Photographing Children

[Smeggypants]

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.

Classy.

 

[deadpan]

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.

I would be inclined to NOT post that info on a public forum if it were me in that situation.As the Internet grows it gets smaller and smaller IMO

 

[dejongj]

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.

Yes, I would agree with that. Although saying that I wonder whether Google's new image matching techniques would make it easier if you already had a picture of someone.

I really don't get how and why photography became so sensitive. I've got lots of photos in the bath with my bits visible from when I was little. Now people get concerned about an innocent snap in during a school play apparently.

Yet at the same time I see children running around by themselves after sunset on the streets and hanging by the shops. Where are the parents then that are so against a photo? Or do they want money for the photo?

 

[big soft moose]

I would be inclined to NOT post that info on a public forum if it were me in that situation.As the Internet grows it gets smaller and smaller IMO

Yep that was my thinking too - theres a lot of identifiable info in some of Helens posts with regard to her kids school, her name, her location, shots of the back garden and view which could bre used to pin down an address etc - If I were hiding from someone and worried enough not to want to be photographed I'd be inclined not to put any of that on line ( I editted my above post to remove reference to the specific info so as not to gather it in one place.)

 

[dejongj]

BTW Isn't this thread useless without pictures of children Here are two of my daughter in our garden. Happy to share.

1.

_DSC8804 by JP de Jong, on Flickr

2.

Chasing the butterflies by JP de Jong, on Flickr

 

[dejongj]

And my elder daughter at her sports day.

3.

_DSC8219 - Version 3 by JP de Jong, on Flickr

4.

_DSC8229 - Version 2 by JP de Jong, on Flickr

 

[deadpan]

I typed a lengthy reply but didn't click post, refreshed the page and I found the best reply!!

What a little star she is Remember take LOADS of pictures of them as they grow QUICK and back them up at least TWICE

Bravo!

 

[barneyrubble]

Yep that was my thinking too - theres a lot of identifiable info in some of Helens posts with regard to her kids school, her name, her location, shots of the back garden and view which could bre used to pin down an address etc - If I were hiding from someone and worried enough not to want to be photographed I'd be inclined not to put any of that on line ( I editted my above post to remove reference to the specific info so as not to gather it in one place.)

I typed a similar response out earlier. Searching the Internet is a far more likely cause of discovery than a random photo.

As a dad I get a bit fed up of all the looks when out with my kids, but I always make sure my shots are of my kids. No one has challenged me yet, but I've had a lot of looks from people. The school my kids go to must be fairly liberal, they allow photography whichbis great.

 

[big soft moose]

Yes, I would agree with that. Although saying that I wonder whether Google's new image matching techniques would make it easier if you already had a picture of someone.
?

I think - though i wouldnt swear to it - that google, and tin eye etc only work on finding the exact same image, a psycho ex can't just upload a pic of his/her ex partner and get hit on all pictures of them

(and like i said there are far easier ways - A mate of mine who's an ex red cap now a PI told me awhile back that since the interweb given a name and a date of birth he could trace pretty much anyone from the comfort of his desk, without doing anything illicit. So long as they are living legally and arent using an assumed identity which is very difficult to do without state assistance - I was sceptical so he demonstrated by finding an ex class mate of ours who neither of us had seen or spoken to since 1994 - and it took him all of 30 minuites to come up with address , phone number, and email)

So on the whole i dont buy the protection angle as a good reason not to take someones picture - but I do think common courtesy dictates that you dont take a pic you've been asked not to unless its clearly in the public interest (like survielence of dodgy dealings etc - irrelevent to the topic at hand)

 

[whiteflyer]

I just can't understand the parents who moan about a photographer taking shots of their child.

Your child is filmed and photographer EVERY SINGLE DAY by an unelected and unseen person at the end of a CCTV camera.

If your so concerned about images of your child being taken then start to campaign to have EVERY single CCTV camera in Britain removed.

 

[dejongj]

I typed a lengthy reply but didn't click post, refreshed the page and I found the best reply!!

What a little star she is Remember take LOADS of pictures of them as they grow QUICK and back them up at least TWICE

Bravo!

Thanks And yes loads of backups.

And both the school and parents were very happy I was there with my 'big camera' as the P&S and the iPhones just didn't capture those moments.

Much nicer to celebrate the positive, capture the team work, than to focus on the negatives. Not withstanding that it is good to teach about the potential dangers in context, and also how to avoid privacy issues.

