Confused about attitudes to privacy

StewartR

StewartR

Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,513
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
In the pub last night after the camera club meeting, talking to three other guys who I've known for several years. The conversation took what seemed to me to be a rather strange turn and I'm wondering whether it's just me who thinks it's strange.

One guy said he'd recently taken some photos of his granddaughter (aged about 2) which he thought were probably some of the best photos he'd ever taken. Playing in the park with a dog or something like that. I don't know exactly because I haven't seen them. He explained that his family photos are for his family eyes only. He shares photos on Facebook, but family ones are locked down for his family only.

The other two there agreed and said yes, that's what they do too. So I was the only one who didn't understand.

I asked why they did this, but none of them were able to articulate very clearly. Don't want people copying them, because once a photo is in the public domain you don't know who's going to copy it or what they might do with it. Stuff like that. To be honest it all sounded a bit Daily Mail to me.

The thing is, these are all experienced, competent photographers who have taken and exhibited some excellent street photography. I suggested that being willing to publish photos of strangers but not of their families was somewhere between inconsistent and hypocritical, not to mention pointless, but all I got were blank looks.

Is it just me? Does anybody else here operate like these guys do, and if so can you explain?
 
Copyright applies no matter where you post it, including "Public Domain". However, there are those who could do without the hassle of trying to rectify the situation if someone does "copy their photos".

I recall the BBC getting done for grabbing photos from Twitter and when challenged they said "No copyright applies" - yeah they lost that one pretty quick.

ps Edited to add - though I would keep privacy on my grandkids (if I had any) for other reasons.
 
razor777 said:
Copyright applies no matter where you post it, including "Public Domain". However, there are those who could do without the hassle of trying to rectify the situation if someone does "copy their photos".
Click to expand...
That's not the issue here though because all three are quite happy to publish photos on Facebook etc. So it's not really about copyright concerns.
razor777 said:
ps Edited to add - though I would keep privacy on my grandkids (if I had any) for other reasons.
Click to expand...
Aha! Exactly. What reasons?
 
Hard to quantify I have many photos in the loft in boxes i.e prints of my daughters over the years some as babies taken in the bath etc ,these are long forgotten family photos ,but the camera then was a medium for watching or keeping a record of your children growing up and harmless as the pics were not intended to be seen outside the family circle .
Fast forward 30 or 40 plus years and technology and the internet has changed things and computer hard drives have exposed a dark side of human nature paedophiles ,something that the majority of normal people didn’t know existed all those years ago .so I have to agree in this digital age keep your family pics private and if and only publish photos that your 100% certain have no elements in them that could cause you trouble .
 
I can see both sides of this thought.

To me photographing my Grandchildren and If and when I post them on Flickr or Photobucket they are there to be seen,it does not worry me or give me any concern.

Who would know that these photographs are of my Grandchildren?

If I had any reservation about these photographs or what could/may happen to them, I would then control the viewing audience,but, That for me would not happen. To those individuals that have that fear OK.
 
paedophiles.

Why bring this into the arena,if you are taking photo,s of children that would interest this type of person,then revisit your photography style.
 
I also find this attitude strange. And I do have grand children

Someone wrote paedophiles.

What damage will it do to your children if they or their photographs are seen by a paedophile.
They more than likely are seen by them in the street, every time they go out.

The greater damage is done by the attitude of over protection and fear that it engenders.

As far as copyright violations go, family photographs are in no more in danger than any other. And the remedy the same.

None of us should be taking salacious or indecent photographs of our, or anyone elses children, of any sort, that we would not be proud to show anyone.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
If you had some perhaps you would understand their POV a little better.
Click to expand...

There's an obvious thing here of not sharing images of children in the bath, but then they've always remained private but fun growing up images. We have ones of our children with a huge bath full of bubbles and 4 kids in the path, two of which are the children of good friends of ours.

But other images, clothed, why not. I often hear the argument that they'll take the head of a pretty child and photoshop it onto a pornographic image. Really? They'll spend that much time when there's a raft of images available on the internet, store magazines etc. There's no issue with sharing images like this, none at all. It's all part of the recording of family life.
 
Personally, I don't ever post pictures of family on any sharing site (irrespective of age). I just think its polite for people to choose if their picture is online, so I normally share by email and then its persons own choice. I do this because I got fed of some of my own family 'over sharing'.
 
I have kids and I can't see what difference that makes at all - Paedos aren't that common and short of posting pics of my kids naked with bits showing I can't see what benefit it'd be to them to see them, sexual gratification of a dressed child? Even if that's a thing then I'd still never know about it so it doesn't really matter compared with all the oohs & awws you'd get from family & friends, which is nice :)

When my son was a toddler he was really cute and strangers did ask if they could photograph him at times when out playing, as I liked to shoot cute kids too I could hardly say no

The P**** thing is massively out of proportion to any risk IMO and scaring normal folk into not doing normal things :(

Dave
 
Nan Golding - Eden and after - children behaving naturally and enjoying themselves as innocents, before they have societies pressures and adult morals imposed on them.
 
