Candid photography involving children in public

[gman]

I've not read every response but personally I believe that the moment you step out in to public you pretty much give up your right to privacy but still have the right to be treated with decency.

I guess it's all down to context which is probably where the gray area arises.

For example, you can be on a public street and photograph/film the front of a McDonalds store and there's nothing they can do about it but if you were to use that photograph or video footage in an article that is about say how hamburger can cause a certain illness then you could be trouble as you could be seen to be insinuating that McDonalds specifically are at fault etc.

If you were to use it in an article about something like how companies use different designs and styles with their logos then you'd be pretty safe.

Looking at the topic in question, if you were to photograph some children in a park which was used in an article about how parks in cities are good or something and there's no way of tracking the identity of the child then nobody's at risk and no harm is done.

If that same group of children were used in an article about inner city and violence with youths then it could be seen that those particular children are to blame and subsequently could be targeted by others.

With regard to ethics or morals, I reckon it would be pretty difficult to get a disturbing picture of a child in public as they’ll be clothed etc and if they were in a state of undress then perhaps it’s the parents that should be sorted out?

One area though would perhaps be the beach where some younger children may be nude. I’d say a definite no-no to photos there as I can’t see any above board purpose to requiring such shots.

I don’t have children (although I am being pestered on a daily basis...as well as marriage ) but I don’t think I’d have a problem with a photographer taking a picture of my child if I were walking down the street and I reckon if someone wanted a disturbing picture of my child then they probably wouldn’t have a very visible DSLR with lenses etc!

It’s not a photographer that I would be worried about. The creepy guy I see looking down the hill into a primary school playground that I see every morning on the way to work is a bit of a concern. Something about him just doesn’t look right but I can’t put my finger on it.

People all have their own opinions on things hence there being laws which take charge so if it's legal then you are safe but also I don't think that's an excuse for being ignorant or arrogant towards common decency and exercising some respect to others. However, sometimes a shot presents itself and you may not have time to go and ask permission. I guess you could always approach the person afterwards and show them the photo to allow them the opportunity to express their opinion/concern?

I may have swung off track with this but I've got my flame-proof jacket on now...

 

[nuffink]

I dont think the OP is talking about accident photography where children are in the background or walk into the frame.. thats unavoidable and part of the scene.

Going out to take pictures of children playing in a public place without the consent or as the OP suggests without them even knowing is wrong. You may want to dress it up as OK and theres some very poor excuses in this thread.. but it's simply wrong and I would challenge anyone I saw doing it even if it wasn't my kids playing.

Like I say. just beacuse it is legal doesn't make it right. and again... IMHO of course

Totally do not agree, it is this sort of attitude that has mad ethe society we live as sensitive and over protective as it is. I do agree that someone who continously photographed kids would be slightly suspect, even then if the kids were clothed and permission was obtained why should photographers not do so. Creating such rigid barriers of taboo is what has made society the paranoid place it is. As always sense and sensibilty along with curtesy should prevail before you have to ask your own reflection for permission to photograph

 

[chuckles]

Excuse the length of this post but I thought it imperative it should be quoted in it's entirety, avoiding any inference.

It was in the Xmas edition of the BJP (I've only just got round to catching up - don't ask!). Anyway, I thought it was interesting bearing in mind this is considered as being "the" organ of British Professional Photographers........

Protection zone

Few would dispute that children must be protected from exploitation, but perhaps fewer still know exactly what the legal boundaries are. Charles Swan and Rupert Grey lay down the law


Controversial photographs of children are nothing new. Frank Sutcliffe's Water Rats, taken at the end of the 19th century, caused much comment because it featured naked children. Although far from erotic, the image led to his excommunication by the local clergy in Whitby when he publicly displayed it. On the other hand, King Edward VII, then the Prince of Wales, had an enlargement of it made. Even then 'indecency' was subjective.

Sexual exploitation

Children clearly deserve to be protected from exploitation, whether it be sexual or economic. The law assists in several ways, but first let's take protection from sexual exploitation.

The principal provision is the Protection of Children Act 1978, passed to prohibit the manufacture, distribution, showing and advertisement of indecent images of children under 16. This has since been amended by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which changes the original definition of a child to include persons under 18.

