Pictures of children

[Furtim]

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.

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.

Your first 4 points are not defamation; they are true representations of what happened. Defamation includes an element of false communication.

Your scenario regarding the abortion scenario, if the woman's image was used in such a way as to suggest she was strongly for or against, in counter to her own views - she would have grounds to complain (unless she was paid / model release / stock site etc...). Likewise, regarding advertising, if you were to suggest through a carefully constructed shot that Tiger Woods endorsed Coke rather than Pepsi, that would also be open to a challenge - more likely from their sponsor and their lawyers.

So as Steve has stated, other than in cases of deliberately setting out to misrepresent someone in a negative light (defamation), or to mislead by implying they endorse a product or service (advertising), you can do pretty much what you like with a photo you have taken in public.

 

[gramps]

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 .......!

I can understand your feelings, in this day and age it has become an unfortunate fact of life that everyone with a decent camera must be a paedophile or a terrorist.
Personally I wouldn't generally take photos of children without there being some surrounding circumstances, e.g. some sort of show/rally/performance etc where the children themselves are as it where 'on exhibition' by reason of what they are doing and them being there with the knowledge of their parents.

As an example, I took some shots of a couple of boys at an agricultural show ... their mum contacted me later having seen them and me asked for copies, which of course I provided, here's one...


Young-farmer by photogramps, on Flickr

A street candid like this is an exception for me but I liked the image, and of course the child was not recognisable...


Window Shopping by photogramps, on Flickr


As has been said, legally there is generally no issue in a public place, (not necessarily a place where the public are just granted access), everyone in a public place must assume that they can be seen by anyone else and that there is a high likelihood of being recorded on CCTV equipment.

As a photographer I try to respect what I perceive to be the wishes of the average parent in respect to their children and photography but I do not take the stance that it is always wrong to photograph children.

 

[phil8139]

For those that say you should not photograph children who may be subject to a protection order, do you ensure that all of their friends are aware so they do not fill up their social media pages of images of the child?

We have become so scared of doing anything that 'may' upset/offend/disclose/portray anyone. Fuelled by the compensation culture and blame chasers.

If you like it - shoot it. Use common sense and reasoned morals.

Phil.

 

[Steve Smith]

For those that say you should not photograph children who may be subject to a protection order, do you ensure that all of their friends are aware so they do not fill up their social media pages of images of the child?

You can only ensure that by keeping them out of public places or cover them up in public. Neither is practical.


Steve.

 

[BigJohn]

I love to look on archival websites many of those have photos of kids playing in the street at the park etc . I find it really interesting to see the games they were playing , the style of clothes and so on . If we stop talking these photos what will future generation's have to refer back to ? People die and these moments will be lost forever , erased from time never to be spoken about again . I too am a parent and if out and about wouldn't look twice at somebody with a camera unless they were showing an over interest in the kids . I'm unusually more vigilant with the people who want to blend in and not be noticed .

 

[gramps]

I love to look on archival websites many of those have photos of kids playing in the street at the park etc . I find it really interesting to see the games they were playing , the style of clothes and so on . If we stop talking these photos what will future generation's have to refer back to ? People die and these moments will be lost forever , erased from time never to be spoken about again . I too am a parent and if out and about wouldn't look twice at somebody with a camera unless they were showing an over interest in the kids . I'm unusually more vigilant with the people who want to blend in and not be noticed .

Good post!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Not long ago photographing any children at any time was not an issue.
Today it is
For the most part it is now safer not to do so, unless the parents are fully in agreement.
It is perhaps sad that this will be the first generation with few photographs covering the daily lives of children in the community.

however that is the social climate of our times.
fortunately times, like every thing else, change
.

 

[Phil Young]

It's unfortunate that some (a lot) of people think you need permission or it's illegal or any of that rubbish...

I'll take shots of kids if I want to and if confronted, i'll usually respond with the same treatment I get - rudeness gets ruideness and respect deserves respect.

What I won't do is NOT take photos, because that means I have some belief that it's wrong, which it isn't.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

I think it's fine.

