Photographing children - how do you navigate the ethical risks?

[simonblue]

I have been helping out at my local school for years now,and the rules are layed out as they should be by anyone working around children.
All the cases i have heard about where children have been abused 9/10 its by someone they know or the parent

Also as a photographer i take my camera out with me and again 9/10 if i point my camera somewhere out in a public place beaches park etc,they are going to be children around it just cant be helped,even if you have no intention of taking a photo of them.

As i would say to anybody if children are around just be careful,but also as a photographer i would say lets not become part of a witchhunt that with anybody carrying a camera around in public or pointing an camera become an easy target.

 

[big soft moose]

Shame really as I'm always trying to get to the bottom of the 'every photographer taking pictures of kids is a pervert'.

With the media's driven rhetoric on the issue, I'm no longer surprised to see such responses even on a photography forum. If you think this is bad, try having this discussion on Mumsnet

0-pervert in about 4 posts, at least it took until page 2 before I was accused of being only steps away.

To be clear I never said that - I see nothing wrong in the sorts of pictures you are taking, so long as the parents arent unhappy (as i would question how your 'right' to take photos interfaces with their 'right' to enjoy a family day out without intrusion - neither right is explicityly described in law,)

What i'm saying is that while 99.9% of people taking pics of kids are not paedophiles , the 0.1% who are does exist,

as i said IMO the key indicators that someone is up to no good are:

a) covert behaviour (e.g hiding in the bushes taking shots with a long lens rather than doing it openly)

b) arrousal or masturbation during the activity (which speak for themselves)

I have never suggested that you are guilty of either

 

[MartynK]

The steroetypical P**** taking images to masturbate to is a fiction, because the interweb gives them far easier ways , but thats not to say that the predatory few won't take photos to stoke their fantasies ahead of planning an assault or abduction

(incidentally - most of the few incidents occured in milton keynes where there is a rehabilitiation and treatment centre for nonces... which illustrates that the liberal lets all talk and have a group hug approach to dealing with rock spiders doesnt actually work that well )

I wouldn't use that expression if you ever visit South Africa. It's a derogatory term for Afrikaners. They don't like it, and if they thought you meant in this context, some bloke built like a Springbok forward "might just think violence is a perfectly reasonable response ...!"

 

[FlyingShrapnel]

the first few posts seems to draw the line very clearly and said "just dont do it" but i think a lot of it depends on the situation. on a few occasions I have taken pictures of children in town, because they were having fun and they show a lot more expression than the grown ups. One time it was a little boy held in the air by his dad and loving it, so i took a few photos, spoke to the father and he was fine, and then later i emailed him the photos. and just i have been taking photos on the streets with an old olympus SLR and parents seemed ok with it, they just carried on walking as they did.

a dslr and a massive lens certainly doesnt help your case but i think it depends how you execute the shot, if you look shifty and if you have something to hide then that alone might land you in trouble. echo what has been said about law/legal or not, i think being sensible about it is the way to go. my 2pence

 

[Toggerman]

So please explain just how close to being a P**** you think I am then?

That's quite an emotional and defensive thing to say. The answer is simply I have no idea who you are, you could be a big kid yourself or you could be one of the biggest perverts in the country. All I have to go on is your words and the knowledge that everyone is capable of lying.

Lets actually get to the bottom of this and please explain it to me why you feel this is wrong? I've had many a rational discussion with people about this and usually it's usually resorts to a media driven frenzy (oh everyone with a camera is a terrorist or P****..), similar thoughts by peers, but theres no actual rational thought behind it.

The problem when people use terms like "rational thought" and "common sense" is that they generally believe that they are the only ones with this trait and anyone who thinks differently obviously does not share it, whereas the truth is they are values that differ person to person. For example, to me it seems that you are more inclined to respond defensively and emotional rather than rational and logical. Someone is after all attacking something you enjoy doing and you feel that they are putting you into the same category as criminals.

