A sign of the times.....?

Cris_L

Cris_L

Take That's Biggest Fan
Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,923
Name
Cris
Edit My Images
Yes
A while ago I took some photographs of my girlfriends sisters child being christened. She was very grateful and some of the images turnd out to be quite good for a beginner, especially ones from back at the house afterwards.

I took a lot of care with the PP to make them look as professional as I could with my lack of experience and the family were all pleased with them.

So I stuck them on my new Photium website, as the family is very spread out I thought this was a good way they could all see them and let me know if they wanted copies etc.

But then the text message came, could I remove the pictures of the child as they are very concerned about Peadophiles seeing them!! (The child was fully clothed at all times).

I respect their wishes and the images have been removed but who on earth is going to stumble accross my poxy amature website? and even if they did i dare say there are more "interesting" images to sick minds on other websites then the few baby snaps on mine.

Does anyone else find this ridiculous or is it just basic parental safety in this day and age?
 
Sadly yes it is a sign of the times, modern hysteria.

I'm just glad my kids were growing up 20 years ago when this hysterical attitude didn't exist- therefore we've got hundreds of photos of them enjoying sports days, swimming parties and school plays with their friends etc etc, things that wouldn't be allowed today!
 
Its bonkers! Are they Daily Mail readers by any chance? ;)
 
Its just not right is it, I'm not a parent yet but if i really have to be worried about a picture of my child on an amature photographers website then i don't think I'll bother!
 
If they are worried about their pictures on a website being looked at then how on earth do they cope with taking them out in public where they can be seen in real life. Some people even come up real close saying how cute they are and touch them! Who is to say that nice grey haired woman is not just an aged p*** still getting her kicks after all ?
It's worrying that they had the child christened as there seems to be a higher percentage risk in churches, especially Catholic. I have seen lots more reports of people working in schools having an interest too so best not send them to school.
However if the stats are to be believed they are at the greatest risk from a family member/friend so what will they do to save them from that? :bang: :bang:
 
Almost_Invisible said:
If they are worried about their pictures on a website being looked at then how on earth do they cope with taking them out in public where they can be seen in real life. Some people even come up real close saying how cute they are and touch them! Who is to say that nice grey haired woman is not just an aged p*** still getting her kicks after all ?
It's worrying that they had the child christened as there seems to be a higher percentage risk in churches, especially Catholic. I have seen lots more reports of people working in schools having an interest too so best not send them to school.
However if the stats are to be believed they are at the greatest risk from a family member/friend so what will they do to save them from that? :bang: :bang:
Click to expand...

I think I can see where you are coming from...............
 
Almost_Invisible said:
If they are worried about their pictures on a website being looked at then how on earth do they cope with taking them out in public where they can be seen in real life. Some people even come up real close saying how cute they are and touch them! Who is to say that nice grey haired woman is not just an aged p*** still getting her kicks after all ?
It's worrying that they had the child christened as there seems to be a higher percentage risk in churches, especially Catholic. I have seen lots more reports of people working in schools having an interest too so best not send them to school.
However if the stats are to be believed they are at the greatest risk from a family member/friend so what will they do to save them from that? :bang: :bang:
Click to expand...
very good points.
 
I have a similar issue with my brother-in-law's family.

I'm afraid it means I'm rather less inclined to take photographs of his children (especially when playing with my own son) when we visit.

Ho hum
 
Its just a bit annoying. i spent a lot of time getting these images as good as i could and thought they would have the benefit of some nice pictures and i'd have a couple for my website. Seems things only go one way.

I more wonder why on earth they would expect a p**** to lurking about my website!
 
The patents will be apoplectic when the kids get a bit older and start putting pictures of themselves and their friends on Facebook.
 
sorry i know i said this before but...only in the UK..?

goto Brittany 4-5 times a year...kids play on the beach - some topless, some nude

guess what....nobody gives a damn !
 
Have they had copies of the images? if so ask them to destroy the pictures in case somebody see's them and see how that goes down.
 
No they've not...my girlfriend was quite annoyed with the sisters comments and didnt reply. If they ask for copies i'll say yes of course...that will be £xx pounds please!
 
Before we gather the torches and pitchforks, lets gather a little perspective. Yes the request is misguided and certainly to ask by text does seem to undermine the effort made and lovely gesture to provide the shots at all but these parents sound like victims to me.

Sure they could be more open minded and less reactionary but they taking responsibility for their child, which is getting rare these days and not harming anyone in the process.

I do feel for the OP and it does look like he's been treated pretty rudely but lets not judge people who aren't here too harshly eh.
 
