added, which fits nicely with wrong in this context and in English language, but as per good editing of quotes I did keep your original wrong in there as well. Not putting words in your mouth at all.

 

[John Doran]

I take it a slight step furthur.. for the last 8 years i ahve a notice on my website saying if anyone wants an image deleted for any reason just email me why and who you are and I will remove it... Some people on TP would tell them no.. and tell them all about how they had a right to take the picture and how they have a laminated printout from some blokes website to prove they can...

Nail on the head. It's called professionalism and common sense. Whilst we may have the right to take a picture it does NOT mean that it is right.

Trust me on this.... If a random "photographer" took photos of my kids without permission and when confronted got arsey with me.... They would find their camera and lens suitably inserted up their a£&e whilst picking their teeth up with broken fingers.

 

[dejongj]

Thread is certainly lively.....

Why may I ask, would a child who is under a protection agreement/care order should not be out in a public area/school play/ play park/ etc...??

Really??? Just because someone wants to take photos of kids?? Really??

Sorry but that's utter rubbish.

It is a difficult one, obviously you cant label a child in that situation or put a high visibility jacket on. So the only one that is aware of that situation is the child and possibly its carers.

So what do you think is the solution, not take any photographs of any children at all? Have camera makers put rfi in cameras and tag your own child such that any others are blurred? What?

 

[KIPAX]

There you go, that is the thread. Yes bad I added, which fits nicely with wrong in this context and in English language, but as per good editing of quotes I did keep your original wrong in there as well. Not putting words in your mouth at all.

I must be missing somehting here mate... I ahvent a clue what your point is... seriously no idea? I am not taking the mick.. i really dont have a clue what point your making...your quoting me so i am interested

 

[dejongj]

Nail on the head. It's called professionalism and common sense. Whilst we may have the right to take a picture it does NOT mean that it is right.

Trust me on this.... If a random "photographer" took photos of my kids without permission and when confronted got arsey with me.... They would find their camera and lens suitably inserted up their a£&e whilst picking their teeth up with broken fingers.

And you do that in front of your kids, nice. They'll see daddy beating another innocent man to pulp for taking a photograph, followed by the police taking you away. How is that helping your children to grow up?

 

[dejongj]

I must be missing somehting here mate... I ahvent a clue what your point is... seriously no idea? I am not taking the mick.. i really dont have a clue what point your making...your quoting me so i am interested

Well you started by saying you find it wrong, although you have no idea why. Then later on you quote me back saying that like you never said it. That is all.

 

[Marc]

Well you started by saying you find it wrong, although you have no idea why. Then later on you quote me back saying that like you never said it. That is all.

I believe he was originally referring to the manner in which the photographer would be taking photos rather than the taking of photos per se.

 

[KIPAX]

Well you started by saying you find it wrong, although you have no idea why. Then later on you quote me back saying that like you never said it. That is all.

I NEVER SAID TAKING PICTURES OF MY KIDS IS WRONG

I said in certain situations a complete stranger walking up and taking pics of my kids in front of me while enjoying a normal activities...i would find wrong... his actions.. not the actual concept of my kids pics being taken..


jeeeeeeeeeze wheres me crayons

 

[KIPAX]

I believe he was originally referring to the manner in which the photographer would be taking photos rather than the taking of photos per se.

correct and i only saw this after i replied under your response ..above

 

[John Doran]

It is a difficult one, obviously you cant label a child in that situation or put a high visibility jacket on. So the only one that is aware of that situation is the child and possibly its carers.

So what do you think is the solution, not take any photographs of any children at all? Have camera makers put rfi in cameras and tag your own child such that any others are blurred? What?

I agree it's a tough choice but ask yourself what would you do in that situation? You are the responsible adult/carer for said child... What would you do?

Schools have a duty of care to children so if they ban cameras then so be it.

There is no easy answer but the simplest is, if you feel that anyone might take offence, dont do it. If you do and someone has a go, don't be surprised.