If people take their children out in public then it's going to happen.

If you want privacy laws, move to America.

 

[phil8139]

You can only ensure that by keeping them out of public places or cover them up in public. Neither is practical.


Steve.

Or prevent them from having friends, which is even more sad.

Phil.

 

[landwomble]

For those that say you should not photograph children who may be subject to a protection order, do you ensure that all of their friends are aware so they do not fill up their social media pages of images of the child?

We have become so scared of doing anything that 'may' upset/offend/disclose/portray anyone. Fuelled by the compensation culture and blame chasers.

If you like it - shoot it. Use common sense and reasoned morals.

Phil.

Well, it's a percentage game, isn't it. Reduction of risk in a sensible fashion without going overboard. I know a class with five kids under a protection notice. It would be highly unpleasant of me to say "screw compensation and blame culture" and post pics of them on social media when I photograph their class for, say, Children in Need for the local paper. It's not me I'd be putting at risk hence it's not my decision to to make the call of whether it's OK or not...

If my kids are playing in the park asks other kids are in shot it's a different matter and I wouldn't really think twice.

Common sense, really.

 

[phil8139]

But it's not about you as a photographer making the decision, or being given an instruction not to publish is it. The percentage game would suggest that if you allow kids to play together they will be on social media at some point. You have little or no control over that.

I am all for protecting vulnerable people, but the current system is as pointless as the CRB checks.

Photographing kids is a valuable part of social history, being over protective, over sensitive and looking for blame where non exists is damaging.

As most offenders are a known family member/friend, I will take a gamble that the percentage of people taking pics are not out to harm my kids. It is also a UK thing as when I travel I never have to explain why my camera is out and pointing at strangers swimming in the sea.

Phil.

 

[Byker28i]

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?

Ok We have done this before and I'm a vocal advocate of taking photos. When I can I will always question the 'it's wrong just because it is' comments by trying to get the person to explain. After all, only by discussion will wemove on and understand each others opinion.

Could you explain what you mean by "they are out there without your knowledge or permission in your role of responsible parent"

At which point does responsible parenting have anything to do with anyone taking photos of a suitably clothed child? The child must be suitably clothed as you have, as a responsible parent, dressed them appropriately for the environment they are expected to be in. So what's the issue if someone takes a photo?

Children by their very nature are much more natural subjects and tend to do things that make for really interesting images, or documentaries of the times


Also - which other forum? A photography or parenting forum?

 

[Bazza155]

I get sick and tired of old forum members stating that this has been discussed before....so what!
Forums live and breathe on new blood, if it has been discussed before you do not have to join in the debate.
The same goes for "Use the search facility........give newer members a chance to participate in answering/responding to the question........or learning.

As for the original question.
If no photos of kids are taken, in years to come folk will ask what did kids do, how did they play, what did they play with.......these are memories for you in later life.
Photos are not only images but a record of history.

You need photos of your kid to embarrass them in front of their boyfriend/girlfriend in the teenage years.

 

[Sparkles33]

Your first 4 points are not defamation; they are true representations of what happened. Defamation includes an element of false communication.

Your scenario regarding the abortion scenario, if the woman's image was used in such a way as to suggest she was strongly for or against, in counter to her own views - she would have grounds to complain (unless she was paid / model release / stock site etc...). Likewise, regarding advertising, if you were to suggest through a carefully constructed shot that Tiger Woods endorsed Coke rather than Pepsi, that would also be open to a challenge - more likely from their sponsor and their lawyers.

So as Steve has stated, other than in cases of deliberately setting out to misrepresent someone in a negative light (defamation), or to mislead by implying they endorse a product or service (advertising), you can do pretty much what you like with a photo you have taken in public.

The fourth mentioned advertising.
The statement of advertising without consent of the person in the image, is void - that would mean that newspapers and gossip magazines wouldn't be able to advertise their headlines!
I'm also very confused as to how an image and solely an image, could be defamatory - without manipulation of the image? Surely a camera simply captures a moment in time?