Every parent has the right to choose whether their childs pictures are on the net or not... I choose to let mine be, I have their pictures on Facebook and my own website.... a few weeks ago a woman I went to school with messaged me on facebook and said (and this is copied directly) "Just thought I would let you know, that I can see your photos even though we are not friends on FB. I got concerned that others can see. Don't want any perverts see the photos of your little ones". It absolutely enraged me.... firstly she appeared to be questioning my choice to put them on there but what annoyed me more was that it had occurred to her that perverts might look at them in that way. I would never put my children at risk but I also won't wrap them in cotton wool either. The world is so different to when I was kid, my niece and nephew (aged 12/13) were allowed to join facebook because of their repeated complaints that they were being teased for NOT being on there! Better that my sister let them on there and be able to monitor their profiles than them doing it behind her back! It's a minefield but we all just have to be a bit sensible.

I'd take the pictures offline if they've requested it. My policy has always been to assume rights to use pictures I've taken on my website etc but happy to remove any pictures and a clients request, haven't been asked to do that ever but wouldn't hesitate to remove them if I was asked... it's none of my business why someone might want that... remember you never know what their reasons might be and you don't necessarily have the right to ask.
 
If someone across the other side of the planet does chance upon these images and does get off on them, this is going to affect the child and parents how??
Especially if they do not know this person has viewed them.

In years to come there will be no images of kids growing up.
 
Almost_Invisible said:
If they are worried about their pictures on a website being looked at then how on earth do they cope with taking them out in public where they can be seen in real life. Some people even come up real close saying how cute they are and touch them! Who is to say that nice grey haired woman is not just an aged p*** still getting her kicks after all ?
It's worrying that they had the child christened as there seems to be a higher percentage risk in churches, especially Catholic. I have seen lots more reports of people working in schools having an interest too so best not send them to school.
However if the stats are to be believed they are at the greatest risk from a family member/friend so what will they do to save them from that? :bang: :bang:
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that the parents feel that taking the child out in real life where people may come up close still gives them control over who interacts with that child - your example of a grey haired lady pedophile is a little strange given the context.

You may have a point in some of your comments but, linking back to the OP, I assume the parents are worried about the 'faceless, nameless abuser' and, IMO, that must have increased massively given the sharing nature of the web, whether it is a direct abuse of your own child or an image which may lead to the abuse of another, there will be fear surrounding the availability of images of your own child.

This fear has been heightened by the way in which the media plays on those fundamental fears - when some on here were young, the boundaries were just far closer and localised in a community. Now that a perceived monster (akin to the bogey man) will 'do' things over the image of your child is out there in public perception, people will be over protective, especially when warned constantly.

IMO, there is a lot of over reaction and I agree with the OP that a fully clothed and very young child is hardly going to be the target of a child abuse ring. I feel bad for him that innocent photo's can't be shared - especially since there is no doubt in my mind that they will do the same at some stage (if not already) on FB or similar, which, IMO is probably the least safe way of sharing anything.
 
What rubbish. There are loads of kids pics in the next catalogue but doubt any self respecting p**** would be interested in that. These are probably parents who are far too over protective and paranoid.
 
I recently had a shoot with a friend and her two toddlers...it was absolutely delightful, and I came away with some great images.

However, she's asked that I don't publish them.

Of course I'll respect their privacy, but it seems such a shame that such innocent and fun pictures can't be shown because she thinks, rightly or wrongly that there are some strange people out there...

Janet
 
Janet S said:
Of course I'll respect their privacy, but it seems such a shame that such innocent and fun pictures can't be shown because she thinks, rightly or wrongly that there are some strange people out there...
Click to expand...

:agree: and with regards to the OP, yes, I think it is a (sad) sign of the times.

However, I do feel that your girlfriends sister, could have possibly pressed dial and spoke to you / your girlfriend rather than sending a text -> now this is a sign of the times !!!!
 
Spend a few moments back in PP blanking the children's faces (and other recognisable parts, if any) out and put them back up with a sarky comment about overprotective parents.
 
I don't think there was any need for the below comment. We all know the Catholic Church has had problems but i am fairly sure there are abusers in every faith.


It's worrying that they had the child christened as there seems to be a higher percentage risk in churches, especially Catholic.
 
lock 'em all up, then they can't terrorise the children any more...






...the daily mail readers, I mean :D
 
I was shooting a local kids drama show, and one of the parents didn't want her child in any of the photos.. So I had my work cut out with the crop tool and delete key! There were a lot less photos on the CD that year compared to the previous years too!!