The last time I looked something like 80% of attacks on children were by members of their own family or people they know, a truly shocking statistic that I think is not pointed out enough by the media. So though it is very sad to say it, sharing only with the family seams counter-intuitive if you actually know the facts about child abuse, not just the tabloid fear stories.

Living next to a beach, in the summer I am very careful about making it clear I am there to photograph the surfers, not the kids. But you still get "looks" when you take a DSLR and telephoto to the beach.
 
I can to some extent see their point, putting aside the “stranger danger” aspect of this which IMHO is far too overstated in the press, there is an issue of loss of control in general. In the days before the internet and digital your family snaps were prints that you could show to people, you would typically only give prints to close family and you essentially retained control. Making the same snaps public on the internet does run the risk of you not knowing to where they are copied or archived. So what? Well, there are some risks, for example the photos being used for social media bullying and banging on about copyright really has no effect here, the damage is done before you even know the problem exists.

So the people you were talking to were really treating family digital photos as we used to treat prints from film, it’s just that in those days you didn’t have to think about it or have a “policy”.

All that said, I regularly post photos of my daughter on here and flickr but she likes being photographed and is happy with the results. I do not, however post them anywhere where they could be easily linked to her by “friends of friends” or e.g. on facebook.
 
twist said:
If you had some perhaps you would understand their POV a little better.
Click to expand...

I am amazed that people are questioning this answer..

Its human nature.. somehting that can have little rhyme nor reason.. You become protective to the point of sillyness.. its like falling in love.. its not somehting you can organise or control.. its just human nature.. a parent will ahve a different outlook regarding there own children thats all...I take pics of children for a living and put on my website.. but am a little more protective about my own... why? haha ?

its not easy to explain but its pretty common knowledge ...
 
Marc said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Because then he would be in their position and his experience/concerns may differ. A lot of things are puzzling (not just this case) until people have the same experience.

I was just adding another layer to the discussion as to why OP might feel this way.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
If you had some perhaps you would understand their POV a little better.
Click to expand...
I have kids but that's not really relevant to the point raised I think - double standards - the one that thinks it's okay to publish pics of strangers, but not of your own family.
Regardless of the side of the fence you land (and I will happily publish pics of my kids), I think you have to give the same courtesy to strangers and friends alike.
 
Byker28i said:
There's an obvious thing here of not sharing images of children in the bath, but then they've always remained private but fun growing up images. We have ones of our children with a huge bath full of bubbles and 4 kids in the path, two of which are the children of good friends of ours.

But other images, clothed, why not. I often hear the argument that they'll take the head of a pretty child and photoshop it onto a pornographic image. Really? They'll spend that much time when there's a raft of images available on the internet, store magazines etc. There's no issue with sharing images like this, none at all. It's all part of the recording of family life.
Click to expand...

Sure, I wasn't having a dig at the OP, we all make our own choices but shouldn't be confused by choices others make until in the same position.
 
Furtim said:
I have kids but that's not really relevant to the point raised I think - double standards - the one that thinks it's okay to publish pics of strangers, but not of your own family.
Regardless of the side of the fence you land (and I will happily publish pics of my kids), I think you have to give the same courtesy to strangers and friends alike.
Click to expand...

I agree, ask or don't publish. Then they are given the choice. Id never take pics of others kids unless it was requested.

I should've read into the last 2 paras a bit more.
 
Last edited:
I have two young kids and the only thing that has ever stopped me posting pics of them on flickr is that they're often probably boring to other people. If I get a nice photo fullstop of my kids, I'll post them. I don't really see the issue and have never felt concerned doing so. .
 
There must be millions of kids photos on the web, worry more about the people who see dodgy goings on at every turn.
 
I have quite a lot of work and research into this area as it was a subject I was considering as a thesis paper. It helps my wife is a early years specialist and at times an advisor to government policy and a school governor. I'd have to pull up all my work and review for a longs answer, it's quite long and was written a couple of years ago.
For the record I used to do a lot of youth work and involvement in youth organisations, which meant I had enhanced CRB/DBS checks for organisations such as the RFU, Scouts, Church of England etc.

The usual first contacts with this is from schools or youth events banning photography, which then leads to restrictions in peoples minds. If the school etc bans it then it must be wrong.
Interviewing people the general reasons given were:
  • Fear that a vulnerable child might be identified - this appears to be the most common reason given
  • Protecting the event from intrusive parents taking images - we've all seen the many parents with phones, ipads, cameras, videos, obstructing the views of others
  • This leads into commercial opportunities for the organiser and the protection of those
  • The expectation of privacy - Theres a famous case here of Paul Weller and the Daily Wail publishing images of his children
  • The fear of paedophilia - this is the interesting one and leads to much paranoia and hysteria.
Identification of a vulnerable child is difficult for schools as they don't wish to identify that there are such children which can lead to speculation, but at the same time need to protect these children. I know we have some at our local primary school who have moved area to get away from abusive fathers. The other reasons and confusion leads

But lets target the Paedophilia - as this is often brought up, as above. and has led me to have two accounts banned on Mumsnet when I tried to have a sensible discussion around this for my thesis.
Usual comments were along the lines of "you want photos of children, you sick individual, P****" etc. These objections raised against photographing children be based on the assumption that all male photographers are upto no good.