 

[Keith W]

I get sick and tired of old forum members stating that this has been discussed before....so what!
Forums live and breathe on new blood, if it has been discussed before you do not have to join in the debate.
The same goes for "Use the search facility........give newer members a chance to participate in answering/responding to the question........or learning.

 

[boyfalldown]

I'm also very confused as to how an image and solely an image, could be defamatory - without manipulation of the image? Surely a camera simply captures a moment in time?

A photo can still be defamatory. Its OT but a quick example may be if you took a photo of a supermodel outside the priory. If you took and then published that photo in such a way as it could be reasonably believed they were leaving (or entering) the clinic when they were actually just walking past then that'd be defamatory. Another may be if you used a photo in such away as to imply endorsement where none exists

 

[bobleeuk]

I get sick and tired of old forum members stating that this has been discussed before....so what!
Forums live and breathe on new blood, if it has been discussed before you do not have to join in the debate.
The same goes for "Use the search facility........give newer members a chance to participate in answering/responding to the question........or learning.
.

very well said, if it is something you have come across before either don't comment or be polite and answer, not be arrogant and unhelpful, its hardly the way to make folk feel welcome is it.

 

[woof woof]

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!

Happy New Year!

I try to be as discrete as possible and I rarely include people in my shots unless they're in the middle or far distance. I usually carry my camera in my hand and put it around my back or in the bag if I'm passing people. The message is that I try to be careful. But the last year was I think the worst yet for unpleasant experiences. Other people may shrug things off but they affect me, spoil my day and affect what I do in public.

I've been staring at (mostly by what I'd describe as middle aged women) so much so I don't go to my local park alone now (I like nature and I like to feed the animlas) even without my camera, I've been called a pervert when I was spotted taking pictures of wild flowers and a schoolboy on a bike asked me why I was taking pictures of him whist I had my back to him stood under a tree with my camera unmistakably pointed skywards whilst I took pictures of buds and my brother in law committed the crime of photographic local kids vandalising his property and within a hour the police were at his door and he was called a paedophile in the street.

IMVHO many of us Brits are turning into overly aggressive, paranoid, reactionaries when spotting a man on his own where he shouldn't be (a lone man in the park/countryside/seaside=pervert/P****) and even more so if the man has a camera. When I watch Digital Review videos I'm amazed Kai isn't beaten to death but then he isn't in the UK.

There's just no way I'd take a picture of children, not in my usual haunts anyway and yes, I think it probably does make a difference if you're female.

And a question for any females reading my post... why do so many women, especially middle aged women, stare at lone men in parks or at the seaside etc with or without cameras?

 

[simonblue]

I don't about you lot but their something very odd about this thread and the OP,read the first part the person doesn't mention children,they first talk about photos of "Little Girls",then they say new to all this "Photography",then they say they have just shot a wedding and are on the local camera club committee ?.
Then when ask to answer some ? about their points they have made,they get very defenses and say they are being misunderstood then disappear from the thread.
Someone fishing i don't know why,but i aint swallowing the bait.

 

[Keith W]

What a crock of old s**t!

I mean really?

Get a grip for heavens sake!

 

[Phil Young]

I don't about you lot but their something very odd about this thread and the OP,read the first part the person doesn't mention children,they first talk about photos of "Little Girls",then they say new to all this "Photography",then they say they have just shot a wedding and are on the local camera club committee ?.
Then when ask to answer some ? about their points they have made,they get very defenses and say they are being misunderstood then disappear from the thread.
Someone fishing i don't know why,but i aint swallowing the bait.

Don't be silly. We are always fighting this kind of attitude from other people.

Sounds to me like the 0P feels its not right to take kids photos and wanted to discuss those feelings. Instead , got a load of rude responses and decided it's not worth bothering over.

 

[simonblue]

Don't be silly. We are always fighting this kind of attitude from other people.

Sounds to me like the 0P feels its not right to take kids photos and wanted to discuss those feelings. Instead , got a load of rude responses and decided it's not worth bothering over.

