Candid photography involving children in public

[Hammerhead64]

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

Hooray....... i've got flags and bunting out and a brass band has just turned up ....... who said "common sense" was dead .... oh yeah that was me a few thousand posts back....... great thread everyone ....has anyone taken any good photos recently?

 

[Techno-Geek]

When i have kids, i won't fill one bit uncomfortable if a photographer takes a photo of us. As long as he hasn't just got a kodak throw away one's and has a big grin on his face. As for older people watching the kids, no i don't think that will bother me. At the end of the day, i will be that kids parent and it is my job to protect them, and i'll be if he tries to go near them. Trust me that would be a wrong idea, BUT along as they just keep there distances and don't take loads and loads of photos. Who cares?

Although if i asked them to delete the pictures (on one of my bad anger days) i would be tempted to give them a word or two

Tony

 

[Eric Mc]

Can this be the last on this please,

No I'm affraid it can't Les:nono:
You have stated that I've misquoted you by posting this..

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

Now if you re-read the post that this came from I'm sure you'll find that it's a direct quote of what you posted!

 

[J Gordon]

'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.'
Interesting alternative. Local yobs, who seem to be in every locality, offer up a parameter when raising children along the lines of ' you don't want to end up like those herberts'. So they ultimately have a small value. And for all their faults, they are very different to predative peodophiles. sp.

'I passed on the option to have kids....maybe this has saved me from becoming something I wouldn't want to have "morphed" into....'
This one is interesting. The gutteral instinct to protect is an incredibly powerful one and comes from a place rarely explored, even less understood, but it exists powerfully. I'm generally a liberal chap, as most are, but where and when protection is required it is often shocking even to the parent where it comes from. Those daft enough to think it is acceptable to take candids of children without permission really need to understand that the morph can be completely involuntary, and the instinct to protect can be very ugly indeed.
For several years now it hasn't been acceptable to photograph the homeless living on the streets without permission, so I don't really understand why anyone would think it is acceptable to photograph someone else's children without permission either. It simply isn't.

 

[pxl8]

Jim I appreciate the standpoint but (as a parent myself) I don't subscribe to it. But I would like to know (in order to better understand the rational/emotive process behind your position) what is about a photograph that sparks such a reaction? What if it were an art student sketching roughly children at play or simply an old man who was walking the dog and stopped to watch them?

To be clear, I'm not making an argument, I just want to understand what it is about a photo that seems to provoke this kind of reaction?

 

[wack61]

I took my camera to wicksteed park at the weekend to photograph my kids playing on the amusements, I got funny looks taking pictures of my own kids with a 200mm lens on, expect trouble if you don't have kids of your own to photograph and you won't go far wrong.

Personally I think it'd be way too much hassle to photograph other peoples kids solely for personal use or to be offered up for critique on an internet forum

 

[Canon Bob]

Jim I appreciate the standpoint but (as a parent myself) I don't subscribe to it. But I would like to know (in order to better understand the rational/emotive process behind your position) what is about a photograph that sparks such a reaction? What if it were an art student sketching roughly children at play or simply an old man who was walking the dog and stopped to watch them?

To be clear, I'm not making an argument, I just want to understand what it is about a photo that seems to provoke this kind of reaction?

I'm stuck on the same square as you Pxl8..I can't rationalise this one. I was tempted to ask (or suggest) if the reaction and suspicion may be related to which daily newspaper one reads but thought it may sound condescending.

Bob

 

[Les McLean]

No I'm affraid it can't Les:nono:
You have stated that I've misquoted you by posting this..




Now if you re-read the post that this came from I'm sure you'll find that it's a direct quote of what you posted!

OK, that's your interpretation, and we'll leave it that, hammerhead appears to understand the distinction in what I said , but I appreciate that you don't.

I do think it's a good example of what folk perceive to have been said instead of what was actually said.

 

[Marcel]

....as the law in this country stands at this present time it is not illegal to take a candid photo of anyone in a public place.