Ok lets start with a personal anecdote. I know someone who used to take pictures of kids in the late 80s, it started off with his own, then the youth club he helped, and it snowballed from there. When he was arrested for multiple counts of rape of a minor they found hundreds of images of local kids (most fully dressed and in public BTW) in his house. I know some of the victims and through them I've met even more victims of child abuse and I have seen to devastation it causes, and in almost every story there comes a point where you ask "Why didn't anyone question this sooner, think of how much damage could have been avoided".

I'm not saying everyone is a p****, that's just crazy, but how do I know you're not one? Just because you say so?

And as for the terrorist argument, if you've ever worked in the security industry you would know how useful cameras are for gathering intel. You would also know that the best place to hide is in plain sight (think of a store detective or undercover police officer, you've probably seen quite a few in your life, have you always been able to spot them?). Terrorists also know a lot of tricks with regard to intel gathering and surveillance, after all, when you really think about it, it's not difficult to understand. I'm also willing to bet that most unsavoury people understand them too. If you hide in a bush everyone will pounce on you, if you do it in the middle of everyone you'll get fewer accusations and even have people jumping to your defence and that of your "lawful business".

Blame the media as much as you want, although personally I'll blame the people who commit these acts in the first place.

 

[simonblue]

Just like to add another thing,with all the cctv about who do we know who behind the camera ?,look at all the add on tv with children in them.
And some of the counties we send aid to who have appalling record for the welfare of their children.

 

[Byker28i]

I have never suggested that you are guilty of either

Wasn't you - http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=5734563&postcount=33

I thought we were having a decent discussion.

 

[Toggerman]

0-pervert in about 4 posts, at least it took until page 2 before I was accused of being only steps away.

Again, more emotional than logical. I never once made that part personal towards you. And if it seems that way then I do apologise, that was not my intention.

If you look solely at the words. If someone takes pictures of random kids playing with the intention to just keep them on the hard drive and only view them for their own pleasure (note I did not say or imply sexual pleasure either, but neither to I intend to disregard it), then how far away for a genuine p**** is that to you? Worlds apart with no chance of anything developing or maybe a cause to pause and think for a minute?

 

[AHILL]

IMO the key indicators that someone is up to no good are:

a) covert behaviour (e.g hiding in the bushes taking shots with a long lens rather than doing it openly)

I love your powers of justification Pete.
I'm always hiding in bushes with a very long lens so according to your reasoning I am up to no good, I better give up going outside my garden in future.

maybe us bush hiders with long lenses should carry a long stick with a sign saying "don't shoot - wildlife togger"

 

[FrattonFreak]

I think we should get back to the OP. All of a sudden some bizarre statements are being made and the conversation has escalated from the morals behind taking innocent images to violent reactions, images taken of things that shouldn't be and statements around how close one is to a label simply from taking images. Lets be a bit more composed about replies rather than knee jerk reactions

The best post here is the one about using common sense when using a camera. This should also apply to some of the posts being made. Images of youths playing football is clearly different to an image of an individual child in beachwear taken by a complete stranger

Yes the world has changed from the past but by the same token its now a digital world and film is no longer getting processed in labs and images can now be posted all over the internet.

As becomes the norm these days its the very small minority that spoil things for the large majority - this includes the placement of small seeds of doubt and fear into the minds of ALL parents because of the actions of a tiny minority.

However understand the current world and possible reaction of parents and then apply some common sense when taking images and the loction of where its being done

 

[Byker28i]

That's quite an emotional and defensive thing to say. The answer is simply I have no idea who you are, you could be a big kid yourself or you could be one of the biggest perverts in the country. All I have to go on is your words and the knowledge that everyone is capable of lying.

The problem when people use terms like "rational thought" and "common sense" is that they generally believe that they are the only ones with this trait and anyone who thinks differently obviously does not share it, whereas the truth is they are values that differ person to person. For example, to me it seems that you are more inclined to respond defensively and emotional rather than rational and logical. Someone is after all attacking something you enjoy doing and you feel that they are putting you into the same category as criminals.

