Pictures of children

Quicksnapper

Quicksnapper

Suspended / Banned
Messages
704
Name
Sara
Edit My Images
Yes
Just thought I'd ask ... Just been reading on another forum a great deal of self righteous indignation generated when someone had the audacity to fly in the face of all the macho back patting (great shot / well done etc etc ... You know the sort of thing) and suggest that taking random pics of other peoples little girls and posting them on Flickr and other places is an OK thing to do. Personally, I avoid taking pics of kids unless asked to do so by their parents (having none of my own to photograph) and certainly wouldn't post any I did take on Flickr or some forum asking for opinions on their photographic excellence or not. I have recently taken a lot of pics at my friend's wedding. Pics of adults are everywhere, pics of her 2year old daughter are not. Like the poster on the other forum, I am not a paranoid nutter .....

Does it make a difference that I am female? Do guys think differently about this? I'd welcome any thoughts or opinions....

Ps ... Happy new year!
 
I'm not sure what to say to that, I'm male and have two kids of my own, which I obviously take plenty of photos of. I also don't think twice about posting pics of them on here or flickr. Pictures of children are everywhere, me not post pictures of my kids won't make any difference to the very small minority of perverts out there. Children are everywhere, as are pictures of them, on the tv, internet, everywhere.
I'm happy to say that the school my kids go also has a refreshing attitude to the photography of kids and doesn't ban people taking pics at the kids Christmas concert, sports days, etc. there are also no shortage of pics of the kids on the school website.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you say 'random' pictures of children but I really can't see an issue with pictures of children on the internet provided they aren't inappropriate.
 
I'm a guy, I take pictures of kids upon parents paying for my services, I then post some on facebook and also flickr to share here for comments and critique (with parents approval)

Don't have an issue doing it.
I'm sure there are many more just like me too :)
 
It is a bit old hat, really, but to be frank, it's usually not worth the argument with people so photographers tend to keep the peace and avoid any confrontation. The law stands as if it's a public place, anything is fair game to photograph. The photographer holds copyright and moral rights to the image and can do with them, as they please. Private venues are sketchy on photography and usage...that's a whole different battlefield.

There are issues with social services with children and photography however, so I have no idea how that would actually work, but I do know that some social services departments state that fostered/adopted children or those going through the process, aren't to have images posted on sites such as facebook. No idea how it could even be enforced, but it's for the safety of the children.

I understand both points of view. As a photographer, I want to show people my photos and capture images - sometimes that's the expression on the face of a child or a child doing something. As a mother, I'm not overly keen on my child's face plastered all over, possibly being made into a meme or associated with a blog article that discusses something I deem unethical, etc. Common sense is at the root of it all, really.

You can't stop people looking at a child, you can't stop people taking photos in public, you can't stop those images being taken in public being published publicly also.
 
Hi ... KIPAX ... Sorry if this has been done to death before, and you're rolling your eyes over your NYE glass of vino, but as a relative newcomer I'm interested in opinions. I'm a keen photographer (obviously as that's why I joined this forum) but I'm also female (which makes a difference to my thinking, I'd suggest) and on the committee of a local camera club where the unwritten rule is generally "no kids" just for the sake of courtesy as much as anything. Some parents are a bit sensitive on this issue.

Tunbridge, thank you for your "dad's" view. Of course you take pics of your own kids and it's entirely up to you what you do with them, but they're your kids, so your decision, not some stranger's son or daughter who happened to be in the right place at the right time ....

The question is, if you saw a pic of your child on a forum, taken by someone else, how would you feel? Say you'd gone to the zoo or a funfair for a day out, for example? I'm not suggesting that such images would be inappropriate in any way, just that they are out there without your knowledge or permission in your role of responsible parent?

Personally, I'd be a bit uncomfortable with that, but that's just my opinion, and, of course, we're all entitled .......!
 
Where possible I avoid at all possible taking pictures of sproglets not on any moral grounds...just that I don't like taking photos of kids or people in general :lol: but if I was into candid photography would I take photos of kids too, I probably would because if it tells a good story it's worth telling IMO
 
why would you be uncomfortable with it ? and what exactly has being a responsible parent got to do with it ?
 
Quicksnapper said:
Hi ... KIPAX ... Sorry if this has been done to death before, and you're rolling your eyes over your NYE glass of vino, but as a relative newcomer I'm interested in opinions. I'm a keen photographer (obviously as that's why I joined this forum) but I'm also female (which makes a difference to my thinking, I'd suggest) and on the committee of a local camera club where the unwritten rule is generally "no kids" just for the sake of courtesy as much as anything. Some parents are a bit sensitive on this issue.

