Candid photography involving children in public

[InaGlo]

I still dont get how 'consent to the taking of pics' can stop any sicko doing whatever they want with them after the fact.
Not all Paedophiles are registered offenders are they?
Yes I know agencies and the like use consent forms but, my view of that is that its more likely to do with payment/should the image be used to earn money etc ... as well as to protect themselves against accusations of the type of media-hyped reactions in this nannystate country ... and not to actually protect the child!

 

[Les McLean]

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

Number of Deaths from Firearms Injury - United Kingdom

1994-341
1995-358
1996-254
1997-198
1998-229
1999-207
2000-204
2001-193
2002-181
2003-187
2004-191
2005-185
2005-210


The major legislation regarding firearms was a result of the Cullin report (1996) as a consequence of the Dunblane shooting.

As you can see prior to Cullin, the number of deaths was around 300 per year, reducing to around 200 per year post Cullin. A significant reduction.

Therefore, 100 less deaths a year make the legislation worthwhile (IMO)

 

[Les McLean]

I still dont get how 'consent to the taking of pics' can stop any sicko doing whatever they want with them after the fact.
Not all Paedophiles are registered offenders are they?
Yes I know agencies and the like use consent forms but, my view of that is that its more likely to do with payment/should the image be used to earn money etc ... as well as to protect themselves against accusations of the type of media-hyped reactions in this nannystate country ... and not to actually protect the child!

From the Press Complaints Commision Code of Practice in relation to children.

http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html

6
*Children


i) Young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion.
ii) A child under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents.
iii) Pupils must not be approached or photographed at school without the permission of the school authorities.
iv) Minors must not be paid for material involving children’s welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest.
v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child’s private life.

*Privacy

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications. Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent.
ii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent.
Note - Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.​

 

[Cobra]

Sorry off on a tangent but I just love statistics

Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[26] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06
Just because no one died its still gun crime and still rising since the ban.
"we" all said that following a handgun ban "only criminals would own them" thats as true today as it was in 1997

 

[Steep]

According to the link below knife crime rose by 60% in the years between 1999 and 2004

http://www.insight-security.com/facts-knife-crime-stats.htm#Statistics - the numbers

My point here is to illustrate that if you stop the bad guys one way they simply move on to another.

 

[wack61]

According to the link below knife crime rose by 60% in the years between 1999 and 2004

http://www.insight-security.com/facts-knife-crime-stats.htm#Statistics - the numbers

My point here is to illustrate that if you stop the bad guys one way they simply move on to another.

Gun legislation didn't stop the bad guys having guns because they didn't have licences to take away, also a number of the firearms deaths quoted in the figures above were due to farmer suicides, something gun legislation will never change as farmers will always have guns

 

[Marcel]

ii) A child under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents.

But that's in respect to their welfare, which has nothing to do with candids in a public area.

 

[dod]

you can make statistics say whatever you want, here's another govt link showing gun crime on the rise, page 24

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hors298.pdf

None of this changes the fact that by labelling a photographer as a "potential" molestor it's insulting to the photographer and detrimental to our hobby and our rights. I'd be interested in some facts showing how many genuine photographers have actually been charged and then convicted of abuse.

It's a bit like saying all blokes must be rapists because they've got a penis.

Oh, and still nobody has answered the OP's question about why it would be immoral to photograph kids in legitimate candid photography :shrug:

There have been good cases for why there could be occasions where it would most definitely be undesireable. Everything else is suspicion and hysteria. I can to an extent understand it given the media but I don't think it's right.

 

[petemc]

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".

Yeah but you know I am, but out in the real world its not like I wear a sticker saying "Pro photographer, not p***" I'm hardly going to take a photo of a girl with a teddybear unless the light is lovely and it does have a bit of a story to it. But again, from someone elses point of view it may look "wrong".

 

[KIPAX]

Oh, and still nobody has answered the OP's question about why it would be immoral to photograph kids in legitimate candid photography :shrug: .

Maybe because the OP didn't ask that.. He asked what would be our views about taking such pictures and I answered him straight away.. as did many others. He got many answers to the question he asked. Lets not twist this about too much eh?