Ok lets start with a personal anecdote. I know someone who used to take pictures of kids in the late 80s, it started off with his own, then the youth club he helped, and it snowballed from there. When he was arrested for multiple counts of rape of a minor they found hundreds of images of local kids (most fully dressed and in public BTW) in his house. I know some of the victims and through them I've met even more victims of child abuse and I have seen to devastation it causes, and in almost every story there comes a point where you ask "Why didn't anyone question this sooner, think of how much damage could have been avoided".

I'm not saying everyone is a p****, that's just crazy, but how do I know you're not one? Just because you say so?

And as for the terrorist argument, if you've ever worked in the security industry you would know how useful cameras are for gathering intel. You would also know that the best place to hide is in plain sight (think of a store detective or undercover police officer, you've probably seen quite a few in your life, have you always been able to spot them?). Terrorists also know a lot of tricks with regard to intel gathering and surveillance, after all, when you really think about it, it's not difficult to understand. I'm also willing to bet that most unsavoury people understand them too. If you hide in a bush everyone will pounce on you, if you do it in the middle of everyone you'll get fewer accusations and even have people jumping to your defence and that of your "lawful business".

Blame the media as much as you want, although personally I'll blame the people who commit these acts in the first place.

An interesting viewpoint, but you kinda pointed the finger in post 33, which is why I asked how many steps away you thought I was.

For the record I've grown up kids of my own, have photographed youth sports, been a youth worker for several years and have several current CRB's and security clearances.

However that really shouldn't matter, there is no law against taking photographs of other people's children, provided you do not harass or harm them. It is also an offense to capture an indecent photograph of a minor covered under the Protection of Children Act.

Far from acting defensively and emotionally, I'm genuinely interested in this subject. Partly because of my previous youth work, partially because I think it may make for an interesting dissertation.

There's perverts everywhere. I happen to know of one who lives about 1/2 mile from my home, was convicted and spent two years in jail for having and distributing over 100,000 images. Lives at home with his parents who no doubt described him as a lovely boy, wouldn't harm a fly.

However they are the exception, not the norm and I find it strange that there's such a knee jerk reaction to photography because of the possible actions of a few. It's perfectly within your right as a guardian to be suspicious but lets do it with an open mind rather than these instant suggestions of violence and verbal assault. That is against the law, taking photos in public places isn't.

The correct answer to the original post is that I'm always open, prepared to speak to anyone and have some business cards with my website details on (left over from selling images for youth rugby to raise club funds). Be open about what you are doing, don't sneak about taking images. I actually find a smaller 24-105 easy to photograph with up close than a long lens from far away. Somehow that big white lens gets noticed more

 

[big soft moose]

I love your powers of justification Pete.
I'm always hiding in bushes with a very long lens so according to your reasoning I am up to no good, I better give up going outside my garden in future.

maybe us bush hiders with long lenses should carry a long stick with a sign saying "don't shoot - wildlife togger"

You know damn well I meant hiding in the bushes taking pictures of children :shrug:

also most wildlife togs won't be highly arroused and masturbating furiously (well not unless they've left the monopod at home )

 

[Gary]

Why though Gary - you haven't explained? What possible problems are there?

forget all the daily mail 'everyone's a p****' nonsense, I just think it would be good manners to ask the parents permission first.

if people take pics of my child, chances are that they arent for any sexual pleasure.. I'm no expert but I dont think peados are that into kids with clothes on.

 

[Toggerman]

but you kinda pointed the finger in post 33, which is why I asked how many steps away you thought I was.

That was not my intention and I do apologise, I was meaning a more general viewpoint rather than aiming it at anyone in particular.

This is a topic I find fascinating every time it pops up (and similar when it's about terrorism). I can understand most viewpoints as I am one who loves photographing my kids (and those of my friends and family) yet I have seen the consequences of paedophilia and how a few minutes can change a person and their life dramatically.

Generally I have no problem with people photographing my kids, depending on the context of the situation. And if I'm at a play park with my camera and another child joins in with play I'll look at the parent, show my camera and give a little nod or ask if they mind. I'll then judge their reaction and either continue shooting my kids or put my camera away.

 

[Toggerman]

iI'm no expert but I dont think peados are that into kids with clothes on.

They can be, it obviously depends on the person. Clothes can be quite sexual for some.