Prior to 1978, legislation such as the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964 prohibited the distribution of images of children engaged in sexual acts. But by the late 1970s, that legislation was felt to be insufficient to deal with the milder, but still exploitative, 'erotic' images appearing.

Under the Act, simple possession of indecent images was not a crime. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 sought to rectify this by making possession of indecent photographs of children an offence. Following the development of computer technology the law was further strengthened by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which made illegal the creation, distribution and possession of 'pseudo photographs' of children, such as doctored images in which, for example, a child's head is superimposed on an adult's body.

To fall within the Act, the photograph of the child must be 'indecent'. There is no statutory definition of indecency but the issue has been addressed by the courts in a number of past cases. In considering whether a photograph of a child is indecent, no consideration can be given to factors beyond the photograph such as those relating to the taking or making of the photograph or the defendant's motives. Consideration must be limited to the image as depicted and can include the clothes being worn (or not) and the child's pose or activity. The age of the child is a material consideration.

'Recognised standards of propriety' are applied in determining whether or not a photograph is indecent - the defendant's subjective view of indecency is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the defendant genuinely believes that the images are artistic and tasteful if a jury would view them as indecent.

Of course what's 'decent' varies from one person to another. Annelies Strba's photograph of her daughter Sonja in the bath and Tierney Gearon's images of two naked children wearing theatrical masks may be viewed by some as innocuous snapshots, but by others as indecent.

To prevent over-enthusiastic challenges by the excessively prudish, the Director of Public Prosecutions' consent must be obtained before starting proceedings. Neither Strba nor Gearon was prosecuted in the end, despite Scotland Yard passing its investigative findings on to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration.

If in doubt, it is advisable to consult a lawyer or at the very least refer to the Photo Marketing Association's useful guidelines on potentially obscene or indecent matter (www.pmai.org). The Press Complaints Commission also offers guidance on photographing children in school. As a rule, pupils should not be photographed at school without the school authorities' permission.

Child labour

Since the industrial revolution we have been trying to eliminate child labour. Unfortunately, requiring parental consent is not enough. Babies and toddlers clearly don't decide for themselvs to start modelling, and their parents', or guardians', decision to put them forward for it isn't always made for the best reasons.

Recognising parents' failings, Parliament has laid down rigorous legal determinants to limit the demands placed on children of school age. A wealth of legislation covers aspects ranging from the hours they may work and educational requirements, to protection from working in dangerous environments. Local Authorities may also enact their own byelaws to supplement, though not modify, the general statutory restrictions.

The Local Education Authority ('LEA') is responsible for issuing Child Performance Licences for children who live in their area. For modelling purposes, the Licence Applicant is the person who proposes to employ the child. Whether a licence is required depends on variables such as whether the work is paid, the nature of the work, whether there will be an absence from school and the length of performance.

Occasionally a medical certificate will be required although more often than not a statement from the child's parent that the child is medically fit for the proposed activity must be provided with the original application.

A licence is generally not required for work that is unpaid (except expenses), no absence from school is required and the child has not performed in the previous six months. But requirements may vary from one borough to the next, so it's always advisable to contact the LEA where the child model lives.

Model release

Photographers ideally want free rein to exploit their images any way they choose. A model release form facilitates commercial exploitation, and it may also contain the requisite consent for processing personal data (the images) for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998. Model release forms are generally intended to be legally binding documents between the parties involved.

However, if the photographed subject is a minor the release may not be legally binding. The only contracts that are binding upon minors are contracts 'for necessaries' or contracts for their benefit, such as those for apprenticeship and education. Other contracts are voidable at the minor's option. Releases on behalf of children are normally given by someone with parental responsibility, more often than not the child's parent. Whether and for how long such releases are legally binding will depend on the circumstances of each case.

Privacy

Photographs of celebrities' children are ripe for commercial exploitation, but such images are often taken without the child's consent or knowledge. Celebrity parents argue that the publication of these photographs jeopardises their safety and security, having a negative effect on their wellbeing.

This issue recently surfaced in a high profile case concerning JK Rowling and her husband's attempt to prevent further publication of a photograph of their son. The picture was taken when the child was 18 months old on a public street in Edinburgh. The picture was taken without the consent of his parents. The photo agency defendant applied to the court to strike out the claim, and succeeded.