Tunbridge, thank you for your "dad's" view. Of course you take pics of your own kids and it's entirely up to you what you do with them, but they're your kids, so your decision, not some stranger's son or daughter who happened to be in the right place at the right time ....

The question is, if you saw a pic of your child on a forum, taken by someone else, how would you feel? Say you'd gone to the zoo or a funfair for a day out, for example? I'm not suggesting that such images would be inappropriate in any way, just that they are out there without your knowledge or permission in your role of responsible parent?

Personally, I'd be a bit uncomfortable with that, but that's just my opinion, and, of course, we're all entitled .......!
Click to expand...

I totally see your point and I can see why some people would take issue with this, particularly in this day and age. I personally wouldn't take a random picture of somebody else's child without their knowledge just because I'd be worried of any over reaction and confrontation (plus the fact I have no interest in doing so). But even if I did want to, who would want to risk being accused of being a p*** by an over reacting do gooder? This is just modern society and the way people think differently than they would have, say 30 years ago. I suspect it does more damage than good in most instances.
 
I'M A MALE WITH A CAMERA, 50 ODD YEARS OLD, DIVORCED WITH KIDS, LIVE ON MY OWN, SO I'M A PEADOPHILE. THAT'S LIFE I GUESS.
 
I have been out with my camera and have seen photo opportunities created by other peoples children and have not taken the picture because of social preasures. It has crossed my mind to ask the parents permission, but I'd rather return home with all my teeth, or at least the same ones I left with.

I have dealt with paedophiles who have only come to notice because of reports from parents regards photographing their children in public, so perhaps I am overly cautious.
I was suprised to find I could use my water proof camera at Centre Parks and got a couple of fun pictures of my children swimming, but even there I was careful where I pointed it.
I thinkbtwice about posting pictures on the web, but that is more to do with facial recognition softwear and me valuing my privacy and safety.

Dave
 
Quicksnapper said:
Hi ... KIPAX ... Sorry if this has been done to death before, .!
Click to expand...

I have to say.. I don't believe you are...
You wouldnt have started the thread if you where.... So lets not tell porkies eh :)

This thread is useless to you.. your question cannot be answered.. your replies will depend on whos online at the time and who read the question.. for every ten saying they would take pics.. ten will say they wouldnt and ten will sit on the fence... there will be loads of different answers why its right or why irts wrong.. loads of people telling you what your allowed not allowed.. there will be missinformation and pontification...

What it boils down to is.. do whatever feels right.. not what others say on a messageboard who have totally different views/morals/thoughts/whatever to you..

PS I spend most of my time in schools taking pics of children doing sports .....and publishing them on the web...
 
I am a Scout Leader and when on Camp and at other events I take pictures. These are for memories for me and my Scouts and there are hundreds of them on My Flickr. The Parents are sent a link to the sets so they can look at them .

MWHCVT said:
Where possible I avoid at all possible taking pictures of sproglets not on any moral grounds...just that I don't like taking photos of kids or people in general :lol: but if I was into candid photography would I take photos of kids too, I probably would because if it tells a good story it's worth telling IMO
Click to expand...

Matt
As far as most of my photgraphy goes I am the same.
 
It's a pity that we live in such a paranoid age but the internet's largely to blame. Innocence and cheerfulness are things to value.

It'd be ridiculous to exclude kids from non-exploitative photos that are generally available but as a base-line their identities should be protected ...
 
Im sure if you were a p*** there would me more places than facebook and forums to search for what your after
 
As a father of three all under ten i'm acutely aware of the paranoia surrounding anyone within 50ft of a child armed with any form of camera above a camera phone as I stalk my own kids to death when we're out and about with my kit.

So i'm used to the 'looks' and the muted muttering from other parents. But I’ve never once had anyone approach me or say anything negative but i do respect other people’s feelings however irrational they maybe. For example we spend a lot of time at our local park walking the dog and it has a nice play area the kids love. So if i'm not shooting my own children then it's lens pointed down as i have no interest in capturing any other child who may be there. If someone starts muttering away while looking in my direction for more than i think is reasonable i'll generally go stand next to them and break out the 70 - 300 and take some long shots (again of my own children) and see if anything comes of it, nothing so far. I'm no wilting flower, and my missus says of me that if you don't know me i can be quite scary looking (she likes the big rough biker type image :)).

