Candid photography involving children in public

[Les McLean]

On the flip side its basically saying you can't take photos of kids because you might be a p***. Its also then branding every photographer near a kid as a p*** and creating a state of fear where by everyone with a camera might be a p***. I know you yourself are not saying that photographers are pedos, but look at it from the Daily Mail point of view and thats basically where we'll end up. "Is that guy on his phone or taking photos of my kids so he can rape them later?"

It's more about consent Pete, within most organisations, informed consent is the norm. For example (within child & adolescent mental health), it's usual to video family interactions within a 'family therapy ' setting. Not only do we seek the families consent to video, we also inform them who will view the video, how and where it will be stored and when it will be erased, and gain consent for this.

If informed consent was used in a photography setting, with explanations around the use and distribution of the images (of the children), I see no problem whatsoever.

I agree, the 'daily mail syndrome' always intrudes on discussions like this, making it an emotive argument rather than a rational debate

 

[Wraith]

Its not just us/togs though is it.. the same women having a go at the 11 yr olds football match can probably remember the days she popped out to the shops and left her front door unlocked. Or didn't have to worry who was following her home from the post office and didn't have to triple check the leccy man come to read her meter..

It's life as we know it

Nope, it just means that back in the days when she could go out and leave her door open she had nothing worth nicking...

I don't recall signing up for that. So you'll forgive me if I stand up for my rights to take photographs as I see fit. I'm not a p***. I'm not doing anything wrong. If someone sees my work in that way then there's something wrong with them.

Exactly, but those people who are willing to look at it as something wrong or are willing not to do it in case they offend or upset someone are helping to erode your rights...

 

[InaGlo]

Its not just us/togs though is it.. the same women having a go at the 11 yr olds football match can probably remember the days she popped out to the shops and left her front door unlocked. Or didn't have to worry who was following her home from the post office and didn't have to triple check the leccy man come to read her meter..

It's life as we know it

And thats kind of my point also... yes the internet is a new/modern way for unsavoury people to share their dispicable habbits, but thats the downside of the new/ modern technology.
We dont hear of peeps screaming for a ban of the internet.

 

[Byker28i]

You do at all the under 11 matches I attend. and theres two teams playing so where you invited by both clubs or just one? clubs pay for the use of the pitch and as far as I am aware (could be wrong) its not a public place if its been hired by the people using it.

My youngest has just started playing rugby and I've not met anyone with any objections there.

 

[SimonTALM]

Slightly off the OP's topic (for the moment) but as les points out the issue of paedophiles is nothing new and I actually wonder if the real risk to children from strangers has actually increased or whether it is just the percieved risk that has increased? I am pretty sure that there are hard stats to demonstrate that children are at greater risk from people known and trusted by the parents e.g members of their own family / friends / people of power (teachers / sports coaches / after school club leaders etc) so I wonder if there is there actually a statistically significant increase in the quantity of stranger related child sex crime? If there is would this be related to the risks posed by internet chat rooms rather than public access dangers.

Trying (desperately) to link this point back to the OP's topic; I wonder if our concerns as photographers about being cautious of taking photos of children are actually related to the percieved risk rather than the real risk? :shrug: As I think about the question again of would I be happy taking photos of children in public, my answer remains no - but I am starting to question why this is and I am struggling to come up with a convincing arguement why I'm not :bonk:

 

[Les McLean]

Im sure the P****/grooming subject has been in touched on in all our minds during this thread.
Im also sure that there are at least one or two of us who like Les, have some kind of personal experience of such from one side of the fence or an another.
But can I ask a question here regarding what you say Les, and if its a dumb one I appologise, but it is a genuine thought in my mind and not an argument for arguments sake...

Of course, like everyone I have read so much about how Paedos use the internet to circulate, and how it has made things easier for them. But I wonder, has it really made things so much easier for them?
Is it all so one way?
I certainly hear of more paedophile rings being infaltrated, & smashed these days than ever before, and I have the feeling that though the internet can work in their favour, it can just as easily work against them and make them easier to find.
I know that internet grooming goes on, but isnt it fair to say that most child sexual abuse tends to happen between a child and adult that they know & trust very well, and so are less likely to speak out against.

I can certainly see your argument Les, & I think Candid child photography all comes down to acting with sensitivity and common sense, and there will never be a concrete right or wrong answer to how to go about it.

Regards the internet, yes it can work against them, but mainly for them- to give an example of how it's used.