The judge was sympathetic to celebrities' desire to bring up their children normally and in privacy, but could not see a requirement to create a press free zone for children of celebrities. There remains an area of innocuous conduct in a public place that does not raise a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Leave to appeal has been given and JK Rowling has indicated she sees this as a test case. It could potentially go all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, so watch this space.

Conclusions

Despite having been displayed around the world without objection, Nan Goldin's photograph of two naked young girls, Klara and Edda belly dancing, was recently seized by police from the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art in Gateshead and referred to the CPS for their consideration. Art has always challenged the bounds of morality and decency and photographers now find themselves on the front line.

There is no doubt that standards of 'decency' have shifted in recent years. It has become simultaneously more acceptable to publish photographs of naked adults and less acceptable to publish photographers of naked children. The welfare of children is an important consideration and it is vital to protect them. But at what cost to freedom of expression?

Contacts

Charles Swan and Rupert Grey are photography experts at media law firm Swan Turton. For details, visit www.swanturton.com.

I thought it was an interesting article in view of our own debate!

 

[foodpoison]

Some interesting views here.

I find the people who think it is wrong to photograph children obviously feel guilty about it, in the way that they feel it is pedophilia or something similar.
The people who don't think its wrong are just as innocent as the children.

I personally don't have a problem taking pictures of children. I was taking pictures of children at the freestyle park in the French Alps without even thinking about it, since in my view they are no different to the 22 year old guys doing the jumps.

Obviously this is a controversial opinion and I'm quite excited as to what sort of views and opinions that will retort.

 

[CT]

Good article Barry.

Just to clarify the situation with the Director Of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and cases needing his consent to prosecute -the Crown Prosecution Service have for some years been able to act as local agents in many cases and make decisions on the DPP's behalf.

With a case depending on interpretation of something as fundamental as privacy issues, though, I'd expect the case papers would still go to the DPP.

 

[Panzerbjorn]

Interesting article Barry, it still only really covers the publication of the images rather than just the taking of them though.

Panzer

 

[chuckles]

Interesting article Barry, it still only really covers the publication of the images rather than just the taking of them though.

Panzer

Point taken.... it is from a Professional journal so I'd imagine publication should be high on the list of objectives.

With that in mind, surely this article gives more credibility to the acceptance of just taking the photos. If there's such a grey area in publishing then, 'private' use is even more open to interpretation? And that flies in the face of most of the objectors in this thread!

 

[Les McLean]

Excellent article, thanks for bringing it to our attention

 

[Jonnyreb]

Thanks for sharing, Barry, and a well made final point too.

 

[Rozzy]

Take pictures of other peoples children, in a public park, in todays society???? Might as well ring the Sun and confess to being a pervert yourself.

I like photographing things, and If asked, I would photograph a portrait or whatever. But normally I would steer WELL clear of children, as they bore me (photographically) anyway. My point is, all it takes is for a parent to decide your not decent, take YOUR picture with a camera phone, send it to the papers along with an exaggerated story, and your life will be ruined.

Don't get me wrong, I love kids, and one day I would love to start a family, but in my opinion, the only candid shots children should be in are those in which the parents have requested such candidness. Or the one where the brat has ran into the shot, and then that will be deleted

 

[Toothie]

i have stayed out of this thread partly because i'm not sure when i stand on the issue. My mum fostered sexually abused teenagers when i lived at home and as a children's nurse i have worked with abused children and had child protection training. As such i have some insight on the issue.

i think trying to take pictures of children covertly is suppious behaviour, if your not doing anything wrong why do it covertly. If you feel the need to do it covertly then you proberly shouldn't do it.

If i took a picture that had a unknown child walk into the shot or turn up in the background i wouldn't delete it for that reason.

have had some funny looks from parents when out in public spaces, but frankly that is their problem. But i would make a point of not taking pics of the children in that case. You have to use your common sence.

Most children are abused by people they know, who then pass the pictures about over the internet or whatever. Which is whats really sad about the whole thing.

 

[Witch]

To be fair Toothie, the one thing that everyone on the thread has pretty much agreed on so far is that covertly taking pics of kids is out of line morally. It's ordinary candid stuff that is splitting opinion.

Re your final paragraph - yes, agreed. Kids are naturally so trusting, and for a family member or friend to exploit and then breach that trust is totally unforgiveable.

