Czech PM lashes out at photographer

Laws generally are the moral standard of a society, don't steal, kill, etc. and are changed to keep in line with the general opinion. That being the case I can see a time when it will be illegal to photograph someone on the street and photographers will largely be forced underground because of the irrational fears fuelled by the media and in the worst case cameras will be banned in public places.

Would anyone who objects to their children being photographed care to explain rationally what their reasons are and I mean beyond a "because they might" reason. I'm looking for a solid bit of rational thinking not an emotional response born out of an unknown fear.

Any takers?
 
WillyNelson said:
"Taking pictures of your kid, mate. Perfectly within my rights."
Would you be ok with that?

The point is the line between legal rights & moral restrictions. Imo the photographers actions were past that moral boundary. I'm not anit-photographer, I just think we should all behave responsibly & with a bit of though for others.
Click to expand...

Then you should be in support of the photographer in this case. It was completely uncalled for having his head thrown against a wall and the moronic PM nearly let his kid fall out the pram in doing so. Thats past the moral boundary. I'd like to see people actually list the wrong doings of this photographer. He took a photo of the Prime Minister's kid as he was walking to work. The Prime Minister of an entire country. What if Gordon Brown or Tony Blair did that? What if Bush did that? Public outcry. He'd be a disgrace to the country.
 
pxl8 said:
Laws generally are the moral standard of a society, don't steal, kill, etc. and are changed to keep in line with the general opinion. That being the case I can see a time when it will be illegal to photograph someone on the street and photographers will largely be forced underground because of the irrational fears fuelled by the media and in the worst case cameras will be banned in public places.
Click to expand...

Its more likely the irresponsible and inconsiderate behaviour of some photographers will cause a public ban :thumbsdown: remember the public opinion towards the paps after the Diana crash

pxl8 said:
Would anyone who objects to their children being photographed care to explain rationally what their reasons are and I mean beyond a "because they might" reason. I'm looking for a solid bit of rational thinking not an emotional response born out of an unknown fear.

Any takers?
Click to expand...

Care to explain why anyone would want to take close up photos of someone elses children :suspect:
 
Splog said:
Care to explain why anyone would want to take close up photos of someone elses children :suspect:
Click to expand...

Where's DiddyDave when you need him. He's a press photographer. It makes a good photo, a good story. Honestly, when did it get all Daily Mail in here?
 
Splog said:
Care to explain why anyone would want to take close up photos of someone elses children :suspect:
Click to expand...

I did a press agency assignment the other day shooting 'autumn' general shots. As a guide my boss said make sure you get stuff with kids in. It sells papers (cute kids along with cute animals!). I spent the day in a park taking photos of kids, a few posed and a few shot from afar. I approach the parents afterwards or before to get details (names, ages etc). None of the parents had any issue with the situation.
 
At what ppoint does a day-to-day press photographer descend to become a "pap" then?

Define the difference between a press photographer who photographs celebrities (well known/famous persons) to publish in a newspaper/magazine/journal and a "pap" who takes pictures of celebrities (definition in brackets above) to publish in a newspaper/magazine/journal.............

Are agency photographers "paps"? They shoot on spec all the time.....so they must be. We had better disband Magnum, Reuters, the PA et al then hadn't we. Big Pictures is simply another news agency specialising in celebrity....but still a news agency.

I look forward to hearing what the defining line is.
 
Splog said:
Care to explain why anyone would want to take close up photos of someone elses children :suspect:
Click to expand...

I must admit usually when I do it I am getting paid to do it :)

Have you seen the work of Cartier Bresson, many images of children (not his) taken to record the moment. A famous one of 2 young girls in Mexico is seen as a classic representation of his work.

The dubious sexual undertone that society has chosen to view and look for in any dealings with strangers and children reflects poorly upon us as a society. The media sadly continues to propagate this view.

There are many photographers who over the years have taken pictures of children or scenes which included children. Without these images we would have significant difficulty in 'seeing' those periods and the people of the period in the context of their surroundings rather than in the staged environment of a studio.

There are photographers who enjoy 'capturing the moment' whether it is male, female, adult, child or even an animal. These moments represent a glimpse into our society. Get enough moments and we get a picture of the society in which they were captured.

There is a well known image of youths bathing in the Serpentine in Hyde Park in London taken at the turn of the previous century. This gives us a unique picture of that time which is not necessarily represented in the other recordings of the era (books etc.). Without that image I would have never known that people used to bath/swim in Hyde Park.

You could as well ask why take any picture? Why take a picture of a landscape? It has probably been photographed better before and will be there tomorrow so why bother? Why take the picture? For all the reasons that photographers have taken pictures since the camera was invented. The reasons are as complex as each photographer or as simple as a scene or moment captured. If you needed a reason to take a picture and all our actions had to be justified with some logic wouldn't the world be a poorer place?
 