 

[Les McLean]

But that's in respect to their welfare, which has nothing to do with candids in a public area.

But this has

It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent.
Note - Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

[h4rri]

I made the 'funny' comment in respect to the LOL applied to the comment following my show of indignation. I see that the OP didn't mean it to be funny but it did iritate me, it's a subject close to me as a parent and I am sensitive to it.

I think I'll back out of this thread now.

 

[dod]

Maybe because the OP didn't ask that.. He asked what would be our views about taking such pictures and I answered him straight away.. as did many others. He got many answers to the question he asked. Lets not twist this about too much eh?

eh?? read it again, he quite clearly refers to the legal and moral issues. You still haven't actually given any reason for "it's wrong" by the way despite being requested to frequently.

After a member posted some candid photographs over on another forum, the issue of legality and morality when taking candid pictures involving children kept raising it's head. The images were taken in a park and the parents were with the children in the images.

What are your views on the subject? Would you be comfortable taking candid pictures which involved children in a public park for example? If so why and if not, why not?

Are there any specific legal issues or grey areas which may affect photographers? Does the law differ in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?

 

[Les McLean]

Sorry off on a tangent but I just love statistics

Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[26] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06
Just because no one died its still gun crime and still rising since the ban.
"we" all said that following a handgun ban "only criminals would own them" thats as true today as it was in 1997

But 87% of those 'injuries' are threats of violence rather than actual violence, which wasn't the case (to such a degree prior 1997) so my statement still stands regarding reduction of people being shot regarding legislation.

But I suggest we leave the statistics, (lies, dam lies etc) as it isn't relevant to the discussion, the only reason I responded in the first place was I was asked to back up my statement (which I did)

 

[Marcel]

It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent.
Note - Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

There really aren't many areas in public where one can have a reasonable expectation of privacy, so that argument (for the most part) becomes moot.

 

[Les McLean]

There really aren't many areas in public where one can have a reasonable expectation of privacy, so that argument (for the most part) becomes moot.

I don't think so Marcel, the principle still stands, everyone has a right to privacy, and any intrusion of that privacy (ie taking photographs of children) , should only be undertaken with informed consent.


While there are some unavoidable exceptions -large crowd scenes etc, I feel comfortable with this concept, I think it's a sensible, reasoned approach.

At the end of the day, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this?

 

[KIPAX]

eh?? read it again, he quite clearly refers to the legal and moral issues. You still haven't actually given any reason for "it's wrong" by the way despite being requested to frequently.

He quite clearly asks what we as photographers think.. I answered him.. Be happy with that

 

[pxl8]

I don't think so Marcel, the principle still stands, everyone has a right to privacy, and any intrusion of that privacy (ie taking photographs of children) , should only be undertaken with informed consent.

Then the simple answer is that when you want privacy go somewhere private. Anyone standing in a public area complaining that don't have any privacy is a picnic missing the sandwiches :nuts:

 

[Les McLean]

Then the simple answer is that when you want privacy go somewhere private. Anyone standing in a public area complaining that don't have any privacy is a picnic missing the sandwiches :nuts:

So I'm sitting in the park with the wife and kids, and a stranger comes up and starts taking photographs of the kids....sorry, it doesn't wash, that is invading my families privacy, and I'd be pretty p****d at the stranger.

 

[Panzerbjorn]

I don't think so Marcel, the principle still stands, everyone has a right to privacy, and any intrusion of that privacy (ie taking photographs of children) , should only be undertaken with informed consent.


While there are some unavoidable exceptions -large crowd scenes etc, I feel comfortable with this concept, I think it's a sensible, reasoned approach.

I thought that being out in public automatically waved this right to privacy. If it was the case then every CCTV camera/satellite would have to be taken down.

Surely by your logic, all candid photography should be banned because it infringes on everyone's right to privacy?