 

[pxl8]

Without wishing to re-open this particular nest of hornets I feel that as Linda Macpherson was kind enough to comment on the legal aspects raised in this thread I should post thoughts here:

There is a great deal of legal vagueness on some of these issues, and you will find as many opinions as there are lawyers, so I can only give my own views.

At present, neither the HRA nor the DPA really make candid photography in a public place illegal. Both might in some circumstances make publication open to doubt.

One of the cases cited in the thread, the human rights case of Von Hannover v Germany, was essentially a case brought against the German courts for their failure to issue injunctions against various newspapers preventing the publication of photographs of Princess Caroline and her children. The German court had held in effect that the rights of free expression under Art 10 of the Convention over-rode the Princess's rights of privacy under Art 8. The ECHR held that the German court had not found the proper balance between the two rights, and that the Princess's Art 8 rights had been infringed. Any other case would be decided on its individual merits and with the same kind of balancing act. But the case is concerned with publication and not the taking of the images.
Note that the English High Court held that J K Rowling's infant son's privacy had not been infringed when photographs of him and his parents in an Edinburgh street were published (I don't want to place too much weight on this, however, since the case is going to appeal.) http://www.epuk.org/Opinion/660/jk-rowling-fails-to-prevent-publication-of-sons-photograph

The DPA is possibly problematic until there are decided cases dealing with this issue, but I did seek the views of the Information Commissioner's Office some months ago concerning public photography of people.

Their view is that the DPA does not prevent photography of people in public places. The Act might apply where the image is of an individual (not a group or crowd), and the individual can be identified and the image is held in automated form. In that case, one of the conditions in Schedule 2 of the Act must be met. Consent is only one of the possibilities.
Oneof the other conditions in Schedule 2 is - The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.

Note that there are also exceptions, such as processing data for the so-called special purposes of journalism, literature and art (though even these are not straightforward exemptions). And, of course, processing data for domestic purposes. This would, however, not include publication on a website, for instance.

So no, at present, I don't believe the HRA or DPA make candid photography illegal. It must be said, however, that anyone taking photos of children may draw police attention and perhaps further investigation. In Scotland (though probably not in England) you might end up charged with breach of the peace in some circumstances and I would warn photographers up here to be rather careful.

Source: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide#c5311

 

[Les McLean]

She also goes onto say, which I believe is just as relevant, in response to a visitor who had suggested the UK has never recognized a general right to privacy (a view he disagreed with), and that the HRA only applied to public bodies, not individuals:

You are right to the extent that proceedings brought directly under the Human Rights Act must be brought against a public authority. However, the HRA also provides that the courts must take account of the Convention rights in all cases that come before them, whether the case is being brought against a public authority or a private company or individual, and whether that case is based on statute or common law. Article 8 is subdivided into parts. Part 1 gives the basic right: Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
And that can be taken into account by the courts without reference to Art 8(2)(the public authority part).

Art 8 has been used to prevent publication of articles and images by newspapers (which are most definitely not public authorities). The actions themselves have generally been brought on the grounds of breach of confidence and the courts, by taking Art 8 into account, appear to be developing the common law of breach of confidence well beyond its original bounds.

You are right, of course, that the Convention rights must always be balanced with each other, and the courts must balance the right of privacy with the right of freedom of expression. If the court gets the balance wrong then the court, as a public authority, can be challenged directly under the HRA and under the Convention (as in the case of von Hannover v Germany).

 

[Les McLean]

Reading through the comments on the blog/notice board, the response from linda that pxl8 quoted, was a reply to a question that mentioned this thread, and that within the thread there had been a suggestion that ...... and that laws, and regulations in effect make candid photography in a public place illegal.

I've gone through the whole thread, and I can't find any post that says it's illegal to take photos in a public place, there are certainly moral/ethical objections (but that doesn't make it illegal) and of course some restrictions that she mentioned?

 

[Eric Mc]

Reading through the comments on the blog/notice board, the response from linda that pxl8 quoted, was a reply to a question that mentioned this thread, and that within the thread there had been a suggestion that ...... and that laws, and regulations in effect make candid photography in a public place illegal.

I've gone through the whole thread, and I can't find any post that says it's illegal to take photos in a public place, there are certainly moral/ethical objections (but that doesn't make it illegal) and of course some restrictions that she mentioned?