Think of the bikini clad women that drape themselves over cars. They are still clothed (just) yet they are used to stir up the male hormones. I know it's not quite the same but I'm just trying to show that sometimes clothes can actually help with sexual imagery as when people use their imaginations the skin/body under the clothes is flawless.

 

[Byker28i]

forget all the daily mail 'everyone's a p****' nonsense, I just think it would be good manners to ask the parents permission first.

Fair enough, however sometimes you just spot images and shoot - such as the dad and daughter launching a kite. First attempt failed - second attempt worked

 

[Byker28i]

They can be, it obviously depends on the person. Clothes can be quite sexual for some.

Think of the bikini clad women that drape themselves over cars. They are still clothed (just) yet they are used to stir up the male hormones. I know it's not quite the same but I'm just trying to show that sometimes clothes can actually help with sexual imagery as when people use their imaginations the skin/body under the clothes is flawless.

Littlewoods/mothercare catalogues I believe used to be popular before the loss of innocence and the rise of porn on the internet. These days there seems to be a lot of reports of image sharing, which does mean it makes it easier to trace people when the computers are seized. It's how they found the bloke near me.

 

[Toggerman]

Fair enough, however sometimes you just spot images and shoot - such as the dad and daughter launching a kite. First attempt failed - second attempt worked

I think in those situations it would be fine to shoot first and ask questions later.

Littlewoods/mothercare catalogues I believe used to be popular before the loss of innocence and the rise of porn on the internet. These days there seems to be a lot of reports of image sharing, which does mean it makes it easier to trace people when the computers are seized. It's how they found the bloke near me.

Quite correct, I'd forgotten about those.

 

[supersammy]

I won't quote anyone in particular, as it seems my comment seemed to upset a few people.

I'm not advicating attacking anyone... Infact I think I was pretty clear that I feel people have the right to do whatever they please. Since writing my last message here, I'm a day closer to death. It's a shame, but it's not all bad as I get better looking everyday and can't wait for tomorrow. But my ******** aside, my point was I'm all for letting people do whatever makes them happy.

However - in very very very limited circumstances, then surely a use of force would be accept. Morally if not legally, if I were to catch someone taking photos in a baby changing area, or caught someone installing a video camera in a little girls/boys changing area, I'd have to try very very hard to allow them to walk out in handcuffs rather than on a stretcher. That's probably something wrong with me, maybe I'm an overly agressive person.

However don't take away from my point. If you want you can follow me around taking photo's of my with my neice, you can stand outside my house and do whatever you want. I have better stuff to think about, that what someone I don't know is doing for a hobby. Just go out and have some fun and don't worry about irrational idiots like me. If you are challenged then just tell the person to do one, be polite and if you feel intimidated call the police. Luckily we are not yet at the point where innocent hobbies are banned in this country!

EDIT - just for clarity, I think its how you speak to people as well, here is an example of a way of diffusing and way of digging a hole!

"Excuse me can you tell me why you think it's acceptable to take photo's of my children and other children here?" - "I know my rights, go away it's a public place, I can take photo's of whoever I want".

VS: "Excuse me can you tell me why you think it's acceptable to take photo's of my children and other children here?" - "Sorry I didn't want to upset anyone, I was just out walking and I enjoy taking photo's, I wanted to capture the day and the kids were in my shot and emphasised it really well, if you want you can have a look at them, infact if there are any you like if you give me your email address I'll send you any you like. If you prefer I can delete them but it's nothing sinister and I just prefer seeing people outdoors having fun rather than sitting inside watching tv, anyway I hope you enjoy the rest of your day".

 

[big soft moose]

.. I'm no expert but I dont think peados are that into kids with clothes on.

they are if they are thinking of (or fantisiing about) abducting them

Just like some rapists target a variety of women (old/disabled/fat/ugly/ whatever) that your average bloke in the street might not consider that attractive

You can't judge sick ****s by normal peoples standards

 

[AHILL]

You know damn well I meant hiding in the bushes taking pictures of children :shrug:

also most wildlife togs won't be highly arroused and masturbating furiously (well not unless they've left the monopod at home )

yes I did, sorry. I couldn't resist it.