The 'ring' members visit parks/public places, photograph children in quite innocent activity.

these images are circulated around the ring, and it becomes a beauty pageant (the concept is abhorrent and difficult to grasp), with a shortlist of 'possibles', the ring then tries to find out more about the children on the shortlist, and attempt to infiltrate their lives somehow-befriending the family, youth clubs etc-leading to grooming-abuse.


On another point-I agree most abuse is carried out by a family member.

As for rings being smashed, yes they are, but (and another big but), it's sometimes difficult, as an example a few years ago their was a 'satanic-abuse' circle within a part of Yorkshire, and on top of the abuse, there was death threats against some of the staff working with these children who I was responsible for .The difficulty was that the abusers had protection by senior staff within some of the statutory organisations, making it like wading through treacle attempting to break the ring.

 

[Les McLean]

All part of the erosion of rights and us giving up our rights....

....and providing extra rights (and protection) to more vulnerable members of our society.

 

[petemc]

It's more about consent Pete, within most organisations, informed consent is the norm. For example (within child & adolescent mental health), it's usual to video family interactions within a 'family therapy ' setting. Not only do we seek the families consent to video, we also inform them who will view the video, how and where it will be stored and when it will be erased, and gain consent for this.

If informed consent was used in a photography setting, with explanations around the use and distribution of the images (of the children), I see no problem whatsoever.

I agree, the 'daily mail syndrome' always intrudes on discussions like this, making it an emotive argument rather than a rational debate

I completely agree. At the very least you should try and get a name. I've talked with editorial photographers and they say you at least need a name. Annoyingly there are some events when its not possible so I have to show things in an editorial way. If someone has issues with that than its their problem, mainly.

Two classic examples that I've thought over a lot.

I was at either 24 or 10mm for this, right next to them. You can see that the guy totally spotted me. My first thought was if you don't want to be photographed don't turn up to a demonstration with labels on your kids pram. So I took the photo. I'm so glad I did and didn't shy away over some p*** alert issue. The parents knew what I was doing, and if they had issues could have stopped me right there and then.

This one was a lot harder to decide on. I took it using my 100-400 at probably 400mm. It was taken at a street festival and she was performing. There was no way I could have got her name as she was in the parade. There was no way I could have got her parents name. In the end I decided to publish it on my website. I figured that no-one else could have got consent either and its just the sort of photo you'd see in the papers. There's nothing to take out of context. Its simply presented as a photo of a young girl performing.

 

[Panzerbjorn]

I've put my views forward on the other forum but not everyone here will have seen so I'll reiterate.

Last week I was in Bournemouth taking some candids of people enjoying the sunshine as part of a uni project. It must have been half term for at least some of the primary schools in the area because the gardens and the beach was packed with families with small children.

Children as a photographic subject don't necessarily interest me (maybe it will when I have kids of my own, I am still but a young gent). I was primarily looking for images of adults but with so many children around it was hard to not get them in the frame at some point or other.

Now I didn't feel comfortable (and like some others, I can't really explain why) but I made a point of waiting until the kids were out of frame before taking the shot and the one instance where I miss-timed my shot I deleted the image immediately.

Saying all of this, no one came up to me even to ask what I was up to, never mind to kick off or anything like that.

I personally believe that there shouldn't be an issue. There was nothing secretive about what I was doing, It's quite hard to be secretive in the middle of a footpath with a D50+18-200 fully extended strapped to your face. However, for what ever reason - current social climate etc I didn't feel comfortable with kids in shot.

Panzer

 

[pxl8]

I have a real problem with the idea of photogrraphy in parks, etc being socially and/or morally unacceptable under the banner of protection. Restricting rights in this manner only forces the criminals to adjust and adapt. So they'll stop using parks and switch to the high street or somewhere else. Before we know it we've banned cameras in all public places for the sake of protection.

At this point the criminals start using "hidden" cameras and carry on as before whilst anyone owning a "normal" camera will be presumed guilty and have their name on a dozen different lists.

It's all very well having laws that are designed to protect but they are utterly pointless. Would a padeophile really care about breaking a law thats says it's illegal to photograph/film children in a park/public place when their intention is to break laws with a much harsher sentence?

The answer is simple, stop treating the symptoms of the disease in order to look good and cover your back and start working on the real problem. Something, that IMO, should happen with many different aspects of today's society but won't happen when votes, power and position can be won or lost on thoughtless decisions spun to sound appealing.

 

[Marcel]

Why do we as photographers feel uncomfortable?

Purely and simply because we don't want to be branded as a paedophile, or for it to be even hinted at. Thats why.

Its a shame really.

 

[Marcel]

pxl8 I agree.