You obviously missed this post made by yourself in answer to my post stating 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)"

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

I think we have established that Article 8 Human Rights Act deals with the publication of images and not the taking of said image (as a few of us have pointed out to you on more than one occasion) So it would seem that your insistence that you are "right" (despite repeated attempts to convince you otherwise) have done nothing more than create confusion.

 

[Hammerhead64]

I've gone through the whole thread, and I can't find any post that says it's illegal to take photos in a public place, there are certainly moral/ethical objections (but that doesn't make it illegal) and of course some restrictions that she mentioned?

:bang::bang::bang:I'm sorry but this has just raised my blood pressure to boiling point ..... Les are you sure you read your posts before submitting them? I know it is easy to misinterpret written text but below is your response to Eric Mc in post #238. This clearly shows that you believe the HRA makes it against the law to photograph children/persons in a public place if this invades their privacy. It has been pointed out to you numerous times by various people in this thread that the law in this country (i.e. England) does not provide for a right to privacy in public places whether you percieve it to be private to you or not !!!!!!!! I conceed that there maybe other legals to consider but your quotes from various texts and legal cases outside of this country will not make your perceptions on this particular point any more correct. All it does is confuse the issue for others who are only following a hobby and not for commercial use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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!

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

 

[pxl8]

I've gone through the whole thread, and I can't find any post that says it's illegal to take photos in a public place, there are certainly moral/ethical objections (but that doesn't make it illegal) and of course some restrictions that she mentioned?

Les in post 272 you said:

So from the above, it's another minefield for the average Tog, and goes against the proposition that it is legal to take photos of people in public places, unless you have their consent.

and in post 278 you said:

Again, I think you are incorrect regarding capture of images, if the image is 'captured' digitally, then it is stored? That's why (probably) togs have asked to delete images from their cards under data protection rules.

HRA does not discriminate against people, for example, in the case of Princess Caroline's ruling, the court ruled that it was illegal to take photographs of her (and her family) in certain private situatuations, that ruling applied to everyone, whether they were a pro or amateur?

I'm concerned that bland statements suggesting it's OK to photo anyone in public (when it patently isn't true) could lead to togs getting into deep water legally, either in a criminal situation or a civil situation.

I certainly got the impression that your were indeed suggesting candid photography in a public place was illegal. Clearly you intended a different meaning in the above quotes but I haven't a clue what that might be. :shrug:

 

[Witch]

Reading through the comments on the blog/notice board, the response from linda that pxl8 quoted, was a reply to a question that mentioned this thread, and that within the thread there had been a suggestion that ...... and that laws, and regulations in effect make candid photography in a public place illegal.

I've gone through the whole thread, and I can't find any post that says it's illegal to take photos in a public place, there are certainly moral/ethical objections (but that doesn't make it illegal) and of course some restrictions that she mentioned?

Well I think it would be fair to say that there have been several posts suggesting that this IS the case though Les, wouldn't you? The way I read the bit you have quoted in italics above (although I should stress that I haven't read the source) is as a summation of certain views posted at some length on this thread.

Still, always nice to know that this place is being talked about, isn't it.

 

[J Gordon]

Candids at a wedding when employed, for example, are fine, obviously. Candids of children in a park is an absolute no-no, and even as a photographer I would be inclined to lamp anyone behaving in such a way around my own children in a public place.

 

[Les McLean]

Sorry to disappoint , but I never once said it was illegal to take images of people in public places, I have said there are restrictions regarding taking images (which there are) I did disagree with Eric (and Witch) when they suggested the the Human Rights Act only applies to public authorities, I said it applied to individuals also, and I think that view is confirmed by Linda's comments above.

I have maintained that there is a right to privacy in the UK (under the HRA), and if you are invading that person's privacy then it is illegal, that is a world away from saying it's illegal to take photographs in a public place?

And I used one of Linda's statements to support my argument 'There are many legal restrictions on the right to take a photograph, and it would be more correct to say one is free to take photographs, except when the law provides otherwise' which clearly states -one is free to take photographs-something I'd be unlikely to use if I was saying it's illegal?

 

[Witch]

Candids at a wedding when employed, for example, are fine, obviously. Candids of children in a park is an absolute no-no, and even as a photographer I would be inclined to lamp anyone behaving in such a way around my own children in a public place.

...and as an innocent individual, if I was "lamped" by you, for taking a candid shot, I wouldn't hesitate to call the Police and ask that you be charged with either common assault, or ABH, depending on the circumstance.