If the shoe were on the other foot and someone took what i considered to be very unhealthy interest in shooting my children then i would intervene. They would have to be doing something in the extreme to illicit that reaction however as my immediate reaction on seeing a fellow tog turning up and shooting would be "what is he / she shooting with? Is there any lens envy going on".

As for worried about photos of my children turning up on the Internet, what worry? Media paranoia at its best. My children leave the house with me in very respectable attire why should i be concerned if they get snapped, they are just some random child to anyone who sees the image.

And i'll end with the one and only experience I’ve had with another parent while shooting my kids. I was at a playground in an area you wouldn't spend too much time in after dark with my two youngest. Another parent (male and looking like he needed a hit of something to keep him going) was already there playing with his two kids. So i'm shooting away and my youngest befriends his little girl and they start playing together. So down goes the lens as i don't want the other girl in shot as at that point they were friends (as generally happens with other kids after 30 secs of playing together) and playing a game practically nose to nose. The guy pipes up "don't worry mate, keep taking your pictures". Now this made me both happy and severely depressed at the same time. Happy that he'd clocked i'd respected the situation (by my own standards) and wasn't paranoid to hell of some big bloke swinging his long lens gripped dslr around like a machine gun (my kids move fast!). But also depressed that i felt the need to lens down my camera (again personal choice) and he felt the need to convey he didn't think i was a threat to his offspring or some pervert. Anyway we had a bit of banter about kids growing up fast and capturing every moment etc. and eventually we were on our way.
 
Quicksnapper said:
Hi ... KIPAX ... Sorry if this has been done to death before, and you're rolling your eyes over your NYE glass of vino, but as a relative newcomer I'm interested in opinions. I'm a keen photographer (obviously as that's why I joined this forum) but I'm also female (which makes a difference to my thinking, I'd suggest) and on the committee of a local camera club where the unwritten rule is generally "no kids" just for the sake of courtesy as much as anything. Some parents are a bit sensitive on this issue.

Tunbridge, thank you for your "dad's" view. Of course you take pics of your own kids and it's entirely up to you what you do with them, but they're your kids, so your decision, not some stranger's son or daughter who happened to be in the right place at the right time ....

The question is, if you saw a pic of your child on a forum, taken by someone else, how would you feel? Say you'd gone to the zoo or a funfair for a day out, for example? I'm not suggesting that such images would be inappropriate in any way, just that they are out there without your knowledge or permission in your role of responsible parent?

Personally, I'd be a bit uncomfortable with that, but that's just my opinion, and, of course, we're all entitled .......!
Click to expand...

Kittens & Flowers make nice photos :D:rolleyes:
 
Quicksnapper said:
The question is, if you saw a pic of your child on a forum, taken by someone else, how would you feel? Say you'd gone to the zoo or a funfair for a day out, for example? I'm not suggesting that such images would be inappropriate in any way, just that they are out there without your knowledge or permission in your role of responsible parent?
Click to expand...

The clue is in your words. The only way a photograph of a child could be inappropriate is if you you allowed that child to be out in public in an inappropriate manner (whatever that means).

If I took my child out to a public event, many people will see him/her in real life. How is a photograph (a two dimensional representation of real life) of the same situation a problem?

MagicMynx said:
The photographer holds copyright and moral rights to the image and can do with them, as they please.
Click to expand...

The subject of the photograph has the moral right not to have their image used for commercial promotion (advertising) or in a defamatory way so you do not have complete freedom to do with them as you please. This applies equally to adults and children.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Quicksnapper said:
The question is, if you saw a pic of your child on a forum, taken by someone else, how would you feel? Say you'd gone to the zoo or a funfair for a day out, for example? I'm not suggesting that such images would be inappropriate in any way, just that they are out there without your knowledge or permission in your role of responsible parent?

Personally, I'd be a bit uncomfortable with that, but that's just my opinion, and, of course, we're all entitled .......!
Click to expand...


Can I ask you a question?


Why?


Why would you feel uncomfortable with it?

You're probably going to say, "Because it was without my knowledge or permission"... but why does THAT make you uncomfortable? What possible harm could result?
 
Last edited:
Hmm ... Thank you for your replies and observations one and all. As a relative newcomer I had no idea this topic had been extensively covered in the past and would generate so much vehemence, so I welcome being brought up to date on everyone's views.