Sorry Phil still stink to me,i am not sure why gut feeling

 

[simonblue]

What a crock of old s**t!

I mean really?

Get a grip for heavens sake!

Why is it wrong to ? something if you think something doesn't feel right.
This is the internet you believe everything people say or who they are ?

 

[DemiLion]

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

Steve.

US law, not British. Take a look at the authors!

 

[matwest904q]

I get sick and tired of old forum members stating that this has been discussed before....so what!
Forums live and breathe on new blood, if it has been discussed before you do not have to join in the debate.
The same goes for "Use the search facility........give newer members a chance to participate in answering/responding to the question........or learning.

I'm glad you said this. I've only been taking photos for about a year and a half, and there has been a couple of times when I've been out and about where I've questioned myself on the etiquette aspect of taking photos, not just on the "kids" subject but other things as well. I have tried to use the search facility but invariably it ends up with an empty screen saying "sorry, no results found" so I have no choice but to ask the question. If it has been asked before and people don't want to comment again, why not read something else or post a link to the already answered question on another thread? Surely it's in everyone's best interests to at least be polite. Just thought I'd give my view seeing as I don't really post a lot as Bazza says, I'd only be repeating what's already been said.

 

[Byker28i]

I don't about you lot but their something very odd about this thread and the OP,read the first part the person doesn't mention children,they first talk about photos of "Little Girls",then they say new to all this "Photography",then they say they have just shot a wedding and are on the local camera club committee ?.
Then when ask to answer some ? about their points they have made,they get very defenses and say they are being misunderstood then disappear from the thread.
Someone fishing i don't know why,but i aint swallowing the bait.

Holiday time perhaps, other things to do, didn't realise it would turn into a huge snowball thread, didn't like some of the aggressive answers?

There's a number of reasons.

The thing is, even if this is discussed every two or three months, it's discussed, it gets the arguments out there and starts to question the media induced attitude that every person with a camera is a terrorist or pervert.

 

[Byker28i]

What a crock of old s**t!

I mean really?

Get a grip for heavens sake!

Does this help move the discussion on? It's not even clear who your rude, aggressive response was aimed at? Would you have responded the same to the persons face?

If this is about the original post, then It's a discussion forum. Sometimes that means the same things are discussed but then they are points of discussion. It's not mandatory for you to join in and write any response, you could ignore it.

One of the good things about this forum against others is that it is British based, so relevant to our experiences, cultures, rules etc. it's also generally a friendly place to be and ask questiions and learn. If we have rude responses then that just doesn't encourage new people to stay. Think there's a problem with the thread then use the report button with your concerns. We've had issues in the past with non mods trying to moderate the forum and driving people away.

 

[Deleted member 34016]

What a crock of old s**t!

I mean really?

Get a grip for heavens sake!

Very constructive input

Les

 

[MartynK]

The thing is, even if this is discussed every two or three months, it's discussed, it gets the arguments out there and starts to question the media induced attitude that every person with a camera is a terrorist or pervert.

Discussion is good, and open discussion is even better, but did this perception really originate with the media or was it initiated/encouraged by the state to justify increasing police and surveillance powers?

 

[wave01]

I went to my grandsons christmas play and what a difference a generation makes at my children's events no one batted an eye lid at me standing at the back and taking pictures, even asked if they could have one of there children. back to my grandson. head teach made and announcement that there would be a photo shoot at the end. on came the kids and it was just like the advert camera phones at the ready and all thing video and stills. I waited till the end and got my DSLR to take a picture or two and i got such a lot of funny looks, now to be honest i was looking at the all the rest who could have been uploading to the web in real time.

Now I don't think that was the case but it shows what people think

 

[Byker28i]

Discussion is good, and open discussion is even better, but did this perception really originate with the media or was it initiated/encouraged by the state to justify increasing police and surveillance powers?

Terrorist was certainly the police, and picked up by security guards etc.