 

[dejongj]

I NEVER SAID TAKING PICTURES OF MY KIDS IS WRONG

I said in certain situations a complete stranger walking up and taking pics of my kids in front of me while enjoying a normal activities...i would find wrong... his actions.. not the actual concept of my kids pics being taken..


jeeeeeeeeeze wheres me crayons

And I didn't say you said that See post #49 where I quoted you verbatim. It was all in the context.

Hence also my comments on that the one who is ott is you in my opinion, and you can't even explain why. I guess it is down to words only being 7% of our communication.

 

[cornishboy]

So what do you think is the solution,

What about don't let the parents take pictures until after the event when particular child can be spirited away with out anyone noticing - or would that impact on the parents rights?
However some poor sod will have to stand up or send a letter and say no photos and then all the parents will moan...on websites and say the head is a ****** and their liberty is at risk..(You can see where this is going can't you?)

 

[John Doran]

And you do that in front of your kids, nice. They'll see daddy beating another innocent man to pulp for taking a photograph, followed by the police taking you away. How is that helping your children to grow up?

Seriously?? So you are "one of those" photographers are you? Mint. The type who have actually caused this mess. Brilliant. Well done you. And yes, I would happily go to nick for protecting my children from a NO SWEARING

Don't lecture me how to behave in front if my kids nor their upbringing.

My point is this, if you are arrogant enough to think that because you have a right to photograph, it's no wonder the issues photographers have.

As long as people play by the rules of society there won't be any problems. And I'll stay out if prison... Personal Insult Removed.

 

[KIPAX]

I agree it's a tough choice but ask yourself what would you do in that situation? You are the responsible adult/carer for said child... What would you do?

Schools have a duty of care to children so if they ban cameras then so be it.

If anyone looks at my website they will see I ahve thousands upon thousands of pics of shool sports... single and group shots..

The event organisor has a meeting before the event.. speaks to all group leaders.... part of that is to tell them I am onsite and taking pictures..

the group leaders then relay the contents of the meeting to the teachers who are responsible for there set of kids..

The teachers should then know if anyone inthere care is not to be photographed and i am informed..

its impossible for the photogrpaher to ask every child.. the person in charge of the child is the only person who know they cant be photogrpahed and would inform me.


this doesnt work for the hundreds of pocket cameras and phones..it also doesnt work for CCTV or lots of other ways we are all recorded.. but the concept is that mine will be more widely seen by the general public..

 

[KIPAX]

I guess it is down to words only being 7% of our communication.

Agreed...So lets have a virtual handshake and leave it at that then

 

[John Doran]

If anyone looks at my website they will see I ahve thousands upon thousands of pics of shool sports... single and group shots..

The event organisor has a meeting before the event.. speaks to all group leaders.... part of that is to tell them I am onsite and taking pictures..

the group leaders then relay the contents of the meeting to the teachers who are responsible for there set of kids..

The teachers should then know if anyone inthere care is not to be photographed and i am informed..

its impossible for the photogrpaher to ask every child.. the person in charge of the child is the only person who know they cant be photogrpahed and would inform me.

this doesnt work for the hundreds of pocket cameras and phones..it also doesnt work for CCTV or lots of other ways we are all recorded.. but the concept is that mine will be more widely seen by the general public..

This is highly commendable and professional. As long as people are informed and aware the issue can be avoided.

 

[dejongj]

Seriously?? So you are "one of those" photographers are you? Mint. The type who have actually caused this mess. Brilliant. Well done you. And yes, I would happily go to nick for protecting my children from a NO SWEARING

Don't lecture me how to behave in front if my kids nor their upbringing.

My point is this, if you are arrogant enough to think that because you have a right to photograph, it's no wonder the issues photographers have.

As long as people play by the rules of society there won't be any problems. And I'll stay out if prison... Personal Insult Removed.

Out of interest, in your hypothetical situation you pictured a photographer being arsey if not willing to show or delete the photos. How exactly do you think you are protecting your children by beating up the photographer and from what are you protecting them.

For the record I have never implied to be "that kind" of photographer. However if your interpretation is me being arsey when I refuse to delete a photo taken in public by another member of public than I wonder what you do when I accidently cut you up in traffic. Perhaps it is emotive bravado thinking it makes you a better parent, however if you are serious you should seek some help in my opinion.