I agree, as long as it does not breach the terms of Article 8 of the HRA

Les, you're saying (suggesting/insinuating/interpreting etc) that Article 8 of the HRA gives some legal framework making candid photography illegal (in some circumstances).

Linda clearly disagrees with you.

At present, neither the HRA nor the DPA really make candid photography in a public place illegal.

 

[Les McLean]

Les, you're saying (suggesting/insinuating/interpreting etc) that Article 8 of the HRA gives some legal framework making candid photography illegal (in some circumstances).

Linda clearly disagrees with you.

And she goes onto say 'Both might in some circumstances make publication open to doubt'


If you notice, I agreed with the statement (it is not illegal to take a photo of anyone in a public place), however I maintain the HRA (Art 8) provides some restrictions regarding photography.

If you accept that the HRA act applies in the UK (and I appreciate some don't), then Article 8 applies to a 'Right to Privacy' (not a right to privacy in a public place)

The difficulty (IMO) is exactly what is private/public, and recent court cases have not clarified the issue.

My view /opinion/stance from a legal perspective is similar to a post I posted previously, (taken from Linda Macphersons guidelines), 'One is free to take photographs except where the law provides otherwise'

I don't think I insinuated, suggested, or proposed that Art 8 ever made it illegal to take candid photographs, it provides restrictions (that have been mentioned at length)

 

[chuckles]

Forgive me if I am being naive.... these protective parents (I am one) from what are they protecting their children? Especially, I would like to know within the context of this tome/thread.

Marianne and I have discussed this at length many and we just don't get it. Sorry, but that's the plain truth. :shrug:

A post I made earlier..... still no-one has really answered or responded in such a way to make this clear.

So, why bump it? Simple..... if there were a simple, good and valid reason then about 250 posts would not have been wasted.

Laws are all well and dandy, but, if they are not logical and clearly don't demonstrate what they protect and uphold then everyone gets confused.... see the rest of this thread!

If only there was such a clear cut reason....... :shrug: ..... there is one isn't there?

 

[pxl8]

I don't think I insinuated, suggested, or proposed that Art 8 ever made it illegal to take candid photographs, it provides restrictions (that have been mentioned at length)

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

Now if, in the 2nd quote, you had been more accurate about the case and what the ruling was really about the first quote would probably hold more water.

 

[Les McLean]

Now if, in the 2nd quote, you had been more accurate about the case and what the ruling was really about the first quote would probably hold more water.

While I think the two issues above were discussed in slightly different context, I do accept your point.

 

[NathanJT]

Well, my wife and I are expecting our first child in August and I have to say (not just because of this) I have found this to be a very interesting thread to read (all 14 pages of it). Thank you all for your input. Ultimately it's a shame we live in a society that requires such discussions (hence us planning to leave the UK shortly after junior is born).

I must say though, that if I ever saw anyone point a NIKON at one of my kids I'd go absolutely banzai!!! (tongue firmly planted in cheek).

 

[Eric Mc]

OK, that's your interpretation, and we'll leave it that, hammerhead appears to understand the distinction in what I said , but I appreciate that you don't.

I do think it's a good example of what folk perceive to have been said instead of what was actually said.

Les I am quite honestly astounded that you can talk about your ethics and morals in this thread and yet when you wrongly accuse me of misquoting you those same ethics and morals don't seem to be in evidence.

On two occasions I've requested that you point out just where I've misquoted you (not that you'll be able to of course considering the fact that the quote in question is word for word what you posted) and asked for an apology for your unfounded accusation. Your ethics/morals obviously don't extend to admitting when you are wrong!

Still I suppose this at least gives everyone that reads this thread a perfect bench mark to judge your ethical/moral values buy when reading your previous/future posts!

 

[dj_myk]

This may sound weird when I say it but I like seeing Kids out playing.

We live in a modern world where kids idea's of fun are sitting infront of a square light box minlessly hacking away at a plastic controller.

I am on 25 and I notice less and less adults out on hot and sunny days with there kids. When I was younger me and my sister used to go with my parents to the park, beach or walks on nice days.