Perverts is almost certainly driven by the media, fuelled by them and the 'concerns of responsible parents'. Try having a reasonable discussion on Mumsnet on the subject

 

[bobleeuk]

I take pictures of my son at cricket games, some of the parents ask "can you get one of our tommy or whoever" and I was told or maybe warned by the coach/umpire in a friendly way though, to make sure I didn't take pictures of any of the kids without the parents permission, I have no interest to do so anyway, but was told not to anyway, the same goes for his football coach, but when at my youngest son's Christmas play the head mistress told all the parents it was totally fine to take as many pictures as they like, just don't post them via a social networking site, and to email them privately if they wanted to show the rest of the family.

 

[pocquet]

I was with my OH on holiday by the sea. I had my Cam out as we walked down the sea front snapping away at the sea and enjoying my day. I was taking pictures of places I wanted to return to later in the week when the OH went off to do her own thing.

There was a mother partner and kids walked up behind us. I stopped to take a picture of the sea wall. The mother walked past us and turned, noticed I had a camera which maybe from her perspective was pointed in her general direction but they were not in the frame at all.

She turned around and started calling me a perv/p***/jimmy etc. Her hubby manned up and puffed his chest out n threatened to insert the cam in unpleasant places etc. My OH started talking back to them but I just grabbed her hand turned around and walked away. I was mortified. It was horrible experience and has put me off taking my camera out with me anywhere.

Even a friend mentioned that it was a 'proper pervert camera' when he saw it for the first time (5dmk3).

Friend of my OH has a couple of kinds them to Cannock Chase Stepping Stones, Apparently there was a 'perv with a camera there' who was 'hiding in the bushes' with a 'big camera'. She took a picture of him on her phone and there was nothing pervy about it he was just taking pictures of the water moving through the stepping stones. Although he was in the bushes to get the better angle and did have a tele lens an square filters n tripod etc.

I did explain what he was doing but she had sent the image to police and posted on FB and twitter etc as a 'perv/p***' before hand. The guys face wasn't that clear thanfully

I do think gender has allot to do with it. If my OH had the camera instead of me. Or the guy in the bushes was a girl then reactions would have been different.

I am now at a stage of extreme paranoia about having it with me that I never go out with it now and use my Phones camera instead, after checking for 10mins that theirs no one around or in eye site.

If it wasn't for the fact of going away this year and wanting to take my camera I would have sold all my kit n taken up knitting.

 

[MidnightUK]

I think it is sad that children are being taught all the time to see themselves as only of sexual interest to adults, that any other interest shown is probably false.
It makes me wonder what it does to the childs view of his or herself and how that will carry into their self image at adulthood.

I am also puzzled by parents - is how a child is dressed or how they behave only sexual once captured in a still photo, yet non-sexual when running about in the street etc?
It seems to me you cant have it both ways - the child is either 'provocative' or not, regardless of an image being taken. If a photographer took an image of a naked child playing in the waves on a beach they would be lynched - yet the parents are quite happy for the same naked child to be running about in front of hundreds of on lookers for long periods of time, surely way more appealing to unsuitable people than a still?

Society as a whole is increasingly contradictory - parents dressing their young children in clothes suited for adult women (in the case of young girls). Children being sold 'starter bras' that are padded even in shops like M&S - a family shop which also puts up posters of children in near sexual adult style poses.

I also wonder how many of the mothers of children guarded from 'photographers who must be paedophiles' are following the present fashion of shaving in intimate places in order to look.... like underage girls to adult men? Do they even stop to think they are reinforcing the desirability of pre pubescence? I wonder how many of the fathers of children are encouraging their wives to shave in such ways?

Photographers get the blame for sexualising children but its much more complicated than that. Personally I have no understanding at all of why people see young children as sexual, but then I also dont understand why parents who become aggressive and bulling in order to 'protect' their children also support other behaviours (and also businesses such as M&S) that assist in creating/reinforcing the association of young children with sex.

I must admit, I also wonder how often aggressive parents are in fact aggressive controlling bullies, that see an excuse to bully somone randomly, while getting almost no disapproval for their hostility towards perfectly legal behaviour of other people. Its not so very different to road rage or spouse abuse.