Splog said:
Care to explain why anyone would want to take close up photos of someone elses children :suspect:
Click to expand...

I can think of lots of perfectly innocent reasons but for me the main one is because it reminds me of the wonder and simplicity of childhood. Their expressions change in an instant from one extreme to another. The excitement of an ice cream van, the hate and anger of a tantrum, the sadness of a grubby face streaked with tears and snot. A shot can take me back to my own childhood and hopefully stir similar memories in the viewer.

Of course they don't have to be close ups. One of my favourite shots is a small child playing on the beach with a bucket and space at the water's edge. There is space all around and it reminds me of how, as a child, I could get completely lost in my own adventures in my own world.

But forget about photos for the moment. Can you honestly say you've never been out somewhere and seen a child do something you thought was cute or sad or uplifting, etc?
 
:popcorn:
 
pxl8 said:
I can think of lots of perfectly innocent reasons but for me the main one is because it reminds me of the wonder and simplicity of childhood. Their expressions change in an instant from one extreme to another. The excitement of an ice cream van, the hate and anger of a tantrum, the sadness of a grubby face streaked with tears and snot. A shot can take me back to my own childhood and hopefully stir similar memories in the viewer.

Of course they don't have to be close ups. One of my favourite shots is a small child playing on the beach with a bucket and space at the water's edge. There is space all around and it reminds me of how, as a child, I could get completely lost in my own adventures in my own world.

But forget about photos for the moment. Can you honestly say you've never been out somewhere and seen a child do something you thought was cute or sad or uplifting, etc?
Click to expand...

I don't have any problems with that and thanks for the explanation, but I doubt any of those emotions or thoughts were going through the photographers mind when he was trying to take those shots of the pm and his child :)
 
petemc said:
Where's DiddyDave when you need him. He's a press photographer. It makes a good photo, a good story. Honestly, when did it get all Daily Mail in here?
Click to expand...

:wave:

I read that as you meant I'm a press tog :lol:

Yep - I love shooting other people's kids, and I'd want to do it even if they didn't pay me to and for pretty much the same reasons pxl8 mentions

They are photogenic and make great subjects

My son was pretty cute as a toddler and others did ask if they could photograph him at play - and yes we let them, would have been crazy of me to say no

DD

(And before you say it... no, he didn't get his good looks from me :()
 
I have a question. Is it not illegal to take photos of children without the parents permission.

If I was in the street and tog started taking pictures of my kid I'd probably do the same. Especially from such close range.

Choccy...
 
Its not illegal to take photos of kids without permission. It is illegal to assault people.
 
petemc said:
Its not illegal to take photos of kids without permission. It is illegal to assault people.
Click to expand...

So it's ok to go to a school and take photos of kids then. Let me know when you think there is nothing wrong with this sort of behaviour.

Choccy...
 
Thats just a stupid comment to make. You asked if it wasn't illegal. I said it wasn't. Its not illegal to goto the beach, take photos of girls and then spend 15hrs masturbating furiously over them at home but you don't do you?
 
A school is private land, so without the Head &/or Governor's permission, no you can't take pictures in a school yard

Aside from taking images to 'sexualise' kids there's never anything wrong with taking pictures of them - that we all now fear paedophiles are everywhere is a sad reflection on people's newfound paranoia

Because of which, while not illegal, there are now plenty of times when it's not advisable to Shoot kids without permission

DD
 
Choccy - suggest you read this thread from the beginning. The legality of taking pictures in the UK has been covered as has the appropriate response if you are not happy with someone taking pictures.

It really concerns me the number of people who consider it a perfectly valid response to thump someone for taking a picture. Some of those questioning 'paps' and their values really want to have a long hard look at their own.
 
Choccy said:
So it's ok to go to a school and take photos of kids then. Let me know when you think there is nothing wrong with this sort of behaviour.

Choccy...
Click to expand...

There's no law preventing someone standing outside the school gates taking photos of the children on the street.
There may be offenses in general, but the act of photographing children in public is not illegal. Doesn't matter whether you're outside the school, the mosque, or Sainsburys.
 
Marcel said:
There's no law preventing someone standing outside the school gates taking photos of the children on the street.
There may be offenses in general, but the act of photographing children in public is not illegal. Doesn't matter whether you're outside the school, the mosque, or Sainsburys.
Click to expand...

What about Tescos? :exit:
 
petemc said:
It would but that defeats the point of street photography. There is a guy in New York who works for Magnum. He goes right up to people and takes pictures. He uses the flash too, right in peoples faces. They always look surprised and walk off. He's never had any issues.
Click to expand...