Panzer

 

[KIPAX]

Then the simple answer is that when you want privacy go somewhere private. Anyone standing in a public area complaining that don't have any privacy is a picnic missing the sandwiches :nuts:

good grief..... OK your on a beech in summer... a mother is changing her kids into swimwear (they all do it and everyone turns away) . your saying its OK for you to photograph that because there on a public beech and no right to privacy..and if anyone says anyhting you tell them its legal and its your right... you even get your crb and rights out of your bag to prove it..

give over

 

[Les McLean]

I thought that being out in public automatically waved this right to privacy. If it was the case then every CCTV camera/satellite would have to be taken down.

Surely by your logic, all candid photography should be banned because it infringes on everyone's right to privacy?

Panzer

Nope, never once mentioned that, the principle of consent (in respect of children) is the issue I have focused on.

 

[dod]

Nope, never once mentioned that, the principle of consent (in respect of children) is the issue I have focused on.

I think you're highlighting just how complicated this whole area is Les

One quick query though, the legislation above seems to refer to photography in relation to welfare of the child. I can understand that but how does it relate to candid stuff where it isn't a child welfare issue? I'm not trying to point score, just getting more confused by the minute

 

[Panzerbjorn]

First of all Kipax I think there is a difference between taking candids of fully clothed children in the park and shoving a lens in the face of a mother changing her child on the beach.

A right to privacy and a simple common sense/decency are two different things and I don't think anyone defending the subject in the OP has suggested that it would be ok in your hypothetical situation.

Les, sorry should have quoted your other post:

It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent.
Note - Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

By your following post that basically means everywhere. vis a vis it's wrong to take candids of anyone, anywhere.

Panzer

 

[KIPAX]

First of all Kipax I think there is a difference between taking candids of fully clothed children in the park and shoving a lens in the face of a mother changing her child on the beach.

But does the person I quoted? BTW ..Was the "shoving a lens in her face" for effect or something ?

You see my point is.. the people saying its OK to take pictures of children wihtout anyone knowing are saying they can because its legal and they are doing nothing wrong... well so is the scenario I gave... so will they change the story or ?

 

[Panzerbjorn]

I don't think they should have to change their story.

Technically it would be legal but obviously it goes against common decency to take the photo you are suggesting. It's also common decency for everyone to look away as you suggested.

However, there is a difference between your scenario and the photos that sparked off the whole debate. I don't think those images go against common decency. If they did then everyone would be looking away from every child they saw out in public which would probably give the child a complex that they were ugly.

It's a really tricky theme and obviously I'm suggesting there's a difference between a photo of a mother changing a baby on the beach and a photo of a 5 year old playing with a teddy in the park. You might feel differently, but that is where the whole debate lies.

Panzer

 

[Les McLean]

First of all Kipax I think there is a difference between taking candids of fully clothed children in the park and shoving a lens in the face of a mother changing her child on the beach.

A right to privacy and a simple common sense/decency are two different things and I don't think anyone defending the subject in the OP has suggested that it would be ok in your hypothetical situation.

Les, sorry should have quoted your other post:



By your following post that basically means everywhere. vis a vis it's wrong to take candids of anyone, anywhere.

Panzer

It's not my legislation, it's based the Human Rights Act, I agree it's fuzzy in places, but (for me) the principle stands, i.e. informed consent is the order of the day.

 

[pxl8]

Then the same logic would say that I could go to the local park and lay naked on the grass and no one could complain as if they looked they'd be invading my privacy. You can't have it both ways....

 

[Marcel]

So I'm sitting in the park with the wife and kids, and a stranger comes up and starts taking photographs of the kids....sorry, it doesn't wash, that is invading my families privacy, and I'd be pretty p****d at the stranger.

I understand what youre saying, and I do think there are certain situations in public where such candids wouldn't be acceptable (the mother changing her child on a beach being one).

There are certain times and situations where you can reasonably expect to have a moment of visual privacy, or even audial privacy.

But sitting in a field, chatting around a picnic rug, you can't honestly reasonably expect that to be a private moment?
Sure, if someone was to sit next to you and start taking photos with a 10-20mm, then fair enough, but a candid from a distance is a different matter.

