- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Did you read his book with Bob Long?
and the site receives a small commission
Photographing children - how do you navigate the ethical risks?
- Thread starter BertieTBE
- Start date
Did you read his book with Bob Long?
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
indeed - and if you've read the report reffered to in the telegraph article (actually I read its summary in the much more comprehensive BBC article also available on google) you'll see that he isn't talking about the number of registered sex offenders
In short , DCI McLachlan is saying that there are 250,000 people in the uk who have an unhealthy sexual interest in children - not that all of them have been caught and registered. Presumably you don't believe that the police have caught ever paedophile at least once (as that would be incredibly naïve)
indeed they do - I provided a link to them last night. One stand out statistic on the NSPCC summary is that 1/20 children become victims of child sex abuse ! - a horrifying stat which doesn't gibe well with the idea that Paedophiles are "very rare"
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There isn't an issue with you (we assume) but that does mean that you spotted these kids then moved into a position to watch them
All I'm saying is that I can see why a parent might have concerns about that and would be justified in politely asking you why you were watching his kids
(not that he should batter the **** out of you or anything - those comments related to the guy shooting over the top of a changing cubicle , which i'd hope you agree is somewhat less innocent)
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I agree entirely and would have no issues if a parent came to speak to me politely
My real issue is the natural assumption anyone with a camera is a pervert and needs to be dealt with as such. Now some of that is probably keyboard bravery and they wouldn't act so aggressively in real life, but you never know.Incidently came across this story today
http://www.pdnonline.com/news/Judge-Dismisses-Priv-8708.shtml
A new York photographer taking images of his neighbours through their windows - sued and the judge threw it out. Even I think that's going too far on invasion of privacy
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
According to the NSPCC, the ratio of abused children in 1 in 20.
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resourcesforprofessionals/sexualabuse/statistics_wda87833.html
Frankly, none of the stats are really accurate, they can't be, they are always estimates and based on an attempt to support a particular view.
But even if the 1 in 20 is correct in it's raw form it tells no one anything what so ever.
For example, it includes those convicted of sexual offences. That would be the 18 year old who's caught having sex with his 15 year, 360 day old girlfriend he's been with since she was 14. Is he really a sex offender?
I could go on, but suffice to say the stats are always going to be badly slewed, so cannot be relied on in this discussion.
Having said that they shouldn't be relied on, it's interesting that the instance of sexual offences against children are no worse than they have ever been. Is this hysteria whipped up by the Mail? No it's simply people have access to more information, but don't know how to use it.
To the main point, in an ideal world, of course the violent attack is wrong, but it happens, and always has, its nothing new and I've dealt with a case over 25 years ago now where if I'd not turned up with a big hat on dad would have lamped chummy. In that case with good reason too, chummy was nicked and convicted of taking indecent photos of children. Unfortunately, he was outwardly, Mr Respectable.
So how to deal with it? Ask parents? Why not, if they so no, go away, then, don't and go away. There's no point in complaining its your 'right', that will do you scant good while nursing a busted nose. Wrong though it might be, the child you might want to photograph has as much right to not have his picture taken as you have to take it.
In short as has been said many times, Common sense...Use!
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resourcesforprofessionals/sexualabuse/statistics_wda87833.html
Frankly, none of the stats are really accurate, they can't be, they are always estimates and based on an attempt to support a particular view.
But even if the 1 in 20 is correct in it's raw form it tells no one anything what so ever.
For example, it includes those convicted of sexual offences. That would be the 18 year old who's caught having sex with his 15 year, 360 day old girlfriend he's been with since she was 14. Is he really a sex offender?
I could go on, but suffice to say the stats are always going to be badly slewed, so cannot be relied on in this discussion.
Having said that they shouldn't be relied on, it's interesting that the instance of sexual offences against children are no worse than they have ever been. Is this hysteria whipped up by the Mail? No it's simply people have access to more information, but don't know how to use it.
To the main point, in an ideal world, of course the violent attack is wrong, but it happens, and always has, its nothing new and I've dealt with a case over 25 years ago now where if I'd not turned up with a big hat on dad would have lamped chummy. In that case with good reason too, chummy was nicked and convicted of taking indecent photos of children. Unfortunately, he was outwardly, Mr Respectable.
So how to deal with it? Ask parents? Why not, if they so no, go away, then, don't and go away. There's no point in complaining its your 'right', that will do you scant good while nursing a busted nose. Wrong though it might be, the child you might want to photograph has as much right to not have his picture taken as you have to take it.
In short as has been said many times, Common sense...Use!
- Messages
- 4,968
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This debate rolls on and quite frankly there is no real answer.
As caring responsible parents we will protect our children with our own lives if necessary.
Of more concern is the number of children physically and brutally assaulted and in many cases murdered.
In the last couple of weeks a 4 year old starved and murdered by his drug addict mother and boyfriend and today
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-23594656
I am sickened by parents who often break up and murder their children in order to hurt their partner the commit suicide as well.
Taken in a big picture view the issue of to take innocent pictures of children or not, doss not hit the same level of importance as brutalised children suffering at the hands of "parents" unable to cope.