 

[seriousrikk]

Trust me on this.... If a random "photographer" took photos of my kids without permission and when confronted got arsey with me.... They would find their camera and lens suitably inserted up their a£&e whilst picking their teeth up with broken fingers.

This is the sort of attitude that causes problems. The irrational desire to protect your kids from something unknown coupled with a willingness to carry out irrational acts of violence.

All the other stuff you have posted in this thread is sound and sensible advice but this comment? What would violence actually achieve? Oh that's right, nothing...

Oh, and there is a very high chance you would be wrong. I have never knowingly taken a photograph of a child in my life - yet I have been accosted on two occasions by an angry parent threatening violence because they thought I did.

 

[deadpan]

Do people really want to stuff a camera lens down someones throat and then knock teeth out? in front of children?

Amazing protection skills!!

I say expose children to as much danger as possible in a controlled enviroment, then they grow up well rounded and have far fewer unrational fears

Stranger danger culture makes me cringe, we recently came back from holiday and my personal highlights were having a snack in a cafe and talking to strangers from around the country.Restored my faith in people and the insular society we seem hellbent on creating

I grew up being told watch out for the dirty old man who lives on the corner, damn sure if he ever approached us we would run like hell (never happened) these days i can imagine kids frozen with fear unable to run/protect themselves, because they have not been taught how to.This is of course assuming they are allowed out in the first place

 

[SarahLee]

Some of the posts in this thread are starting to cross the border of acceptable forum behaviour.

By all means, discuss the issue and express your opinions - but posts which start to become personal or aggressive will not be tolerated.

I'm going to leave things as they are, since we seem to be getting back on track. However, take this as a warning to play nice and keep it constructive.

 

[John Doran]

Firstly I appologise for the swearing. I did try to stem it by not using the full term of phrase but this is still obviously upsetting those to who it was directed.

Secondly, whilst yes I came across as aggressive, I personally don't care. The fact if the matter remains that taking photographs of children whilst in a public place may well be legal, it is most certainly not socially acceptable..... [Just like fighting in public before anyone jumps in and decides to quote me].

As for driving, yep... I have also been known to get upset when muppets nearly cause an accident by careless driving. Endangering life by means of car accident via negligence is also socially unacceptable.

Now we have established that swearing in the form of £@@&£ isn't permitted nor is being aggressive in any shape or form, please feel free to photograph children in public as often as you like, but don't be surprised when the law changes because some fools who assume they are right don't play by the [unwritten] rules of society.

Letting children experience danger is one thing, when it is controlled... When some Mong takes matters out of your control as a parent that's a different story.

Just one more point. Mods: if you feel the need to modify a post, please have the curtosey to message the offenders.

Cheers

 

[Decca]

Does this not all boil down to common sense and respecting people's boundaries?

Take for example in the park - You see a parent look warily at the camera you give them a nod, say something like "it's ok I won't" smile and very deliberately turn the camera away. You see a parent who does not seem to mind you say "would it be ok if.."

It's really not the end of the world if you have to go find another subject to photograph.

Tell you what though, it's adults you have to watch for a lot of the time in photos, I set up an amazing shot (for me in my town with nothing in it anyway). Took my big tripod and all my gear to a super secret spot I know where the shot would go Lake, ducks, rowing boats, mini railway platform, mini train.
I spent an hour waiting for the train to start because for some reason it was parked too far down the platform, I also have the problem that to get it all in it's all quite low down and there is goose **** all over the floor so I'm focusing on trust and can't really check my pictures till after;
light, check
gear, check
in frame, check
ducks, check
train, coming round.

Train goes past *clack*, train goes past *clack*, train again, parks where it shouldn't, I wait and repeat the next time it goes round. I also take one more shot of the train itself from a different point.
I get home and then I realise that the driver is not the usual kindly old man who bought a train drivers uniform out of his own pocket, it is some chap that has stepped right out of 1980s Liverpool with the 'tash and starsky hair.
He is also staring at the camera like he's going to rip it from my hands and stomp on it, it was a genuinely frightening look and it's in every photo. To do this the complete ******* had to really turn round in his cab and look at me.
If he didn't want me to take photos of him all he had to do was slightly turn his head the other way and he would not have been in view. 6 hours down the drain because of that tit.


tl:dr. This is why I like taking photos of dogs.