Surely you've just made a case FOR candids from a distance? (I pull your leg of course)

 

[KIPAX]

Technically it would be legal but obviously it goes against common decency to take the photo you are suggesting.

stop there.... thats it!!!


you take away legal and now your on moral yes? thats your moral level... you didnt decide it.. thats you as a person... my level is higher and I think taking pics of kids without parents knowing is wrong...thats the way I am... someone else will think the beech scenario is OK..

we all have different moral levels..


hows that?

 

[Les McLean]

I think you're highlighting just how complicated this whole area is Les

One quick query though, the legislation above seems to refer to photography in relation to welfare of the child. I can understand that but how does it relate to candid stuff where it isn't a child welfare issue? I'm not trying to point score, just getting more confused by the minute

I think it's related to 'invasion of privacy', and it seems most of the photo-agencies /press organisations have taken this approach (see my earler post from PCC).

Nowadays , you frequently see images of family groups (in the press), particularly of famous folk, in which the children are blurred out, this is probably in line with protecting the children/consent issues discussed.

 

[Eric Mc]

This thread could well continue for another 8 pages but it will in no way change the fact that as the law stands at this time it is legal to take candid shots of people in public places (be it children or otherwise) and should you try to attempt to stop the tog exercising his/her legal right it would be you committing an offense not them!

 

[Panzerbjorn]

*edit* @ LES:

Ah right, missed the part where that was part of the HRA. That will teach me to be more observant.

I think the fuzziness is the problem.

The issue I have with informed consent is that the photo is no longer candid once the subject knows they are being photographed (this is a overriding rule, not just in the instance mentioned in the O.P).

For sporting events/school outings/etc etc where the image is likely to procure monetary profit for the individual taking the photos then I agree, informed consent is necessary. However, with relation to a candid image that is at most going to make up part of a personal portfolio I don't think it's viable.

*edit* @ Kipax:

hows that?

I would have rather you phrased it as both of us having different levels of moral decency rather than assuming yours is higher than mine but for the most part I agree with you.

Panzer

 

[KIPAX]

There are certain times and situations where you can reasonably expect to have a moment of visual privacy, or even audial privacy.

who decides what scenario, times etc that privacy is expected.. a mother breastfeeding may think its private.. others may not.. a couple kissing may think one thing and you another..

most people IMHO will think a man in a bush taking pics of someone elses kids is wrong... unfortunatly some people in here think its right simply because its legal

 

[dod]

I think it's related to 'invasion of privacy', and it seems most of the photo-agencies /press organisations have taken this approach (see my earler post from PCC).

Nowadays , you frequently see images of family groups (in the press), particularly of famous folk, in which the children are blurred out, this is probably in line with protecting the children/consent issues discussed.

Thanks, in theory at least, that seems as if it might blur the legality of the situation in relation to minors? Do we have a lawyer in the house?

 

[KIPAX]

*
I would have rather you phrased it as both of us having different levels of moral decency rather than assuming yours is higher than mine but for the most part I agree with you.

sorry.. certainly wasnt meant like that

 

[Witch]

Number of Deaths from Firearms Injury - United Kingdom

1994-341
1995-358
1996-254
1997-198
1998-229
1999-207
2000-204
2001-193
2002-181
2003-187
2004-191
2005-185
2005-210


The major legislation regarding firearms was a result of the Cullin report (1996) as a consequence of the Dunblane shooting.

As you can see prior to Cullin, the number of deaths was around 300 per year, reducing to around 200 per year post Cullin. A significant reduction.

Therefore, 100 less deaths a year make the legislation worthwhile (IMO)

But those figures include suicides and accidents. the table you have copied also comes from a website dedicated to campaigning for tighter controls on guns, so not exactly impartial is it!

Hows about we look at these figures instead.....taken from www.crimeinfo.org.uk

[The figures cited throughout this factsheet come from the Home Office and police organisations].
In the year ending June 2005, there were 10,979 firearm offences recorded in England and Wales (excluding offences involving air guns).
This is a 6% increase from 2003/04 and continues the pattern of annual increases every year since 1997/98.
In fact, the current number of firearms offences is almost twice that of 1997/98.