Les, I agree with the concept of what you're saying, and as an ideal, it's great. Unfortunately, I fail to see how stopping people photographing children in public is going to help stop these paedophile rings. If the child abuse laws (and the social disgust that is attached to any child abuse) fails to stop them, then making it socially unacceptable to photograph a child in public isn't really going to do much to stop it is it?

 

[Les McLean]

pxl8 I agree.

Les, I agree with the concept of what you're saying, and as an ideal, it's great. Unfortunately, I fail to see how stopping people photographing children in public is going to help stop these paedophile rings. If the child abuse laws (and the social disgust that is attached to any child abuse) fails to stop them, then making it socially unacceptable to photograph a child in public isn't really going to do much to stop it is it?

Two points, firstly I agree, it won't stop paedophiles going about their business, but it will make it more difficult for them to use images of children for grooming. There is real evil out there, and any obstacles put in their way must be worthwhile.

Similarly, criminal background searches of potential employees working with vulnerable people didn't stop abusers being employed, but it made life a lot more difficult for them.


The second issue (and more important IMO) is informed consent.

Everyone who has to go into hospital has to sign a number of consent forms, for a variety of purposes, a few years ago this this was never heard of, and I know it's partly to do with potential litigation, but mainly to do with protecting peoples rights, at least you should know when the wacky surgeon opens you up what he's going to do, take out, replace, and you have given informed consent to the treatment.

I see seeking consent prior to taking images of children as being no different.

And I don't see any of this as an erosion of folks rights, I tend to look upon it as extending folks rights, i.e. you have the right to consent (or not) a photographer taking images of your children.

 

[pxl8]

Les informed consent is a complete non-starter. It's just impossible to implement - what happens if your're shooting a crowd, or a child runs into shot, etc... Even if you ignore that the other aspect won't be workable either. If the pictures go online, even in a private gallery you've lost control - what if the PC the images are stored on need to go in for repair?

In the more tightly controlled environment you described earlier it's workable but back in the real world it "ain't no part of nothin'"

 

[Wraith]

And then it will be the "why is it just children" brigade who start, then we won't be allowed to photograph adults either just in case we are going to stalk and commit a criminal act against them...

 

[Les McLean]

Les informed consent is a complete non-starter. It's just impossible to implement - what happens if your're shooting a crowd, or a child runs into shot, etc... Even if you ignore that the other aspect won't be workable either. If the pictures go online, even in a private gallery you've lost control - what if the PC the images are stored on need to go in for repair?

In the more tightly controlled environment you described earlier it's workable but back in the real world it "ain't no part of nothin'"

I agree, but it shouldn't prevent the photographer from seeking consent if at all possible.

 

[pxl8]

That should, IMO, be best practice already.

 

[InaGlo]

I dont really get 'informed consent' either.
If a guy in a park wants to take pics of some children playing, asks the parents if its ok, they say yes... maybe even go as far as signing a scrap of paper to say they agreed to it.
How will this then stop a P**** in an internet ring passing on the pics to the next guy inline to move on to the next step?

 

[tigerimages]

Pete - those two photos, the first very tenous and the second both the kids are doing something. You're a pro and your looking for photos with stories. It's not the same as walking around a park and taking photos of a girl with a teddybear doing "nothing".

 

[Les McLean]

I dont really get 'informed consent' either.
If a guy in a park wants to take pics of some children playing, asks the parents if its ok, they say yes... maybe even go as far as signing a scrap of paper to say they agreed to it.
How will this then stop a P**** in an internet ring passing on the pics to the next guy inline to move on to the next step?

Informed consent is now widespread (rightly so) regarding photographing children, for example, school photographers generally have to have parents consent before they can go ahead.

It won't stop all pedos, but at least it will make it more difficult for them, and as most pedos are generally very cunning, they won't want to be identified (which they would if they asked for consent), which could prevent them starting the grooming process.

At the end of the day, I see it as giving people (parents mainly) choices, they can generally say yes or no, and any parent would I guess say no to a stranger taking images of their child.

 

[CT]

It's only a few years ago that the Paedophile Society Of Great Britain, actually tried to get a bill through The Commons abolishing the age of consent for sex, seeking and advocating sex with children down to the age of 6 months. The bill got nowhere but the mere fact that they felt confident enough to try shows how loony attitudes in this country have become.

Like Les I've had a lot to do with cases of child abuse, and while we're rightly concerned about the internet, child abuse within families is probably a far bigger problem - it always has been, but rarely comes to notice because the child invariably still loves its abuser. I recall a case of a baby boy routinely sodomised by his father. When it all hit the fan and the child was examined at the age of 6 months, in the words of the paediatrican ' "Four fingers could be inserted in the baby's bottom with ease" Mind boggling and defying belief, but it's not uncommon.