 

[-Paul-]

As an afterthought did the OP purposely say 'Random pictures of other peoples little GIRLS' just to make the post more inflammatory?

 

[Byker28i]

I was with my OH on holiday by the sea. I had my Cam out as we walked down the sea front snapping away at the sea and enjoying my day. I was taking pictures of places I wanted to return to later in the week when the OH went off to do her own thing.

There was a mother partner and kids walked up behind us. I stopped to take a picture of the sea wall. The mother walked past us and turned, noticed I had a camera which maybe from her perspective was pointed in her general direction but they were not in the frame at all.

She turned around and started calling me a perv/p***/jimmy etc. Her hubby manned up and puffed his chest out n threatened to insert the cam in unpleasant places etc. My OH started talking back to them but I just grabbed her hand turned around and walked away. I was mortified. It was horrible experience and has put me off taking my camera out with me anywhere.

Even a friend mentioned that it was a 'proper pervert camera' when he saw it for the first time (5dmk3).

Friend of my OH has a couple of kinds them to Cannock Chase Stepping Stones, Apparently there was a 'perv with a camera there' who was 'hiding in the bushes' with a 'big camera'. She took a picture of him on her phone and there was nothing pervy about it he was just taking pictures of the water moving through the stepping stones. Although he was in the bushes to get the better angle and did have a tele lens an square filters n tripod etc.

I did explain what he was doing but she had sent the image to police and posted on FB and twitter etc as a 'perv/p***' before hand. The guys face wasn't that clear thanfully

I do think gender has allot to do with it. If my OH had the camera instead of me. Or the guy in the bushes was a girl then reactions would have been different.

I am now at a stage of extreme paranoia about having it with me that I never go out with it now and use my Phones camera instead, after checking for 10mins that theirs no one around or in eye site.

If it wasn't for the fact of going away this year and wanting to take my camera I would have sold all my kit n taken up knitting.

I've had similar experiences but found that talking rationally to the people involved, usually gets the point across. If they persists I have pointed out that the the only person breaking the law is them, with their threatening behaviour and I was quite happy to call the police and explain the situation to them.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Seeing as the OP will not answer my question in post #23.... I'll put this theory forward.

The OP is concerned about shots of young children based on nothing than paranoia spread by the media regarding paedophiles on the internet. If this is so... then aren't those same paedophiles looking at kids in real life? What do we do therefore... never take out children out in public again?


Let's get things into perspective here. Paedophiles are rare... as are most genuinely dangerous people. The only reason they seem like such a big issue now is because of two things: 1.Media attention and stupid people's perception of the danger being manipulated by that media, and 2. It's actually MUCH easier to catch them now as they have moved their purveying of indecent imagery into a more publicly monitored arena.

However... more things to consider. Paedophiles are seeking out, producing, and consuming SEXUALISED images of children, as they are mainly doing so for their own sexual gratification. Just as normal people seek out sexualised images of adults for sexual gratification. If I wanted to get my rocks off looking at pics of women on the internet, I wouldn't do so by looking at street photography... I'd go to a porn site!!!

Stop panicking and listening to the daily mail. In reality, your kids are are probably statistically more likely to get killed while you're driving them to school than they are being the victim of some sexual predator.

There's nothing wrong with taking pictures of children. If you think there is, then it's a reflection of your own twisted perceptions of children, not mine.

I'd happily let someone post a picture of my child on Facebook or something if it's a perfectly decent picture of her.

Stop panicking!

 

[Byker28i]

Well said.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

I also wonder how many of the mothers of children guarded from 'photographers who must be paedophiles' are following the present fashion of shaving in intimate places in order to look.... like underage girls to adult men? Do they even stop to think they are reinforcing the desirability of pre pubescence? I wonder how many of the fathers of children are encouraging their wives to shave in such ways?

This is off topic.

But PLEASE never again connect shaved pubic hair with peadophiles. If someone makes such a link in his/her mind then that says more about him/her than about two consenting *adults* enjoying each others company.