 

[Tokkelossi]

I look at those pics, Jean-Pauls girl is lovely. They all make me smile and remember the wonder of being young.

It is what life, love and being part of a family/community is all about.

It reminds me of the film 'Soilent Green' when Edward G is on the table about to die and they show him picture of fields, cows, kids playing.

I will miss photos of kids when there gone. I was lucky, I was there when we could take them

Tom Tokkelossi on this the 10th day of July in the year 2011 (Photographer Deceased)

 

[big soft moose]

BTW Isn't this thread useless without pictures of children

I don't (can't) have kids of my own , and I cant find the ones of my nephew but herewith a shot of a couple of kids of an acquaintance

and i have to say looking at the state of that lot i definitely wouldnt be photographing their kids without prior permission

(incidentally thats Milton Keynes Barrel bikers presenting a cheque to the assistance dogs charity at 'pups in the park' in 06)

 

[dejongj]

LOL Tom, thanks and there is still time to fight back

BSM, I bet they are just bank managers and school teachers by 'day'

 

[big soft moose]

BSM, I bet they are just bank managers and school teachers by 'day'

My mate 'Yogi' who's the dubious looking one with the sunglasses in the middle is/was a landscape officer - and the big chap with the hat runs a custom bike shop I think - but yeah its a front patch club so they are all thoroughly nice chaps and not remotely 'heavy'


but i still wouldnt want to upset them lol

 

[deadpan]

Whoaa now slow a down a minute, said CCTV are in place for our safety! Don't you read/watch the news? Danger is everywhere, far safer to stay in sterile enviroments and consuming whatever is latest must haves!

(tongue firmly in cheek)

I just can't understand the parents who moan about a photographer taking shots of their child.

Your child is filmed and photographer EVERY SINGLE DAY by an unelected and unseen person at the end of a CCTV camera.

If your so concerned about images of your child being taken then start to campaign to have EVERY single CCTV camera in Britain removed.

 

[dejongj]

My mate 'Yogi' who's the dubious looking one with the sunglasses in the middle is/was a landscape officer - and the big chap with the hat runs a custom bike shop I think - but yeah its a front patch club so they are all thoroughly nice chaps and not remotely 'heavy'


but i still wouldnt want to upset them lol

See I knew it Bet they just get a little 'excited' at times.

 

[Decca]

That whole "but you put information on the internet" argument is weak, I had my PS3 details stolen and the child benefit people left my details on a train, only good thing about this is that this house is not in my name.
On the internet at least I don't have to use my real name. Sure I'm not that logical, I just don't want pictures on the internet of me (as I look now), or me with my children, they are my children I get to decide no one else, no matter how illogical you think I am being.

 

[big soft moose]

Bet they just get a little 'excited' at times.

bikerphobia is just a stereotype - my parents in law are both in the Vulcan Riders Association, and I used to have a Harley until an unplanned interface with a bmw, a superman impression, and a broken collar bone persuaded me of the merits of four wheels rather than two

the BB guys are all very calm and placid - but it doesnt mean that it would be wise to be photographing their kids without it being okay with them

( I recall a story about a sad case in san deigo who was unwise enough to expose himself to the daughter of a large hairy biker - they reportedly put his todger over a wall and hit it with a bat )

 

[dejongj]

That whole "but you put information on the internet" argument is weak, I had my PS3 details stolen and the child benefit people left my details on a train, only good thing about this is that this house is not in my name.
On the internet at least I don't have to use my real name. Sure I'm not that logical, I just don't want pictures on the internet of me (as I look now), or me with my children, they are my children I get to decide no one else, no matter how illogical you think I am being.

Hey don't get me wrong emotively I agree with the sentiment and don't even think it is that illogical, however reality is different in the UK under UK law it is unfortunately not your decision. Best you could hope for is that when asked kindly people wont do it.

But take my daughters taking of the baton for example. I thought it was a great moment, the determination in her eyes, the team work in passing the baton. Should I not have captured it because others are in the shot? Should I not share it? I think it is a great moment seeing the blue team cheer their final runner, should I blank them all out for the future?

I would find it sad if I had to, and I would seriously consider leaving the UK if it comes to that we treat children like that. There are already calls for banning of children in restaurants, future generations and other cultures will look weird at us. I think tom was right, all the fun family things aren't allowed, but leaving them alone on the streets to enjoy booze and sex (highest teenage pregnancy rates anyone) is fine. It makes me really sad thinking about that possible future.