Sorry -it's not edifying but that's the reality and it's a long way from photographers taking pics in public places.

 

[Byker28i]

Thanks - I think this thread really has hit the bottom now.

 

[Trev Rich]

Thanks CT.. Really didnt want to read that:thumbsdown:

 

[h4rri]

Agreed, don't come here to read that sort of thing! Far too graphic.

 

[CT]

LOL. That's what paedophiles do and I'm sorry guys, but you don't think it's strange that you don't really wanna hear about it, but it's OK to accuse photographers innocently taking pictures?

 

[h4rri]

LOL. That's what paedophiles do and I'm sorry guys, but you don't think it's strange that you don't really wanna hear about it, but it's OK to accuse photographers innocently taking pictures?

I was not making accusations and you are talking about different ends of the subject now.

Do you honestly find it funny? I personally am disgusted by the story and I fail to see how anyone can enjoy regalling people of such detail.

This is a serious turn for the worst on the thread but this is ultimately the way most of the threads of this nature go

 

[Cobra]

LOL. That's what paedophiles do and I'm sorry guys, but you don't think it's strange that you don't really wanna hear about it, but it's OK to accuse photographers innocently taking pictures?

That is uncomfortable to read for "normal" people agreed, but CT made a very valid point and backed it up with a "f'instance" no more no less than anyone else trying to prove a point

 

[CT]

No I don't find it funny - I've had to deal with far too much of it. What I do find funny is this indignation at being confronted with some facts you'd rather not have to deal with and it's fairly typical - as long as we keep it as a nice abstract subject we don't have to think about too much, it's OK to accuse some poor sap who's just taking pictures for all the right reasons of being a P****, and even offering him physical violence.

I'm off to brave the traffic but if anyone wants to delete my post they can feel free.

 

[chuckles]

If anybody deletes it CT I'd be mortified.... I whole-heartedly endorse what you've reported and support the candor in which it has been written.

No, it's not off-topic. It's only the logical conclusion that a thread of this nature can reach. It's the truth of the whole thing. It's what happens.... not some ethereal "violated child" wrapped in the complexity of the English language. It happens... this is what it causes. If it shocks? ..... Good! Show a speeding motorist a smashed a twisted car with it's mangled occupants and they soon alter their opinions.

Now ... where do we vote to string the b*$%^^s up?

 

[ShawWellPete]

What a sad world we live in.

 

[Trev Rich]

LOL. That's what paedophiles do and I'm sorry guys, but you don't think it's strange that you don't really wanna hear about it, but it's OK to accuse photographers innocently taking pictures?

Im sorry CT but I've never accused anyone of being a p***..
I've simply state that if someone was SLYLY talking photos of my kids in a park then I would smack them silly :bonk:

 

[Steep]

This one was a lot harder to decide on. I took it using my 100-400 at probably 400mm. It was taken at a street festival and she was performing. There was no way I could have got her name as she was in the parade. There was no way I could have got her parents name. In the end I decided to publish it on my website. I figured that no-one else could have got consent either and its just the sort of photo you'd see in the papers. There's nothing to take out of context. Its simply presented as a photo of a young girl performing.

Which illustrate my earlier point exactly, if you had been somewhere in Africa you (or anyone) would have taken the shot and the idea that you might need permission would never have crossed your mind.

I think Les' attitude that it should not be allowed 'just in case' is a major problem. Where does that end? should it be a crime to smile at a child? to be within 100 yards of a child? to go somewhere a child might happen to be, or any of a million other maybe's "without express permission" from parents/authority? And if you think that what about the next vulnerable section of society and come to that which do gooder gets to decide who or what is vulnerable?

I don't have kids, never will have, that doesn't make me a pervert and I absolutely refuse to be held to ransom by some 10p newspaper fueled hysteria.

 

[Marcel]

I don't have kids, never will have, that doesn't make me a pervert and I absolutely refuse to be held to ransom by some 10p newspaper fueled hysteria.

I do have kids and I agree with you
I refuse to be pander to the media hype.....and besides...I think it's 20p

 

[Witch]

Firstly - - to CT for having the courage to post what he did above. It's very easy for people to take the moral high ground - often regarding subjects they know little more about than what they read in their tabloid of choice. It's a damned sight harder for someone to post something like that which they KNOW to be the facts, regardless of how hard-hitting that it. I can't even begin to imagine where the suggestion that perhaps CT finds it "funny" comes from - nowhere in his post does he begin to suggest that he finds it in the least bit funny - in fact I would suggest that he makes the absolutely opposite abundently clear.