When ever i am out and I see kids playing I think its a great sight, I was in princess street gardens one day last year and saw around 10 kids kicking a ball about, all around the age of 4-7. They looked like they were having a great time and I just wished I had my camera to capture the moment. Just because it was a good shot.

I was in a spanish theme park last year, and there was a water fountian with a grid over it and randomly the water would shoot up around 2-3 feet in the air. It magically done this as u walked over it so it was like you were chasing the water. A little girl around 2-3 years old was running after the water and trying to catch it, but ended up getting soaked. It was such a nice shoot and I took it. As soon as i did the dad grabbed the little girl and walked away. I followed him and showed him the shot and explained the reason for taking it. He was ok with it, but the look I got could have killed me.

Unfortunatly its just this world we live in.

Mike

 

[KIPAX]

I am amazed that people who do NOT have children are in this thread saying how they wouldn't mind a photographer unknowingly taking pics if they had kids. Sorry but you have no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea how you would feel if you had children.

For the rest...Remember.. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.


Does anyone else think this thread has gone full circle a number of times

 

[BenMottram]

>>people who do NOT have children

Just for the record, I have two girls aged 15 and 10

>>saying how they wouldn't mind a photographer unknowingly taking pics if they had kids

If it is a candid shot I couldn't care less. Good luck to them; I hope the 'tog would offer me a download of the shot because he has probably done a better job of capturing themm than I would have done.

>>You have no idea how you would feel if you had children.

Dunno if my thoughts about children changed any from not having them to having them. I don't think so. The bank balance changed though

Regarding the topic - would I take candids of strange children - not if I can help it.
Do I think it is right that others should take candid pictures of children? heck yes.

Voltaire is rumoured to have said "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - that can be applied to photography as well in my book.

B.

 

[KIPAX]

Dunno if my thoughts about children changed any from not having them to having them.

I would take a guess that they did.... big time Its OK non parents saying they would do this that and the other.. but theres no way they can know until they actually have children.. No way at all! and I aint even going to put IMHO because I think it's fact....

is "I think" and "Fact" a bit odd ?

 

[KIPAX]

Just for the record, I have two girls aged 15 and 10.

I have 2 girls age 20 and 16...
I also have 5 boys from 31 to 11



Yup seven kids... hey it was a big paper round

 

[Canon Bob]

.....For the rest...Remember.. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

I would counter that statement by saying...just because YOU think it's wrong, it doesn't mean that it is.

Bob

 

[KIPAX]

I would counter that statement by saying...just because YOU think it's wrong, it doesn't mean that it is.

Bob

How can you counter it? Do you believe pushing in ques is right? its not illegal so it must be OK .. theres a hundred other things I could list that are not illegal but also not right... thats by any normal persons opinion not just mine.

Are you seriously saying that everyhting is OK and acceptable so long as its legal... wow.. thats not a world I would like to live in mate ..

 

[Canon Bob]

How can you counter it? Do you believe pushing in ques is right? its not illegal so it must be OK .. theres a hundred other things I could list that are not illegal but also not right... thats by any normal persons opinion not just mine.

Are you seriously saying that everyhting is OK and acceptable so long as its legal... wow.. thats not a world I would like to live in mate ..

No, I'm not saying that at all. I think people make moral judgements for themselves. Your statement inferred to me that it is wrong...I was simply saying that it isn't wrong just because you think it is.

My post wasn't intended to decide whether it's right or wrong, I was just questioning who should decide for me and I don't believe that it should be you....it's either me or the law that decides.

Bob

 

[KIPAX]

My post wasn't intended to decide whether it's right or wrong, I was just questioning who should decide for me and I don't believe that it should be you

for crying out loud man.. i wasnt telling you what was right or wrong., wind yer neck in son

I was stating a fact that just because something is legal doesnt make it right.. you seem to agree with that so why change it to something different

 

[Canon Bob]

for crying out loud man.. i wasnt telling you what was right or wrong., wind yer neck in son

I was stating a fact that just because something is legal doesnt make it right.. you seem to agree with that so why change it to something different

Neck has been "wound in"....