 

[big soft moose]

That whole "but you put information on the internet" argument is weak, I had my PS3 details stolen and the child benefit people left my details on a train, only good thing about this is that this house is not in my name..

I was really commenting on the wider issue rather than your specifically but the argument isnt weak at all- how hard do you think it would be to identify your kid's school from the info you've posted about it (vis the statement about the railings, the trendy head master, the school photography etc) then as you've posted pictures of your kids on here it would just be a case of waiting outside and following them home... or bluffing the school into giving the information out (unless of course all the information you've posted in various threads is made up - but that would seem a bit pointless and i'd wager that it isnt)

Come to that if you've applied for any form of credit, rented any property, or paid any utility bill, or paid council tax, or registered to vote, or subscribed to any magazine or mail order, or bought anything and registered a guarantee then your name and address will be on a database that a PI can access and search for a small fee. I'm not trying to scare anyone but the point is that having your picture taken by a stranger is waaaay down the list of possiblie risk factors for someone who is trying to hide. (come to that ironically it wont be that hard for a PI to get a view of the 'child at risk' register - cant be done legally (i dont think) but council's are quite information porous)

And incidentally while I wouldnt take pictures of anyones kids without their consent ,legally speaking you arent correct - if you go out in a public place anyone can take your photo , whether you like it or not

 

[Decca]

If no one objects then you are fine, and that's the point, your school allows photos to go on the internet and parents/carers who are worried because of genuine concerns for safety would already be aware of this and would have had a word or not even sent them to sports day. Plus, as you can keep nothing in a school secret, I would assume you would have known if there was a child in the picture who may be at risk and would have kept them out of shot anyway.


I am more worried about parents who scream about "internet perverts" while allowing their little darling to play 18+ games or go on the internet unattended - mostly for my sanity rather than their safety/purity.

 

[dejongj]

Helen I agree don't get me started on playing 18+ games. Mine aren't of that age yet, and I make 100% certain I don't play anything like that unless they have gone up to bed or are out. Shock horror when I saw my nephew on the playstation network asking me to join in a game, he was 12 at the time. I declined and had asked my wife to have a word with her sister discretely, her reaction (a qualified teacher) was that it is ok, the ratings are nonsense anyway....Now 4 years later I am getting the requests to help with downloading warez, music etc Again the parents are oblivious and see nothing wrong it....Fair enough says more about the parents...Aargh told you not to get me started Helen

 

[Toggerman]

I'm with John Doran and Kipax here. If it's at an event (sports day, airshow etc.) then I have no problem with pictures being taken within reason. ie. at and airshow I expect photos of my kids to be taken as part of the crowd or if they're doing something interesting/cute, I wouldn't like it if someone was only photographing my kids constantly.
Likewise I also wouldn't like it if someone started snapping away at them if they were just walking down the street doing nothing specific, and even less if they started following my kids around.

2 questions come into my head about this subject though.

1. If a random person is shooting nothing but your kids, when does it cross into harassment?

2. How does it stand legally if someone snaps my kids and then tries to sell me the images? Do they need me to sign model releases or is that only for big commercial photography?

 

[big soft moose]

2 questions come into my head about this subject though.

1. If a random person is shooting nothing but your kids, when does it cross into harassment?

2. How does it stand legally if someone snaps my kids and then tries to sell me the images? Do they need me to sign model releases or is that only for big commercial photography?

1) If a random person is following your kids arround repeatedly taking their picture (or yours for that matter) I think it would fall under the stalking laws - and you'd be well justified in saying 'I say you bounder , just what in hades do you think you are doing.. my seconds shall be calling upon you if you do not cease and desist at once ' (or something like that - I've been told off for using bad words so I cant put the exact words i'd use in this situation )

2) Not in the UK - model releases are not required by law - some agencies /employers insist on them but its not a legal requirement.

 

[deadpan]

 

[dejongj]

Hey if someone starts following your children around I would call the police, you are getting into a whole different territory there.

Your scenario

1) In my opinion it crosses into harassment when you experience it as harassment. Grey areas, someone down the street, in the part just taking a snap and moving on I don't think you can ever call that harassment even if think it was. Someone testing their buffer on their camera in the park with your child as a subject, shooting 100 photos in quick succession. Yup I've been there, wouldn't class it as harassment but a good test subject as children a quick movers. Anyway point is, imo you can't give a blanket answer to that. When I do something like that, I make certain I am noticeable and don't do it 'sneeky' if that makes sense. Someone I know actually wears a high vis vest when doing street stuff.