 

[Canon Bob]

Candids at a wedding when employed, for example, are fine, obviously. Candids of children in a park is an absolute no-no, and even as a photographer I would be inclined to lamp anyone behaving in such a way around my own children in a public place.

A genuine question here....

Why do you feel the need to create your own rules and administer your own punishment? Surely if you disagree with the law then you should avoid situations where you put yourself in conflict with it.

Bob

 

[Hammerhead64]

Sorry to disappoint , but I never once said it was illegal to take images of people in public places, I have said there are restrictions regarding taking images (which there are) I did disagree with Eric (and Witch) when they suggested the the Human Rights Act only applies to public authorities, I said it applied to individuals also, and I think that view is confirmed by Linda's comments above.

I have maintained that there is a right to privacy in the UK (under the HRA), and if you are invading that person's privacy then it is illegal, that is a world away from saying it's illegal to take photographs in a public place?

Your right ... we're wrong now do you feel better... that my last comment on this:bang::bang::bang:

...and as an innocent individual, if I was "lamped" by you, for taking a candid shot, I wouldn't hesitate to call the Police and ask that you be charged with either common assault, or ABH, depending on the circumstance.

Hear ..... Hear ...... I think with attitudes like that from like minded people i.e. Hobbyist Photograhers not (lamp first .... think second) I'll take take up something safer ..... like russian roulette.... I like taking photos .... it's a hobby ....

 

[J Gordon]

~Oops, might have walked into a tricky subject here. Bob, it's not about 'meting' out 'punishment', as you suggest, the photographer has to bare some responsibility for their conduct in a potentially sensitive environment. It doesn't make it right, but many parents would be alarmed by a stranger taking photos of their children in a public place without permission.
Don't you think it would be an odd thing to do?

Witch, I didn't mean to give an impression I go around 'lamping' anyone without reason, I am somewhat protective of my children though, probably overly so. But male or female I would not be happy about you taking candid photos of children in a public place without permissions and wouldn't hesitate in calling the police to check out yours or whoevers' proclaimed 'innocent' status.

 

[Les McLean]

:bang::bang::bang:I'm sorry but this has just raised my blood pressure to boiling point ..... Les are you sure you read your posts before submitting them? I know it is easy to misinterpret written text but below is your response to Eric Mc in post #238. This clearly shows that you believe the HRA makes it against the law to photograph children/persons in a public place if this invades their privacy. It has been pointed out to you numerous times by various people in this thread that the law in this country (i.e. England) does not provide for a right to privacy in public places whether you percieve it to be private to you or not !!!!!!!! I conceed that there maybe other legals to consider but your quotes from various texts and legal cases outside of this country will not make your perceptions on this particular point any more correct. All it does is confuse the issue for others who are only following a hobby and not for commercial use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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!

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

Again I disagree with you, I maintain there is a right to privacy under the Human Rights Act, I didn't ever suggest there was a right to privacy in public places, what I do maintain is that there is a considerable grey area around what is public/private , and If I remember correctly a quote from soeone from the RPS, who said a 'public place' is not necessarily the same as a place open to the public'

I think the recent court cases regarding what is considered private/public has muddied the water further.

 

[Eric Mc]

Stuff!

I'll tell you what Les you continue to believe whatever you want to believe....but don't be surprised if the majority of us are unwilling to throw away our rights in the same manner as you!

As to your comments on "point scoring" in this thread....I don't really belive that anyone has been trying to score points but I do think that at least one person has made a great job of scoring "own goals" on behalf of the photographic community in this country:bang:

 

[Les McLean]

Your right ... we're wrong now do you feel better... that my last comment on this:bang::bang::bang:

I don't feel bad about this at all, and as Linda suggested there is a great deal of legal vagueness around this whole area.

I genuinely felt that the discussion needed a counterbalance, as I perceived (rightly or wrongly)that the general thrust of the thread was that it was OK in all situations to take images of folk in public places, when I clearly thought otherwise.

While I have in various posts acknowledged the legal fuzziness, my ethical stance is quite clear on this, again I have made it clear that this is a personal thing, not based on any legislation.

 

[Les McLean]

I'll tell you what Les you continue to believe whatever you want to believe....but don't be surprised if the majority of us are unwilling to throw away our rights in the same manner as you!