What really confused me is that the parent then bought a CD of those photos so her child could "Remember what fun she had"....... That was the point where i decided the world had gone mad! lol
 
I assume the parents are worried about the 'faceless, nameless abuser'
Click to expand...

Who is likely to be a member of the family.
 
Sometimes there are legitimate reasons why photos of a particular child should not be published, but I have only ever had 2 such requests, both from brownie leaders, who were used to the situation and knew that just a quiet word would do, and I'd be careful to avoid taking photos of that child.

Very, very rare though, the 'p***' excuse is bullcrap, finding photos of clothed children is hardly difficult or rare lol...bet the parents are the type that doesn't let them play in the park with their mates, build dens or tree houses, or cycle to school, either...
 
My brother is 16 now but his school banned photo's at the sports day and the christmas play. Both eventually got cancelled, the Christmas play because people brought camears anyway and they were scared of paedophiles getting the images and the sports day was cancelled because they didn't want any children to experience losing.

I think both are ridiculous, losing is an experiencing, something children should come to terms with as thing's won't always go their ways and banning a good experience because paedophiles may get the images is only letting them win.

In response to the Catholic church, I don't think people can really say there is more risk of paedophiles there, because the Catholic church is an easy target and is high profile in the Western World, who's to say the countries were Islam, Hinduism, Taoism are prominent, there aren't more incidents per capita? And if there were more in say Islam, who would have the guts to say it?
 
Thats just it, clothed kids are everywhere. A p**** hardly needs to search high and low to find a picture of a clothed sprog.

i think it does show that these parents will be OVER protective as the kid grows up, which in my opinion doesnt prepare kids for the hard facts of life or to be streetwise.

But thats a different subject i guess, glad to know most people agree that they are crazy!
 
PsiFox said:
Who is likely to be a member of the family.
Click to expand...

Statistically, that may be so regarding direct abuse of the child in question - I probably did not make my point clearly enough. What I should have said is that some parents now have a fear (rational or not) that allowing photographs of their child to be made more widely available to anyone who sees them on a web-site etc is fueling pedophile behaviour.

I think I at least alluded to that when I followed on to say "...that must have increased massively given the sharing nature of the web, whether it is a direct abuse of your own child or an image which may lead to the abuse of another". So, for those who happen not to have a pedophile in their immediate family or social circle they focus on the other issues.

The member of the family most likely has access not only to the child but to images of the child anyway and so I think that it's a little off-track from the point I was trying to make.
 
It's kind of ridiculous that anyone could say a picture of their child could fuel more pedophilia. It's not like children are faberge eggs and hard to find. It's like saying if I take a picture of my backside and post it on my website it will make more people regularly view pornography. And even ridiculous if i'm wearing trousers in the photo.
 
Government sponsored hysteria, fuelled by the media. My stepson was talking about a friend of his the other day. They have a new baby, and they are so paranoid about germs that they use antiseptic wipes on their hands and everything to do with the baby practically every time the poor bairn gets touched or fed.

If you tell people that it's picking up germs and bugs that helps develop strength and immunity they look at you like you're a maniac, but their kids are going to grow up sickly and weak with all kinds of allergies.

How little did we think that the need to keep us all so safe fom Mexican 'flu that there would be an epidemic of alcohol wipe induced dermatitis.

Go children. Go into the gardens and the woods, the streams and the ponds.....

.....and eat worms.

So much better for you than turkey twizzlers and alcohol wipes.
 
Cris_L said:
[Snip]

I respect their wishes and the images have been removed but who on earth is going to stumble accross my poxy amature website? and even if they did i dare say there are more "interesting" images to sick minds on other websites then the few baby snaps on mine.

Does anyone else find this ridiculous or is it just basic parental safety in this day and age?
Click to expand...

It's a sad indictment of society when anyone is afraid to have entirely appropriate images of their child at a family event, taken by another family member, made available via a medium that offers relatives a chance to easily access them.

I'm late on this thread and many strong, valid points have already been made - I have little more to contribute in that respect beyond commending your decision to remove the photo's. From a legal standpoint, the images belong to you - you are the photographer and you are free to use them as you wish but that issue is less simple when family are involved.

I'm not familiar with the site you used to share the photo's and how much control you have regarding access to them. I use Flickr to host my shots and it provides several options controlling who can view my images. Perhaps if you can reassure the parents and demonstrate the images aren't accessible to the general public they might be more accepting of sharing with family via the web.

If you can convince them of both security and convenience it will obviously involve a bit more work on your part since you'll need to set up permission to anyone you want to allow access - it's very easily done but might take time if you have a large family!

Good luck. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top