2. Don't think that in the UK model release forms are legally required, some buyers may prefer them but that is a different matter. But don't hold me to it, I don't do this to earn a living.

 

[big soft moose]

. When I do something like that, I make certain I am noticeable and don't do it 'sneeky' if that makes sense. Someone I know actually wears a high vis vest when doing street stuff.
.

Definitely - i'd be far more concerned about someone hiding in the bushes taing pictures of kids with a long lens , than i would about someone wandering about in full view

and i agree about the hi vis - it make a lot of people think you are official (mine says "Photographer" on the back in big letters which reinforces the impression), and defuses concerns in others - i mean after all if a P**** was taking pictures of kids to photoshop on to porn he wouldnt set out to draw attention to himself

 

[Toggerman]

Thanks for the answers guys. I knew the answer to no1 as that falls into the "read the situation" and "common sense" categories, but I was curious to hear what other photographers thought.

i mean after all if a P**** was taking pictures of kids to photoshop on to porn he wouldnt set out to draw attention to himself

If I may go a little off topic here, quite often the easiest place to hide is in plain sight and as you said your hi vis photographer jacket diffuses concerns in some, probably meaning they allow you to take pictures up close and personal without hassle. Just something to think about.

'I say you bounder , just what in hades do you think you are doing.. my seconds shall be calling upon you if you do not cease and desist at once '

I shall be using that quote, if nothing else it'll confuse them long enough for me to get really close

 

[Jonathan Shl]

Great job Garry

My point is very simple. Im over the park, no camera, watching kids play. Im left alone. Should I have a camera .... im a problem.

Here is the simple fact. When you the parent come to me because i 'might' be some sort of evil person and after you have asked me what im doing, i will tell you this 'fact'

If you are looking for a child abuser my friend, look in the mirror. Because the simple fact is most children are abused by people they know. Go question your own family about who is doing what. See what reaction you get from them.

Then come back a see the tog you dont know sitting on the bench over the park taking photos.

Im sick of the 'bogey man everywhere' syndrome. It is uncle Pete sitting your kid while you out, it is his camera and not mine that is the problem. It is the woman in day care, her camera is the problem. How about a priest over the park?

A teen care home in Jesrey? At no point has there 'ever' been a street photographer done for child abuse or their computer looked at by police because of imagies of kids playning.

Lets get real. The images of your kids you fear the most are the ones we dont dare imagine ....... not them over the park on the swings. The images you and i fear are done at home, in a class or changing room ....... im going to shout now

'not over the park or high street'

I couldn't agree more; it is quite simply the case that the main child abusers - both sexual and especially otherwise - are in the family. A close family member who has 30+ years as a teacher reckons that seven of the nine cases of sexual abuse that happened to her pupils were within the family. Even in terms of sexual abuse, all the vetting systems IMHO are looking in the wrong direction. Also, not all child abuse is sexual - it can be physical, emotional, etc... such as Baby P.

Besides, if threatened with violence my first response would be "don't make me defend myself" possibly followed by "scumbag"; anyone demanding your camera with threats of violence may be committing robbery. I consider such people to be bullies who should be stood up to. I expect some sort of trouble when I'm in urban areas anyway; and I'm often on guard. Although I don't go after children, I choose street-based vantage points and I often use a bicycle to travel to/from since I can often make a quick getaway if need be.

Also, a SLR rig would be pretty handy if I had the misfortune to need to exercise my right to use reasonable force to protect myself. I may have dropped out of medical school but I still know which bits to go for in self defence (although I seriously hope that I never have to). The side of the head is a good one if the worst comes to the worst; "below the belt" (above the crotch) will also incapacitate quite nicely for a good dose of pain. I do not condone violence in any circumstances other than self defence.

 

[Fionab]

I would not be happy if someone took a photograph of my son....the reason.... HE would not be happy. I am luck to get an odd sneaky shot of him and I know he wouldnt be happy with anyone else taking his photo.
but there is a reason for it..... he has alopecia and as such is very self conscious..... if he was happy getting his photo taken then i wouldnt bother if someone took it..........
after all what exactly can an image of a child fully clothed be used for??????

I do and will take images of children if an image is crying out to be taken..... I dont go out my way to take them but if an image screams to be taken then i will take it.

One thing I have noticed tho...... my partner is also a photographer... and if we are away anywhere and we go thru a park or a place where there are lots of kids........... HE gets funny looks, no one bothers about me......... yet HE is the Staff Nurse and the one disclosed up to the hilt as he works with vulnerable people........
Me im just female......... and as few people take female photographers seriously they dont seem to worry about them being near their precious bundles of joy with a camera..