*D300 goes clack not click, it is a stunning noise.

 

[John Doran]

Does this not all boil down to common sense and respecting people's boundaries?

Take for example in the park - You see a parent look warily at the camera you give them a nod, say something like "it's ok I won't" smile and very deliberately turn the camera away. You see a parent who does not seem to mind you say "would it be ok if.."

It's really not the end of the world if you have to go find another subject to photograph.

Tell you what though, it's adults you have to watch for a lot of the time in photos, I set up an amazing shot (for me in my town with nothing in it anyway). Took my big tripod and all my gear to a super secret spot I know where the shot would go Lake, ducks, rowing boats, mini railway platform, mini train.
I spent an hour waiting for the train to start because for some reason it was parked too far down the platform, I also have the problem that to get it all in it's all quite low down and there is goose **** all over the floor so I'm focusing on trust and can't really check my pictures till after;
light, check
gear, check
in frame, check
ducks, check
train, coming round.

Train goes past *clack*, train goes past *clack*, train again, parks where it shouldn't, I wait and repeat the next time it goes round. I also take one more shot of the train itself from a different point.
I get home and then I realise that the driver is not the usual kindly old man who bought a train drivers uniform out of his own pocket, it is some chap that has stepped right out of 1980s Liverpool with the 'tash and starsky hair.
He is also staring at the camera like he's going to rip it from my hands and stomp on it, it was a genuinely frightening look and it's in every photo. To do this the complete ******* had to really turn round in his cab and look at me.
If he didn't want me to take photos of him all he had to do was slightly turn his head the other way and he would not have been in view. 6 hours down the drain because of that tit.

tl:dr. This is why I like taking photos of dogs.

*D300 goes clack not click, it is a stunning noise.

Priceless. :0)

Serves you right for shooting Nikon. ;0)

 

[Marc]

Just one more point. Mods: if you feel the need to modify a post, please have the curtosey to message the offenders.

Please have the courtesy to stay within the rules so that we don't have to modify posts.

 

[John Doran]

Please have the courtesy to stay within the rules so that we don't have to modify posts.

Touché.

 

[malo50]

Firstly I appologise for the swearing. I did try to stem it by not using the full term of phrase but this is still obviously upsetting those to who it was directed.

Secondly, whilst yes I came across as aggressive, I personally don't care. The fact if the matter remains that taking photographs of children whilst in a public place may well be legal, it is most certainly not socially acceptable..... [Just like fighting in public before anyone jumps in and decides to quote me].

As for driving, yep... I have also been known to get upset when muppets nearly cause an accident by careless driving. Endangering life by means of car accident via negligence is also socially unacceptable.

Now we have established that swearing in the form of £@@&£ isn't permitted nor is being aggressive in any shape or form, please feel free to photograph children in public as often as you like, but don't be surprised when the law changes because some fools who assume they are right don't play by the [unwritten] rules of society.

Letting children experience danger is one thing, when it is controlled... When some Mong takes matters out of your control as a parent that's a different story.

Just one more point. Mods: if you feel the need to modify a post, please have the curtosey to message the offenders.

Cheers

If you think everyone you interact with is a Mong or a muppet, perhaps you need to look at yourself. You and other posters have sneered your way through what could have been a constructive discussion. Anyone new to this forum would wonder what they'd walked into.

 

[Tokkelossi]

Pythons, tarantulas .... not kids. Violance, threats, looks, temper ..... just for a photo?

So tommorrow on Jerry Springer we will be talking to a tog that had 20 kids by 15 mothers. His reason ....... wanted to take kid photos for his portfolio hahahahahha

T

 

[John Doran]

Well,

Having read the thread and posted my opinions, as have others, it certainly seems apparent that there is a strong for & against of taking photographs.

Barring the calling someone a Muppet and showing my aggressive side when it comes to snardy "I'm allowed to take photos here cos there ain't no law against it" type photographers, [who IMO drag the photographic industry through the mud]....