Paints a rather different picture doesn't it. As was mentioned previously - lies, damned lies, and statistics!

As a reminder - a summary of the changes introduced to the law regarding firearms following Dunblane:
In 1997, following the murders of 16 school children and a teacher in a primary school in Scotland, the government introduced two Firearms Amendment Acts. These acts banned almost all handguns across Britain. More than 162,000 handguns were handed in to local police following an amnesty.
Shotguns and rifles are still allowed for hunting and sports target practice but require strict licences and must be kept in safes. Assault rifles are banned.
The government has brought in a mandatory minimum five-year prison sentence for illegal possession of a firearm

So - in spite of these laws, and the harsh penalties associated with them, gun related crime HAS in fact increased since Dunblane. The reason for this is because crimes aren't usually committed by those who have a regard for what the law says in the first place! The same applies to those who use photos of children for their own perverse sexual pleasure - the are operating outside of the law.



By the way - on another note related to thje law of this country, there is currently NO right to privacy within UK law.

 

[Les McLean]

This thread could well continue for another 8 pages but it will in no way change the fact that as the law stands at this time it is legal to take candid shots of people in public places (be it children or otherwise) and should you try to attempt to stop the tog exercising his/her legal right it would be you committing an offense not them!

Unless you are perceived to be invading their privacy, then it's not legal (Article 8 Human Rights Act)

 

[Panzerbjorn]

who decides what scenario, times etc that privacy is expected.. a mother breastfeeding may think its private.. others may not.. a couple kissing may think one thing and you another..

most people IMHO will think a man in a bush taking pics of someone elses kids is wrong... unfortunately some people in here think its right simply because its legal

I think you've missed the point completely. At no point in this thread has anyone defending the themes within the OP said anything about hiding in a bush or being covert in any way.

If that was the case I agree with you wholeheartedly but it just isn't what was put forward.

There's a big difference between a candid photo and a stalker hiding in bushes near a playground. I don't think anyone on here would defend that position, it's ludicrous.

Even with a telephoto of a few hundred mm it's quite hard to be secretive about what you're doing.

Oh and no worries, I didn't really interpret it like that.

Panzer

 

[Les McLean]

But those figures include suicides and accidents. the table you have copied also comes from a website dedicated to campaigning for tighter controls on guns, so not exactly impartial is it!

Hows about we look at these figures instead.....taken from www.crimeinfo.org.uk

[The figures cited throughout this factsheet come from the Home Office and police organisations].
In the year ending June 2005, there were 10,979 firearm offences recorded in England and Wales (excluding offences involving air guns).
This is a 6% increase from 2003/04 and continues the pattern of annual increases every year since 1997/98.
In fact, the current number of firearms offences is almost twice that of 1997/98.

Paints a rather different picture doesn't it. As was mentioned previously - lies, damned lies, and statistics!

As a reminder - a summary of the changes introduced to the law regarding firearms following Dunblane:
In 1997, following the murders of 16 school children and a teacher in a primary school in Scotland, the government introduced two Firearms Amendment Acts. These acts banned almost all handguns across Britain. More than 162,000 handguns were handed in to local police following an amnesty.
Shotguns and rifles are still allowed for hunting and sports target practice but require strict licences and must be kept in safes. Assault rifles are banned.
The government has brought in a mandatory minimum five-year prison sentence for illegal possession of a firearm

So - in spite of these laws, and the harsh penalties associated with them, gun related crime HAS in fact increased since Dunblane. The reason for this is because crimes aren't usually committed by those who have a regard for what the law says in the first place! The same applies to those who use photos of children for their own perverse sexual pleasure - the are operating outside of the law.



By the way - on another note related to thje law of this country, there is currently NO right to privacy within UK law.

The actual injuries (instead of threats of injury) have decreased significantly since Dunblane (similarly deaths), but you are correct, there are lies...dam lies etc, so I think we wil have to agree to disagree, in respect of rights of privacy,Article 8 of the Human Rights Act provides those rights to privacy.