 

[Phil V]

Would I like someone coming up to me and taking my picture unannounced? No. Would I like the same if it was my son, most certainly not. It's not from a Pedophile point of view either it's from a what the hell are you doing point of view.

You know this is a photography forum? Populated by many people who are following a tradition of documenting the world around them so that people in years to come can see how we lived?

There's a danger that social historians will look back on now and think we hid our children from the world and treated them as sex objects Because the only images of children are in the media where they appear oversexualised and with none of the innocence we associate with a normal childhood.

It's the Daily Mail writ large - where headlines about nonces and immigrant paedophiles are printed alongside images of celebrity teenagers 'looking all grown up in a sexy new outfit' [/rant]

 

[big soft moose]

people who are following a tradition of documenting the world around them so that people in years to come can see how we lived?
]

Thing is phil is that really true ?

The vast majority of street candids ive seen don't really document anything much , and nor are they likely to be printed on archival paper and stored for future generations to admire.

Digital has created a massive number of "photographers / GWCs" but it also creates an emphemeral nature to media - how many of us have the capability to read a computer cassette or disk from 20 years ago on a modern system ? and how many people in twenty years time will be able to read a CD/DVD burned today (even assuming it is still readable which could be an iffy proposition) ?

If someone likes taking candids I don't see any harm so long as they act responsibly, but lets not hide behind a myth that they are providing a vast social service to the future

 

[Steve Smith]

Populated by many people who are following a tradition of documenting the world around them so that people in years to come can see how we lived

The vast majority of street candids ive seen don't really document anything much , and nor are they likely to be printed on archival paper and stored for future generations to admire.

Have a look at Frank Meadow Sutcliffe. He most definitely documented his surroundings: http://www.whitby-yorkshire.co.uk/sutcliffe/sutcliffe.htm

What about this shocking image?!!!

http://www.whitby-yorkshire.co.uk/sutcliffe/waterrats.jpg

I'm not suggesting that such images are made now - that sort of scene is unlikely to appear anyway, but Phil is correct. If people stop documenting their surroundings, there won't be anything for future residents to look at.


Steve.

 

[simonblue]

Thing is phil is that really true ?

The vast majority of street candids ive seen don't really document anything much , and nor are they likely to be printed on archival paper and stored for future generations to admire.

Digital has created a massive number of "photographers / GWCs" but it also creates an emphemeral nature to media - how many of us have the capability to read a computer cassette or disk from 20 years ago on a modern system ? and how many people in twenty years time will be able to read a CD/DVD burned today (even assuming it is still readable which could be an iffy proposition) ?

If someone likes taking candids I don't see any harm so long as they act responsibly, but lets not hide behind a myth that they are providing a vast social service to the future

This ? could be a whole new thread

 

[HMansfield]

I agree with "Why would you want pictures of someone else's kids?" Unless it's for a specific reason such as coursework or at an event or their doing something incredibly funny/cute (and I mean well above normal) etc, then you really should question why do you need it. If it is just for your own pleasure to look at every now and then, how many steps removed from paedophilia is it really?

********* hell! It's either one step or a million steps, depending solely on whether or not that person is a paedophile.
Considering most victims are abused by people known to the family, that would suggest those taking and looking at photo's of their own children or friends and relatives children are even closer to being a paedophile than those taking pictures of strangers.

That's a genuinely frightening viewpoint you have there.

Maybe I just don't have this moral dilemma because the sight of a child doesn't immediately link with anything sexual in my mind.

 

[Jayst84]

If someone takes pictures of random kids playing with the intention to just keep them on the hard drive and only view them for their own pleasure (note I did not say or imply sexual pleasure either, but neither to I intend to disregard it), then how far away for a genuine p**** is that to you? Worlds apart with no chance of anything developing or maybe a cause to pause and think for a minute?

You would be pausing and thinking your entire life if you followed that logic. A woman sat on a bench on the high street, drinking a coffee and watching people go by, she smiles as two kids run past playing a game of tag. How far is she from a 'genuine P****'? Paedophiles and 'normal' people share an awful lot of activities and traits, you can't concern yourself over everything.