Your statement
"For the rest...Remember.. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right"
implied to me that you were saying, in this instance, it was wrong.

I apologise if that wasn't what you inferred...my mistake.

Bob

 

[Les McLean]

Les I am quite honestly astounded that you can talk about your ethics and morals in this thread and yet when you wrongly accuse me of misquoting you those same ethics and morals don't seem to be in evidence.

On two occasions I've requested that you point out just where I've misquoted you (not that you'll be able to of course considering the fact that the quote in question is word for word what you posted) and asked for an apology for your unfounded accusation. Your ethics/morals obviously don't extend to admitting when you are wrong!

Still I suppose this at least gives everyone that reads this thread a perfect bench mark to judge your ethical/moral values buy when reading your previous/future posts!

I didn't want to go on about this as it's becoming tedious, hammehead seemed to have understood the distinction I was making, I'm sorry you don't seem to be able to.
My ethical stance and my legal stance are two separate entities.

I said quite clearly that I had never used any legal argument to support my ethical stance, and then you go onto say I have, which is misquoting me.

And please don't make personal attack on my morals or ethics, you don't know me, and are not in a position to judge. I have made no personal attacks against yourself, it would be appreciated if you would refrain from doing so in the future.

Thankyou

 

[Eric Mc]

I said quite clearly that I had never used any legal argument to support my ethical stance, and then you go onto say I have, which is misquoting me.

Perhaps at this point I need to give you a lesson in English then!

Quote....
• verb repeat or copy out (a passage or remark by another).

Misquote....
• verb quote inaccurately.

This is the passage you have accused me of misquoting!

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

As this is word for word exactly as you typed it how can it be a misquote......the accuracy is there for all to see(apart from you obviously)

And please don't make personal attack on my morals or ethics, you don't know me, and are not in a position to judge.

I've no need to judge you Les, I've just highlighted a few points so that others can!

Now if your not a big enough man to offer an apology for your unfounded accusation just say so and we can move on!

 

[Les McLean]

Perhaps at this point I need to give you a lesson in English then!

Quote....
• verb repeat or copy out (a passage or remark by another).

Misquote....
• verb quote inaccurately.

This is the passage you have accused me of misquoting!



As this is word for word exactly as you typed it how can it be a misquote......the accuracy is there for all to see(apart from you obviously)



I've no need to judge you Les, I've just highlighted a few points so that others can!

Now if your not a big enough man to offer an apology for your unfounded accusation just say so and we can move on!

I'll try and keep it as straightforward as possible I 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 you said

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


I did not trawl up any snippet on the internet to support my ethical stance.

Therefore you have misquoted me, unless you can find the 'snippets of information' you suggested I used to support my ethical stance ?

It seems others appear to understand this concept/distinction but you are unable to.

I repeat, you do not know me, you are not in any position to make judgement or inference about my ethics or morals.

 

[Janice]

Can't you guys do this in PM?

This really has nothing to do with the original post now.

 

[Les McLean]

Can't you guys do this in PM?

This really has nothing to do with the original post now.

I agree entirely Janice, and I have asked that Eric to drop the subject on a number of occasions, but I'm afraid he seems unwilling to do so.

 

[sawman]

Can't you guys do this in PM?

This really has nothing to do with the original post now.

 

[CT]

OK some of the posts are getting a bit close to being personal now. I'm not sure there's much to be gained by leaving it open to be honest, but keep it civil people or it's gonna get nuked!

 

[joxby]

~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?

I'm stuck on the same square as you Pxl8..I can't rationalise this one. I was tempted to ask (or suggest) if the reaction and suspicion may be related to which daily newspaper one reads but thought it may sound condescending.