There's been a couple of documented cases of images taken from social media, such as this one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ook-photos-on-Russian-paedophile-website.html
Note that the interview with the mum was of a child in fancy dress, not naked.

There's also several other cases of people getting hysterical, such as the southend tourist case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-taking-shots-fountains-children-nearby.html

Which of course led to the spoof news site Southend News publishing:
http://southendnewsnetwork.com/news...-seafront-is-accused-of-being-a-photographer/

The legislation relating to this is the Obscene publication act of 1959, and concerns itself with the possession of indecent photographs. It applies a test, does the material have a tendency to ‘deprave and corrupt’?

This is obviously the criterea to meet the legal obligations for sharing family images, but I would also like to include the expectation of privacy. Would you be embarrassing your child at a later stage in life if these images were discovered online, say if found during school years.

By not taking these images, but not recording and at times sharing, we are failing to record those special moment and memories and that would be a shame. Luckily there are organisations that recognise the importance of photography and actively encourage it, like the RFU.
The RFU welcomes the taking of appropriate images of children in rugby clubs and has developed guidance for parents and the children’s workforce to enable suitable photographs to be taken celebrating the Core Values of the sport.

There's also a social history to recording these images, many photographers work is important in these areas.

So I think it's important to know the facts, to challenge the assumption we're all paedos, to get to the bottom of these objections and to challenge people to think for themselves rather than regurgitate daily wail articles.
Share the images, but be mindful of oversharing on social media (it's boring) and of what you share. It certainly shouldn't stop you taking images but much as though you are aware of the 'rules' of composition when framing an image, one should also be aware of social attitudes and local customs.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I also find this attitude strange. And I do have grand children

Someone wrote paedophiles.

What damage will it do to your children if they or their photographs are seen by a paedophile.
They more than likely are seen by them in the street, every time they go out.

The greater damage is done by the attitude of over protection and fear that it engenders.

As far as copyright violations go, family photographs are in no more in danger than any other. And the remedy the same.

None of us should be taking salacious or indecent photographs of our, or anyone elses children, of any sort, that we would not be proud to show anyone.
Click to expand...
That is EXACTLY how I feel about it.
 
Kaolin said:
Personally, I don't ever post pictures of family on any sharing site (irrespective of age). I just think its polite for people to choose if their picture is online.
Click to expand...
Sure, I get that. But then I presume you don't do any 'street' photography, and you apply the same rules of politeness whether the photo is of a family member or a stranger?
 
StewartR said:
Sure, I get that. But then I presume you don't do any 'street' photography, and you apply the same rules of politeness whether the photo is of a family member or a stranger?
Click to expand...

I have business cards pointing to my website from when I used to shoot youth rugby. It's a handy device with contact details to 'legitimise' me as a photographer. It also helps when I take images in public places, show them to the parent (advantage of digital) and offer them a copy. To be honest I do the same with photographing dogs :D
 
It is hypocritical and human nature.. I am guilty myself as I bet others are :)
 
Last edited:
gad-westy said:
I have two young kids and the only thing that has ever stopped me posting pics of them on flickr is that they're often probably boring to other people. If I get a nice photo fullstop of my kids, I'll post them. I don't really see the issue and have never felt concerned doing so. .
Click to expand...

:agree: This is pretty much my thoughts summed up.

Having said that The BBC had an interesting article on the way parents use social media and the impact on children as they get older...should children ban their parents from social media. Including the comments "In the UK, the average parent with a social media account has posted 1,498 photos of their child online by their fifth birthday, according to a survey by domain name company, Nominet." and "Stories about online privacy are often about children and teenagers being warned of the dangers of publishing too much personal information online. But in this case it's their parents who are in the spotlight."
 
KIPAX said:
Its human nature.. somehting that can have little rhyme nor reason.. You become protective to the point of sillyness.. its like falling in love.. its not somehting you can organise or control.. its just human nature.. a parent will ahve a different outlook regarding there own children thats all...I take pics of children for a living and put on my website.. but am a little more protective about my own... why? haha ?

its not easy to explain but its pretty common knowledge ...
Click to expand...
Not true.
Some people become overprotective, the fact that they see that as normal is idiocy. And if it goes unchallenged we become a society that has lost all trust in the human race. It’s not a bright outlook.
 
Phil V said:
Not true.
Some people become overprotective, the fact that they see that as normal is idiocy. And if it goes unchallenged we become a society that has lost all trust in the human race. It’s not a bright outlook.
Click to expand...

An excellent post. :ty:
 
Giblets said:
I don't think people were questioning your answer but just asking for clarification of your statement.
Click to expand...

it wasnt MY answer :) Aand indeed i attepmted to clarify it for him..... Do keep up :):)
 
Phil V said:
Not true.
Click to expand...

Sorry? whats not true?

Phil V said:
Some people become overprotective, the fact that they see that as normal is idiocy. And if it goes unchallenged we become a society that has lost all trust in the human race. It’s not a bright outlook.
Click to expand...

I agree 10o% .. I attempted to explain the reasoning.. at no point did I say it was good ..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top