Kipax ... You are totally wrong and have misjudged me, but hey, that's what forums are for I guess.

Have a happy and creative 2014 everyone.
 
i think people were hoping that you would reply to some of points that they made
 
Quicksnapper said:
kipax ... You are totally wrong and have misjudged me, but hey, that's what forums are for I guess..
Click to expand...


I think I ahve you about right:) ... You say your new to forums so dont know? hmm? it doesn tmatter if you are new.. starting a thread about photographing children is always going to be touchy.. you tell us this was the case on another forum you frequent yet start one here..

You say your sorry of this has been done to death before... well obviously your not.

Then you get loads of replies and people asking you questions and you cant even be bothered to enter into the debate you started...
 
Steve Smith said:
The clue is in your words. The only way a photograph of a child could be inappropriate is if you you allowed that child to be out in public in an inappropriate manner (whatever that means).

If I took my child out to a public event, many people will see him/her in real life. How is a photograph (a two dimensional representation of real life) of the same situation a problem?



The subject of the photograph has the moral right not to have their image used for commercial promotion (advertising) or in a defamatory way so you do not have complete freedom to do with them as you please. This applies equally to adults and children.


Steve.
Click to expand...
That may be moral, but that's not moral rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_in_United_Kingdom_law ;)
Model release forms aren't required in UK either, although obviously often favoured.
 
"The subject of the photograph has the moral right not to have their image used for commercial promotion (advertising) or in a defamatory way so you do not have complete freedom to do with them as you please. This applies equally to adults and children."
i believe this to be right though ,as Steve says you cant do what you like with a recognisable person in a pic
 
Personally, I have no qualms about including children (or people in general) in my pictures and posting them wherever I feel like. I should point out that I don't specifically take pictures of kids unless I'm being paid for it or it's at a judo tournament I'm covering for my grandson's club but kids make up a healthy percentage of the population so it's difficult to exclude them from general photography.

Parents that object - not that I've had any - are, I feel, generally hypocritical in that their FB pages are full of pictures of the same kids in far more compromising situations than I'd ever capture.
 
Of course the subject of a photograph has moral rights. Look, someone has even written a book about it...

http://www.amazon.com/Image-Ethics-Photographs-Television-Communication/dp/0195067800

419QyatEJ5L._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg



Steve.
 
And this...

Although copyright of photographs are normally held by the photographer, moral rights of privately commissioned photographs actually rest with the subject in the photograph. Thus, the photographer is prevented from publicising the photographs without first gaining the permission of the subject.
Click to expand...

from here: http://www.infogov.salford.ac.uk/copyright/intro.php#5

Although this really applies to subjects who have commissioned the photograph, unwitting subjects photographed in public have similar rights as to the usage of their images.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Really? I'm confused... how can a person have a right to say how an image of them is used?

A few examples... (and not reviving any of the many threads about photographers rights to photograph in public...)

* Johnny goes and picks a fight, hurting Jack. Joe takes several photos. Does Johnny have a right to stop them being used as evidence against him? If so, what is the point of CCTV? Surely every solicitor in the land would simply advise their clients to object to images being used as evidence?

* Emma is "on the fiddle", claiming Job Seekers but working in the local hairdressers. DWP get a tip off and send a photographer/spy to collect evidence. Can Emma say "oi! Hold on! I don't want those pictures to be used that way!" ?

* Nigella Lawson's partner, and the infamous picture of him with his hand around her neck. Does he have the right for those images not to be shown?

* The man in the street on a night out, while the camera crews are around for those police reality shows. Does he have the right to demand the footage not be shown? Can he demand that he has no association with the programme, TV channel, including advertising, etc?

Like I said...I'm confused.

I agree that there are ethics around photography, there's ethics in everything in life. That doesn't mean that you have a right.

Moral rights (*sigh*) is an extension of copyright and association of works. Things like images not being distorted. I was confused the first time I saw the phrase, it was actually on the back of a children's book, something along the lines of "the author maintains all copyright and moral rights associated with the publication" or whatever.
 
Steve Smith said:
And this...



from here: http://www.infogov.salford.ac.uk/copyright/intro.php#5

Although this really applies to subjects who have commissioned the photograph, unwitting subjects photographed in public have similar rights as to the usage of their images.