I can honestly forsee a time - probably not so far down the line - where every single one of us who has an SLR or DSLR camera has to register our ownship of it on a government run database. Will it prevent chuild abuse and paedophile rings using photographs of children - obtained illicitly - for their own ends? No, any more than a ban on unregistered firearms has prevented people being shot.

 

[Les McLean]

I think Les' attitude that it should not be allowed 'just in case' is a major problem. Where does that end? should it be a crime to smile at a child? to be within 100 yards of a child? to go somewhere a child might happen to be, or any of a million other maybe's "without express permission" from parents/authority? And if you think that what about the next vulnerable section of society and come to that which do gooder gets to decide who or what is vulnerable?

I don't have kids, never will have, that doesn't make me a pervert and I absolutely refuse to be held to ransom by some 10p newspaper fueled hysteria.

Sorry Steep, but that's not what I said (or implied), I came from this issue from the experience of working in a service where we daily worked with children who had been abused, and I saw this approach (gaining consent)as supporting childrens rights, providing protection to a vulnerable section of society.

And if you were to check with most photo-agencies, they need to gain consent before publishing images of children.

It's a level headed, common sense approach, without any fuss or hysteria. And it's not a 10p newspaper fuelled approach, if you check with most child protection legislation, informed consent is implicit within the framework.

I think your attitude may be different if you did have children, I'd be very unhappy if I came across a stranger taking images of my kids without my consent.

 

[Les McLean]

No, any more than a ban on unregistered firearms has prevented people being shot.

No, but a lot less number of people have been shot as a result of legislation.

 

[Witch]

No, but a lot less number of people have been shot as a result of legislation.

I'd be interested to see that comment backed up with some facts?

 

[chuckles]

No, but a lot less number of people have been shot as a result of legislation.

I'm not so sure that's the case at all Les...... :shrug: I'm fairly certain gun crime related hasn't reduced either. My perception is that the Police is more 'tooled up' than it was before those crazy massacres.

As for the iconic pictures of Bert Hardy of the Forties and Fifties which leaves us with the legacy of a Pictorial History of Street Urchins begs the question, "What is our pictorial legacy going to be?"

 

[Groucho]

Its not only adults than have the concept that anyone with a camera taking pictures of kids is a peadophile, and although i dont agree with them, i can sort of understand if they have kids and want to protect them, which is a natural parenting instinct, from all the evils in the world.

But this thread reminded me of an incident that occured to me last year.
I had just bought my new alpha100 with a sigma 17-70 lens and where i live is right next to huge playing field with football pitches, kids playground and a skateboard park and i thought i would take my camera over there to try it out.
I stayed away from the kids playground area and walked past the skateboard park where there were a lot of teenagers, not all skateboarding, some were just sitting around the embankment in little groups chatting and generally mucking about as kids do.
So i carried on walking with the camera around my neck and walked about 50 yards until i was in a clear area with no one in the near vicinity, turned round to take a wide angle shot of the whole park, no sooner had i lifted to the camera to my eye when one of the teenagers shouted out at the top of his voice`peadophile` and they all looked at me.
I was really shaken by the remark and thought of going back and saying something, but thought better of it and just went back home, feeling shattered by the whole experience and the feeling lasted for days and have not been back since.

So since then my take on it all that regardless of whether i am in my rights or not i will not take pictures where kids are
normally are, its not worth the risk of upsetting others or myself, after all its no big deal in and not the end of the world if you dont or cant, its just a hobby after all which should give you enjoyment not confrontation and possible agro.

To them that insist on doing so, go ahead its your life and live it as you fit, after all what you are doing is not illegal, and usually only causes upset to others and if your hobby is worth that, then go ahead.

A final thought, its not illegal to push in front of a queue, so you can push in whenever you like, but generally we dont because we are going to upset others and probably get the proverbial smack in the mouth.

Thanks for reading this long winded view of mine

 

[Steep]

I'm not suggesting for one second that photographers are paedophiles , but, and it's a big but, by making it morally/socially unacceptable to take photographs of children without consent, if it saves just one child from being groomed and abused, then it's a price worth paying.

Sorry Steep, but that's not what I said (or implied),

That's the way it reads m8, the 'if it saves one child' bit just doesn't wash for me, how would banning photography of children save a child from harm? Do you really think that someone with assault or murder on their mind is going to be put off by it?