As to your comments on "point scoring" in this thread....I don't really belive that anyone has been trying to score points but I do think that at least one person has made a great job of scoring "own goals" on behalf of the photographic community in this country:bang:

That's fine, I don't see it as throwing away my rights as a photographer, I see it as giving additional rights to folk, by giving people and parents a choice for them and their children to be photographed or not (consent), and even though that maybe a minority view, it's a view I'm quite comfortable with.

 

[Eric Mc]

again I have made it clear that this is a personal thing, not based on any legislation.

And yet you seen to have taken great pains to trawl up any snipet on the internet that makes your opinion look like it is based on legislation:thumbsdown:

 

[Hammerhead64]

I'll tell you what Les you continue to believe whatever you want to believe....but don't be surprised if the majority of us are unwilling to throw away our rights in the same manner as you!

As to your comments on "point scoring" in this thread....I don't really belive that anyone has been trying to score points but I do think that at least one person has made a great job of scoring "own goals" on behalf of the photographic community in this country:bang:

Has ..... Paddy Kenny ..... joined in the thread as well? :nuts:

 

[Les McLean]

And yet you seen to have taken great pains to trawl up any snipet on the internet that makes your opinion look like it is based on legislation:thumbsdown:

Eric, you are misquoting me, my ethical stance is a personal thing, and not based on legislation.

 

[Canon Bob]

~Oops, might have walked into a tricky subject here. Bob, it's not about 'meting' out 'punishment', as you suggest, the photographer has to bare some responsibility for their conduct in a potentially sensitive environment. It doesn't make it right, but many parents would be alarmed by a stranger taking photos of their children in a public place without permission.
Don't you think it would be an odd thing to do?

Witch, I didn't mean to give an impression I go around 'lamping' anyone without reason, I am somewhat protective of my children though, probably overly so. But male or female I would not be happy about you taking candid photos of children in a public place without permissions and wouldn't hesitate in calling the police to check out yours or whoevers' proclaimed 'innocent' status.

I fully understand your concerns and would expect you to take your children elsewhere if you became uncomfortable with the situation....probably the same thing you would do if a group of foul mouthed youths appeared in the locality.
Informing the police would also be an acceptable and responsible course of action (IMO) if you were concerned for the safety of your (and others) children.
Yours is not the first post to threaten assault against an innocent person and I'm surprised by the openess in which (rational?) people profess they would result to violence.
I passed on the option to have kids....maybe this has saved me from becoming something I wouldn't want to have "morphed" into....

There's no mallice in the above post, but it's not always easy to write with the correct inflection.

Bob

 

[Eric Mc]

Eric, you are misquoting me,

Care to point out just where I've misquoted you? If not I'll accept your apology!

 

[Hammerhead64]

Bob it looks at last as if someone is talking sense. J Gordon good that someone has the decency to back track on something said in the heat of the moment. Now all we need is a certain other person to see the light rather than the equipment

 

[Les McLean]

Care to point out just where I've misquoted you? If not I'll accept your apology!

My post clearly said, my ethical stance is quite clear on this, again I have made it clear that this is a personal thing, not based on any legislation

I have not dredged up any snippetts of legislation to support an ethical stance, I have used examples of legislation to support my legal (or legislative) view, but has nothing to do with a moral/ethical stance

 

[Eric Mc]

Well done Les you've even managed to confuse yourself

First you say..

My post clearly said, my ethical stance is quite clear on this, again I have made it clear that this is a personal thing, not based on any legislation

And then you go on to say..

I have used examples of legislation to support my legal (or legislative)view

And you've still not pointed out where I misquoted you?

 

[Hammerhead64]

Eric ..... i'm not one to put words in an others mouth .... :shake: but I think you'll find the answer will be he has two views an ethical one and a legal one

 

[Les McLean]

Well done Les you've even managed to confuse yourself

First you say..

And then you go on to say..


And you've still not pointed out where I misquoted you?

Can this be the last on this please, you said I had dragged up snippets of information to support my personal view, this personal view was quite clearly my ethical stance and not a legislative stance. I have used no snippets of information in support of this ethical stance.

My apologies if the post was not clear enough on this point.

 

[Dal]

Les, let me get this right.

Your happy that its Legal, but you don't think its right..............surely that single sentance could of saved this debate.