 

[Cagey75]

Man, I'm so on the fence on this ...

I have kids. Would i like someone randomly snapping them [as that is what it would be to me as a parent] when they're swimming at the beach? ... er, no. If I knew it was a photographer just capturing life, capturing a scene of the times ... if they told me this ... then, yeah, shoot away.

I think it's the whole ... snatch & grab, that ... non-relationship, that 'sneakiness' ...


I don't go shooting other people's kids randomly, just to catch a candid. If i was about to, I think I'd approach the parents first. I'd just feel uncomfortable not doing so. That's me ..



So, should I be ok with another photographer popping up and shooting my kids without permission? should I worry more about rules, and what they are allowed? or how I feel as a parent??

Hmmm.

I think anyone with kids knows the answer here.

A bit of courtesy where our kids are concerned. No real big deal. i think if you can't approach the parents, either pre or post shot, then you have to really ask yourself ... why?? Why did you 'need' that shot? And don't give me that 'capturing the times' BS - if it's so important, than you won't mind asking the question "Do you mind id your child is included in this shot?" - I think if you can't bring yourself to ask that, then you have a problem. You feel uncomfortable enough NOT to ask ...


That's enough not to shoot.


Stop debating. Kids are kids. They're not fish in an aquarium. A bit of respect, and a polite word, both go long ways

 

[andya700]

You know this is a photography forum? Populated by many people who are following a tradition of documenting the world around them so that people in years to come can see how we lived?

There's a danger that social historians will look back on now and think we hid our children from the world and treated them as sex objects Because the only images of children are in the media where they appear oversexualised and with none of the innocence we associate with a normal childhood.

It's the Daily Mail writ large - where headlines about nonces and immigrant paedophiles are printed alongside images of celebrity teenagers 'looking all grown up in a sexy new outfit' [/rant]

We live in a World full of contradictions, a place where people plaster images (usually very bad ones) of their children all over their FB page for everyone to see, but then become angry when they see a person with a camera in the vicinity of children.
Walk around any public place and you will see childen with their parents, and the children will be dressed inappropriately, and the missus and I just look at each other in disbelief. Yet it is probably those parents who will shout loudest, or be the first to accuse someone of something.
What is wrong with taking an image of a child - seriously?
When did people suddenly have this perception that they should be offended, distressed or angry that someone has taken a photograph of their child - and why?

 

[Byker28i]

Just to pick up on approaching the parents. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, depends on the circumstances. Sometimes it's that moment and you grab the shot, sometimes you've no idea how the image will turn out until you get home, perhaps crop and process it. If you went to ask permission first you'd miss it or perhaps make the subjects conscious of your prescience and stop doing what ever it was that attracted you to the image.

That probably explains cageys. Snatch and grab, or sneakiness comment. By the very nature of street photography it's a bit spot, shoot.

The kite photo I posted is an example of that. It was a sequence of three, mum and dog was under a tree about 50 yards away, I shot them from a further 50-70 yards away. No actual idea if the images we good until I got home, and should I go and disturb a families time? I think they were unaware of me taking the images.

Children have that freedom and innocence that makes them do funny or interesting things, so actually makes them great subjects.

 

[big soft moose]

We live in a World full of contradictions, a place where people plaster images (usually very bad ones) of their children all over their FB page for everyone to see, but then become angry when they see a person with a camera in the vicinity of children.
Walk around any public place and you will see childen with their parents, and the children will be dressed inappropriately, and the missus and I just look at each other in disbelief. Yet it is probably those parents who will shout loudest, or be the first to accuse someone of something.
What is wrong with taking an image of a child - seriously?
When did people suddenly have this perception that they should be offended, distressed or angry that someone has taken a photograph of their child - and why?

they aren't worried about putting them on facebook because the children are safe at home - the reason they get edgy at seeing someone in the vicinity is because it can (where the GWC actually is a P****) be a precursor to abduction or abuse.

and secondly they are a bunch of paranoid nitwits who read the daily mail and think a paedophile is hiding behind every tree (probably fighting for space with a terrorist)

 

[Byker28i]

Which brings us full circle to my argument that it's actually the media that sets the perceived threat level and then in this Internet connected world it's easier to jump on a bandwagon or pass on your thoughts in an instant.
By jumping on a bandwagon, I'll give you the example of clarkson saying people should be shot on the one show. Once the comments were taken out of context and the media blew up the story the bbc suddenly got more complaints than people watched the show!