The fact remains that parents [not all, but most] feel concern/uneasy when it comes to a strange person in a park/playground with no kids of their own in sight, taking photos of other people's children.

Following on, by what has been previously said, "I'm not deleting it because I have a right to be here" type attitude thus causing further problems. Police get called, aggressive behaviour may ensue and thus drags the profession through the mud.

As I said, please feel free to take photos... But do not be surprised if Mr Angry dad gives you a hiding for being uptuse and clever.

I won't continue on this thread anymore as this could go on for years and to be Frank.... I'm bored of it already. Just remember that whilst you taking an innocent photograph without consent will potentially lead to the law changing where we as photographers will not be allowed to photograph anything or anyone unless permission is given.

Dragging the hobby/profession through the mud will only lead to bad things.

 

[dejongj]

Pythons, tarantulas .... not kids. Violance, threats, looks, temper ..... just for a photo?

So tommorrow on Jerry Springer we will be talking to a tog that had 20 kids by 15 mothers. His reason ....... wanted to take kid photos for his portfolio hahahahahha

T

ROFLMAO

Interesting solution.

I find it sad though that some seem to think violence is more socially acceptable than a photograph being taken. Then again I can't say I have ever experienced that bar from some bar or forum talk.

I would love to learn answer to how a fotograph taken is endangering the protection of a child. As a parent I find many other things than the appearance in someones photo.

 

[Decca]

I said in another thread (I think) that I cannot let people take photos of me and my children together, if my violent psycho ex-husband is able to identify and place them then I will have to move area/county/hundreds of miles away again. He knows what I look like but not them. This is why you can only take photos of my children so long as me/my parents are not in shot.

This absolutely endangers them. Not everything is black and white, people have genuine reasons for not wanting you to take a picture and photographers need to respect that sometimes the boogeyman is real and he/she has a name.

 

[dejongj]

Absolutely, but other people aren't mind readers. How are they to know? Likewise how does he find them, sure even a psycho doesn't scan millions of photos on the internet and then hope the exif or description contains some location information. I would calculate the chances bigger to get a mate of his bump into you.

My wife hates having her picture taken, as does my mum, they've perfected the art of stepping aside real quick. And in my opinion when you see anyone do that, any normal human being respects that. It would be stalking otherwise.

PS. Sorry to hear about your ongoing ordeal.

 

[Depth of Focus]

Hi Will;

Perhaps you may find this web site helpful, UK only.

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html

 

[Decca]

Absolutely, but other people aren't mind readers. How are they to know? Likewise how does he find them, sure even a psycho doesn't scan millions of photos on the internet and then hope the exif or description contains some location information. I would calculate the chances bigger to get a mate of his bump into you.

Because you explain the situation concisely and calmly. I don't know where that picture may end up and I am not willing to take any risks, I don't live in an area where I may bump into him or any of his non-existent mates. Yes I'm paranoid, but then again so is every parent/foster carer in my kind of situation - remember there are currently 80,000 children in foster care in the UK.
Clearly the vast majority of the fear from parents comes from ignorance and press fear mongering but photographers need to suck it up and be the better person because throwing a paddy isn't ever going to change anyone's mind.

 

[dejongj]

Hey can't blame you to take not to take any risks. And if anyone were to come up to me calmly and ask for removal I'd probably oblige anyway.

In comparison there are what about 16M children in the UK, why would the other 15,920,000 be denied the enjoyment of seeing their photos?

 

[big soft moose]

Hey can't blame you to take not to take any risks. And if anyone were to come up to me calmly and ask for removal I'd probably oblige anyway.

I agree but at the same time I also agree with your previous post that the risk of anyone tracking helen down through finding a picture on a strangers photo hosting is so minimal as not to be worth considering

Assuming that she hasnt actually completely assumed a new identity there are far easier ways to track someone down, like for example credit checks, financial records, and health records (especially as IIRC one of decca's kids is SEN) - the 'risk' posed by an anonymous photo is actually probably lower than that of posting identifiable imnformation on a forum.