If it were me that happened to . i would
 
There is a thread that covers the right to photograph in public and current threats to this right.

this post in particular gives the Home Office viewpoint and specifically mentions privacy

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=943248&postcount=364

Hopefully this will clarify a few peoples misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the current law in the UK.
 
At the end of the day,both parties were at fault
 
He should have hit the photographer a bloody sight harder!
 
Oh brother. 3 pages long and still someone new pops up missing the entire point some of us are trying to make.
 
Mikesphotaes said:
He should have hit the photographer a bloody sight harder!
Click to expand...

Read the thread before making such rash judgements

Really glad to see there is plenty of open minded photographers on this site, good discussion
 
Ok, lets put this simply for the late comers who have not bothered to read the thread or if they have it has passed them by completely.

It is legal to take pictures in public in the UK.

It is legal to take pictures of people in public in the UK.

It is legal to take pictures of children in public in the UK.

It is legal to take pictures of children in public in the UK even if they are unknown to you.

It is not legal to thump someone for taking a picture.
 
jpwone said:
Ok, lets put this simply for the late comers who have not bothered to read the thread or if they have it has passed them by completely.

It is legal to take pictures in public in the UK.

It is legal to take pictures of people in public in the UK.

It is legal to take pictures of children in public in the UK.

It is legal to take pictures of children in public in the UK even if they are unknown to you.

It is not legal to thump someone for taking a picture.
Click to expand...

Please do stop preaching :thumbsdown: ...... It's not about legalities, we all know what's legal and what's not :bonk: This is about how people behave and react in and to situations.
 
OK Splog

How you react and behave is a reflection of you. Your reaction is to thump someone even though you now say you know that would be illegal? Draw your own conclusions about this one.

Even though you know your reaction would be illegal do you still stand by it?

Just to remind you this thread was about whether an action was appropriate in response to a photo being taken. Have you decided to broaden this to situations in general? Wish you had told us then we could have got all philosophical instead of trying to work on the specific scenario we were discussing.

To put this in perspective (unlike many here) I have been threatened (not actually thumped) for taking a photo. I mean properly threatened by someone who had every intention of doing serious injury. So, you think I am preaching? Maybe its because I ran into a fool who thought he could thump someone for taking a picture. This was at an event were I had been invited by the organisers and was the official photographer for the event and the best of it was that he was not the intended subject of the picture.
 
russbates said:
Read the thread before making such rash judgements

Really glad to see there is plenty of open minded photographers on this site, good discussion
Click to expand...

I did but I have to revise my post.........

.........he should have given him a right good kicking!
 
petemc said:
I'm sorry but we do and if you did that I would hope the photographer pressed charges because no idiot on the street has the right to attack a photographer for taking a photo.
Click to expand...

Stick your camera in my face and you'll be wearing it sunshine.

As far as I am concerned, paparazi are the scum of the earth!
 
Mikesphotaes said:
Stick your camera in my face and you'll be wearing it sunshine.

As far as I am concerned, paparazi are the scum of the earth!
Click to expand...

Keep that attitude and you'll be wearing a very large tripod up your arse sunny jim sunshine sun of a yabba dabba dooooo. Honestly, you people are the real scum of the earth.
 
jpwone said:
OK Splog

How you react and behave is a reflection of you. Your reaction is to thump someone even though you now say you know that would be illegal? Draw your own conclusions about this one.

Even though you know your reaction would be illegal do you still stand by it?

Just to remind you this thread was about whether an action was appropriate in response to a photo being taken. Have you decided to broaden this to situations in general? Wish you had told us then we could have got all philosophical instead of trying to work on the specific scenario we were discussing.

To put this in perspective (unlike many here) I have been threatened (not actually thumped) for taking a photo. I mean properly threatened by someone who had every intention of doing serious injury. So, you think I am preaching? Maybe its because I ran into a fool who thought he could thump someone for taking a picture. This was at an event were I had been invited by the organisers and was the official photographer for the event and the best of it was that he was not the intended subject of the picture.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, still preaching and now getting personal :lol: are you a PCSO, traffic warden or security guard by any chance :lol: and yes I would still stop him, you can read that as punch if you prefer :D
 
Aaahh well.

I see this is unfortunately degenerating into something far removed from what was and could have remained a proper discussion about the rights and the responsibilities of photographers in general and the rights and responsibilities of those being photographed.

Such is life :)
 
I dont want to have to lock this as it was an interesting discussion, everyone stay away from the personal comments, No need to say anyone is preaching - they are entitled to post what they think, also no need start threatening each (even if it is in jest)!
 
Indeed. Seems that people, despite being photographers themselves, want to beat up other photographers. Think of the children! Oh the humanity!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top