Just goes to show the judgemental attitude of people these days.

 

[Carter64]

Constantly amazes me. Kids are great, as in them selves and as photo Ops. Garry's pic is an example. I actually get really annoyed at the Daily Fail mentality. I'm a great hater of the 'p**** paranoia' that pervades us taking what should be just pics of kids being kids.

 

[Carter64]

Sorry to rant but my son (who's now almost 21) had pics I took of him naked at 3. Purely for leverage What's happened to the world?

 

[Auwyn]

I couldn't agree more; it is quite simply the case that the main child abusers - both sexual and especially otherwise - are in the family. A close family member who has 30+ years as a teacher reckons that seven of the nine cases of sexual abuse that happened to her pupils were within the family. Even in terms of sexual abuse, all the vetting systems IMHO are looking in the wrong direction. Also, not all child abuse is sexual - it can be physical, emotional, etc... such as Baby P.

I think its safe to say that having dealt with nine (known) cases of sexually abused children over 30 years is a long way from making your teacher friend an expert.

It would be true to say that most child sexual abuse victims are known to their abusers, however a good number are people not legally related to them, friend of the family, mums boyfriend etc. Sexual abuse comes from all walks of life, including those that fall outside of family members. Whoever it was that said earlier in the thread that no street photographers have ever been arrested with indecent images is wrong. It happens. The prevalence doesnt matter if your or one of your relatives is a victim of that lesser occurring offence. Over 20% of the victims your family friend dealt with were abused outside the family. They need protection too.

Having said all that, this debate is polarised by stupid arguments. People on one side insist on their rights to take photos whenever and of whoever, regardless of circumstance. People on the other side use examples of someone following their child around with the camera on continuous shutter, with no acknowledgement from either side that there is any common ground.

As a child protection social worker and as a mother and soon to be grandmother (I know, Im too young to be a granny) I believe most posters in this thread need a kick in the pants and a reality check.

 

[Tokkelossi]

Could you tell us about the case of the street photographer(s) who got done for child abuse?

Where did it happen?

I dont remember hearing about it. I would be very interested.

Whoever it was that said earlier in the thread that no street photographers have ever been arrested with indecent images is wrong. It happens.

As a child protection social worker and as a mother and soon to be grandmother (I know, Im too young to be a granny) I believe most posters in this thread need a kick in the pants and a reality check.

 

[dejongj]

Reads to me that instead of going around kicking people you should brush up on your comprehension skills first.

 

[big soft moose]

Auwyn , spot on - and also lets not forget that grooming for sexual abuse is only one reason that sick ****s take photos of children.

As I mentioned in another thread a freind of mine who's a relatively senior cop once gave me (and my then colleagues) a full breifing on crimes of this nature and some of the stuff that goes on boggles the imagination - and turns the stomach

For example their is apparently a burgeoning market in 'innocent' pictures of children which are then cut out in photoshop and used to 'refresh' child porn images by giving the a different identity - and these 'donor' pics are usually snapped in the street because low res shots off the internet pixelate when added to higher resolution files.

and almost unbelievably apparently most of the people who take and manipulate these images are not themselves paedos - (in the same way that many drug dealers are not users) and thus escape ready detection or punishment, if they are stopped "look officer all the images on my camera are harmless"

Of course i'm not saying that every , the majority , or even a sizeable minority of street photographers are involved in such *****, and I would like to believe that no one here is - but it does happen and persisting in believing that everyone in the park with a camera is on the upp and up is a naive as believing that no one is.

@tokkelossi - do you really belive that there is not one single solitary street photographer anywhere thats up to no good ? - your faith in human nature is touching. Also as most child abusers are arrested when their victims come forward (sometimes years later) if they were a street photographer as a hobby wouldnt necessarily ever get recorded - do we know how many of the paedophiles arrested in the uK each year also own digital cameras ? (as far as i know we dont but i'd be very suprised if its nil)

You seem to be misunderstanding the issue - its not a case of a 'street photographer' taking a few photos then luring a child into the bushes and raping them - its more a case of Paedophiles taking pictures of potential victims to fantasise about and/or as a very early part of the grooming process to help with 'selection' (plus the other distatesful options i outlined above)

 

[Tokkelossi]

Would anyone here object to a guy over the park with a tape recorder?

 

[Tokkelossi]

Pencil & paper?

 

[Tokkelossi]

A photographic mind?