Seriously, try having this discussion on mums net and all you'll get is, 'it's wrong, it just is' rather like a few on here, but trying to get people to qualify why or justify their thoughts is harder. 'it just is' or you get the threat of violence suggested.

Sad really as the majority of photographers are doing nothing wrong.

 

[Phil V]

Thank god I grew up in the safety of the sixties when we were free to play out and there was no such thing as a paedophile. :bonk: :bonk:

 

[Tigger.ufo]

Thank god I grew up in the safety of the sixties when we were free to play out and there was no such thing as a paedophile. :bonk: :bonk:

Me too!

Except they were always there, but I was taught not to talk to strangers, simple as!


Heather

 

[Ed Sutton]

The vast majority of street candids ive seen don't really document anything much...

To your eyes, right now, they don't document much, but in twenty or thirty years time they will show how things were today. Fashions change, buildings get pulled down, trees grow. Today's crap snapshots are tomorrow's documents of social history.

As for the subject under discussion, I expect Martin Parr would be torn limb from limb by a braying mob if he were to try to replicate the photographs in The Last Resort today.

 

[Phil V]

Me too!

Except they were always there, but I was taught not to talk to strangers, simple as!

Heather

I'd hoped that people would have spotted the sarcasm .

 

[LCPete]

I was talking to a Turkish chap, a keen photographer the other day, and he was telling me that at home (Turkey) he quite happily does street shots of people including children but has had hassle doing it in the UK so doesnt bother anymore really sad

 

[Toggerman]

********* hell! It's either one step or a million steps, depending solely on whether or not that person is a paedophile.
Considering most victims are abused by people known to the family, that would suggest those taking and looking at photo's of their own children or friends and relatives children are even closer to being a paedophile than those taking pictures of strangers.

That's a genuinely frightening viewpoint you have there.

Maybe I just don't have this moral dilemma because the sight of a child doesn't immediately link with anything sexual in my mind.

You really missed the point in that quote.

With friends and family taking photos there's a much higher chance for a genuine reason why they are taking those photos, remember not everyone with kids/relatives are paedos either.

Lets say I'm walking along with my kids and a random stranger walks past and takes a picture of my kids just walking along. You would obviously not think twice I would assume then. Personally I would see the situation and think that they're not doing anything too interesting, certainly not newsworthy, so why take it? (assuming there's no coursework or assignment linked to it).

Also you say it depends whether or not the person is a P****, so how do you spot them when in public? Tell me how in the situation above I will know if said person taking that shot is a P**** or not?

 

[big soft moose]

To your eyes, right now, they don't document much, but in twenty or thirty years time they will show how things were today. Fashions change, buildings get pulled down, trees grow. Today's crap snapshots are tomorrow's documents of social history.
.

If they survive , which they probably won't

Also the reason that work from 30 years ago is valued now is that there were a lot less photos back then - these days when every man and his dog has a camera or a phone , the need for anyone to actually go out and document the lives of strangers is significantly lessened

 

[Jayst84]

..Personally I would see the situation and think that they're not doing anything too interesting, certainly not newsworthy, so why take it? (assuming there's no coursework or assignment linked to it).

Also you say it depends whether or not the person is a P****, so how do you spot them when in public? Tell me how in the situation above I will know if said person taking that shot is a P**** or not?

The same way you'd know if they were doing some coursework or an assignment. ie you wouldn't. You could ask them about either, they could lie to you about either.

If it's OK to take the photo if it's part of school coursework or an assignment, is it OK to take it if it's part of a self-initiated assignment?

People don't have to get your permission to do anything. And while you have every right to question anybody on the street, they also have the same right to lie to you, or ignore you, walk away and carry on with their lives.