Steve.
Click to expand...
This means that if a company commissioned a kind of image, the photographer can't duplicate it for someone else, another company for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_in_United_Kingdom_law said:
Moral rights in United Kingdom law are parts of copyright law that protect the personal interests of the author of a copyrighted work, as well as the economic interests protected by other elements of copyright. Found in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the moral rights are the right to be identified as the author of a work, known as the right of paternity, the right to object to derogatory treatment of a work, known as the right of integrity, the right not to be identified as the author of someone else's work, and the right to privacy. The right of paternity exists for the entire copyright term, and requires individuals who commercially broadcast, sell, perform or exhibit literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works to identify the author of the work – this but does not apply to things such as typefaces, encyclopaedias or works subject to crown copyright.

The right of integrity protects authors from having their copyrighted works altered in such a fashion as to constitute a "distortion" or "mutilation" of the original work,[1] or in a way that harms the author's reputation or honour. Cases vary as to how the right of integrity should be interpreted, with some judges saying that "distortion" or "mutilation" should be taken to be part of the wider clause on reputation and honour to avoid subjective decisions,[1] and others interpreting each clause as distinct types of violation. The right to object to false attribution protects individuals from being identified as the authors of works they have not contributed to; unlike the other moral rights it exists only for the individual's lifetime and the 20 years after death, not for the full term of copyright. The United Kingdom's law on moral rights has been criticised for failing to correctly implement the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, and for being unreasonably narrow in the types of creative works it covers.
Click to expand...
 
If you take a photograph of someone in public, you can do almost anything you like with it.

However, you cannot show a person in defamatory way and you cannot use their image by association to advertise a product or service.

None of your examples are in these categories.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
If you take a photograph of someone in public, you can do almost anything you like with it.

However, you cannot show a person in defamatory way and you cannot use their image by association to advertise a product or service.

None of your examples are in these categories.


Steve.
Click to expand...
Steve, please read it again....

* Johnny goes and picks a fight, hurting Jack. Joe takes several photos. Does Johnny have a right to stop them being used as evidence against him? If so, what is the point of CCTV? Surely every solicitor in the land would simply advise their clients to object to images being used as evidence?

* Emma is "on the fiddle", claiming Job Seekers but working in the local hairdressers. DWP get a tip off and send a photographer/spy to collect evidence. Can Emma say "oi! Hold on! I don't want those pictures to be used that way!" ?

* Nigella Lawson's partner, and the infamous picture of him with his hand around her neck. Does he have the right for those images not to be shown?

* The man in the street on a night out, while the camera crews are around for those police reality shows. Does he have the right to demand the footage not be shown? Can he demand that he has no association with the programme, TV channel, including advertising, etc?

Memes too, do all those people have the right to not have their images used?

Does someone have the right not to be associated with something? For example, a woman's image next to an article about abortion. (Example because of ethics.) I remember something being mentioned vaguely about an image being used to advertise something and a woman wasn't happy with it, some news article link perhaps, maybe a stock image? But I can't remember the outcome or the laws etc that were quoted, and the laws vary in different countries. I admit that my examples are a bit sketchy, but the point (and confusion) still stands.

Also, with regards to advertising, is it literally a print or does it extend to "you can't share that image on your twitter feed, because it's associated with your business/blog/project/you" etc? Is a product or service only one for which cash is exchanged? I'm seeing lots of potentially grey areas, - is that why there's so much confusion on photographs, even extended to taking photographs in public?

Moral rights is an extension of copyright, but I do agree that there are ethics around photography.
 
Last edited:
I do a lot of photography for my daughters' primary school, where I'm also a parent governor. I do it because I get asked and I enjoy it. However I know there are certain kids that can't be included in pics that are going to be shown anywhere outside the school. This isn't because parents are awkward, it's because of things like as a result of child protection issues their whereabouts are being keep from someone. You just have to work around it. Anything for the local paper or for the PTCA website gets cleared by the Head first... This is why these days I generally think twice before posting any pics of other people's kids anywhere. I know legally I *can* but sometimes there are perfectly valid reasons not to...
 
I have young kids, and honestly couldn't care less if someone takes a picture of them. Kids do amusing things, and are good photographic subjects. I don't understand what the risk is supposed to be. A P**** sees a photo of them online? Is that the worry? A P**** might see them down at Tesco. Or in the park. Or at the pool. So what?
Ridiculous paranoia.
 
Maybe we have been hasty in attempting to ban the one thing that gives us back our privacy?

Picture

Phil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top