Bob

I think theres a problem with law and a parents perception, parents perception shaped by media is always going to take P1 over the law.
I take more of an issue with the conflict of interests surrounding a wedding tog whose job it is to take candids.
On one hand its ok at a wedding, on the other its not ok in a public place.
I see little difference, a parent could be equally concerned in either situation, they could be just fringe relatives and might not expect their kids to be a photo feature.
What I'm saying is, I don't think theres much room for having cake and eating it when it comes to kids, their parents and a parents individual perception.
The fact we have these discussions indicates to me that the net result is only going one way, no kid shots.
Ofcourse I think this is rubbish, but if candid wedding togs with no kids find it un-acceptable, then we've had it..

 

[pxl8]

Just to take things off on a slight tangent but I feel this is related to the candid of kids issue and shows a whole other side to it:

[YOUTUBE]VhO-OE931D4[/YOUTUBE]

Filmed and uploaded by the kids family, more details and hopefully a happy ending here:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/29/worst-parents-in-the-world-punk-kid-into-thinking-he-got-an-xbox/

 

[Hammerhead64]

I didn't want to go on about this as it's becoming tedious, hammehead seemed to have understood the distinction I was making, I'm sorry you don't seem to be able to.
My ethical stance and my legal stance are two separate entities.

I said quite clearly that I had never used any legal argument to support my ethical stance, and then you go onto say I have, which is misquoting me.

And please don't make personal attack on my morals or ethics, you don't know me, and are not in a position to judge. I have made no personal attacks against yourself, it would be appreciated if you would refrain from doing so in the future.

Thankyou

Oh dear !!!! ....:thumbsdown: i've just had to take the bunting and flags down and send the brass band away..... sorry Les :nono:but you seem to have mistaken my quote with regard to you having both a Moral & Legal stance

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

.... this was in fact a "tongue in cheek" remark by me. I do not understand this position at all as I do not think that legislation on an issue of this kind (and that is on the original question of "Candid photos of Kids in a public park) can be:

1. Moral/Legal .... a good thing for rights of others to follow what IMO is generally a harmless pastime.
2. Legal .... workable as a piece of law in fact I think that it would be totally un-workable and just tie-up the resources of police and courts.

I do not know you so please do not take this the wrong way as I think this is more about dis-agreeing with the way/style of your writing rather than your personal views. I think the majority of the posts you have made come across as over opinionated, misguided and in places wrongly interperated. I in fact agree with most of what has been said in response to your posts. I unlike others (and this may include yourself, Kipax etc.) do not look at a person with camera equipment and instantly think they are doing something untoward. However, I as a free person and living in a democratic society take it as my right to change that judgement at any time I feel it is necessary. :bonk::bonk::bonk:Now, can we all have a big group hug and make any appolgies we need to make. In my law book :rules:"common sense" rules.

 

[donut]

At the start Les came across as against taking pictures of children, full stop. It now seems to have swung (?) around to ..well legally its ok but morally its not. Im sure people will want to show me quotes that prove Im wrong ( as I am so dont bother ) but the general feeling is one of a shift of opinion.
As to taking pictures of other peoples kids myself, I just dont get it, so I dont do it.

I was at the beach a couple of years ago, and a bloke with an slr came up to the railings just off the sand above us ( me my wife and three daughters ) he casually lent over the railings camera hanging almost from his right hand pointing it at the people on the sand and I heard the motor drive whirring for about five seconds, then he casually turned around and wandered off. Now was that candid or covert, whats the difference? Got to say it didnt seem right to me (but then I had a camera with me doing the kids snaps. So before he walked off I took a picture of him, gave me a right look, and I was thinking yeah mate just you say something).

 

[pxl8]

now was that candid or covert, whats the difference ?

Candid describes the subject, covert the photographer.

Your example sounds like both.

 

[donut]

ok . you dont have to be covert to do candids

 

[pxl8]

Exactly but candid is often assumed to be a covert thing and that probably leads to some of the misconceptions surrounding the topic.

 

[cranky916]

Hello from across the pond . I am new to this forum and from what I have seen so far one of the few that’s not from the UK. We have the same problems over here that you all have on this subject. I am a 63 year old male out taking pictures alone, just me and my gear. I got out of my way to NOT take pictures of people adults or children. I have to agree with some posts on here suggesting its not worth the hassle.

Thanks
Ed