We protect our children the best way we can. We still need to watch out for other kids at risk next door or across the toad.....
Steve
As caring responsible parents we will protect our children with our own lives if necessary.
Of more concern is the number of children physically and brutally assaulted and in many cases murdered.
In the last couple of weeks a 4 year old starved and murdered by his drug addict mother and boyfriend and today
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-23594656
I am sickened by parents who often break up and murder their children in order to hurt their partner the commit suicide as well.
Taken in a big picture view the issue of to take innocent pictures of children or not, doss not hit the same level of importance as brutalised children suffering at the hands of "parents" unable to cope.
We protect our children the best way we can. We still need to watch out for other kids at risk next door or across the toad.....
Steve
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I agree , but as justifications go that line of argument is quite weak
Its like saying "driving at 35mph in a 30 limit isn't as important as killing someone while driving at 120mph while intoxicated"
No of course it isn't but it doesn't make the lesser issue unimportant
- Messages
- 4,968
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Both are important however the incidence of battered and murdered children and the perpetrators reach the courts in seemingly higher numbers and sometimes associated with long term abuse known to neighbours, social services even the police who are hampered by the burden of proof etc.
The current crackdown proposed on Kiddy Porn via the internet is indicative of a response to a market that is continually evolving whereby images of (reportedly) the vilest kinds of sexual abuse are available all over the net.
My concern here is the multiplier effect where the viewer moves from passive viewing to becoming actively committed to a physical need to participate.
Then we are into a wholly different issue than just someone photographing children.
I still stand by my responsibility stance for parents to follow what suits them and for which they are comfortable. That means staying aware of threats but not living behind mental barbed wire.
I do not accept that your analogy of speed of vehicles would highlight any weakness in my example of the now commonplace physicsl neglect and abuse along with murder of children. I find the implied paedophile activity in pursuing the photography of other peoples' children to be weak (show me the data that consequential activity has occurred from the hobby photographer). I do not find the grooming gangs and child abuse/neglect/murder of children within families to be a more than issue from each stream. Both subsets of activity are equally wrong and need to be cracked down on. There is, at this tjme, little metrics highlighting sexual pursuit of children by hobby photographers. There is, however a growing incidence of grooming by gangs and individuals both in real lifd and on line. This includes the request for 'naughty' pictures by individuals of younger girls. So if I feel more efforfs be put into protecting children from all thresg, I don't just mean "they dhould dk something about it' - It is all our communal responsibility to protect children. Something we mag have lost since I was a child.
I still believe that somrone openly photographing children is not the boogey man threat. The he/she paedophile is far more covert. Could be a family member/close friend or a neighbour.
Vigilance not fear.
Steve
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I agree (although stranger abduction does happen - look at brady/Hindley) which is why I said earlier that one of the acid tests for ill intention was lack of openness
the guy happily walking about talking to the parents, taking pictures in unlikely to be a P****
the guy hiding in the bushes near a play area taking shots of kids with a long lens on the other hand ... and even if he isn't, he's very unwise
- Messages
- 4,968
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Agree about the Moors Murder duo.
I mentioned them earlier and they operated in a particular area and the Police did not trend or connect the missing kids till after the fifth child. They had befriended some family members of a couple of kids (not fully sure - its been some time since I followed their stories which seemed to be churned out.
Steve
Don't do it, in today's day and age, it's a complete no no, even venue's where, say children are performing their acts in event's such as talent contests, any sort of photography or video is strickly disallowed, even the children's own parent's are not allowed to use any form of photography or videography, because there's other children around, gone in the future when children grow up to be famous of these talents, there'll be no childhood clips or images showing that child doing what they are famous for as an adult when they were just a child or growing up, it's a shame, but there is that many people taking photographs these days with the digital explosion in the last several years, the increase of children being targeted by the wrong sort and for the wrong reasons out weighs the innocent images taken purely on a photography basis / spur of the moment shot. Taking photographs of a child in public as well as at a wedding or studio if they are young is an invasion of their privacy to a degree, sensible shooting/posing is a must, any casual shots in public isn't worth the consquence's of what could happen to you in todays society, no image is worth that.
I worked for an wedding photographer and about 10 years ago on visiting the brides room, there was 3 little toddlers, all 2-3 year old's, the guy I worked for asked me to photograph them as they were together getting ready etc, I immeadiately said no and went to the next room to photograph someone else, they were only in nappie's, even back then you had to be careful of photographing children in the right way, he continued to photograph the 3 children and I put my case to him later that day, but as in most circumstances as on that day people don't stop and say "no I don't think taking photographs is a good idea", one it invaded their privacy as they were too young to give permission and two for the portrayal of that photographer who took the images by people who see the images at a later date, needless to say the guy used those "oh, how cute" images in his portfolio and unpteen folk saw them, even professional photographers cross the line and use very little if any sense on this delicate matter, there's still some shooting and using the images on their sites for the whole world to see of children or babies half dressed, for me it's a complete no no, you can't get away with this simply because your a "photographer".
I've seen places like my daughters school have facebook accounts and regularly show their pupils taking part in activities at school etc, the school is very strict on others photographing the pupils at events, yet are allowed to show lots of their pupils publically via the internet of photographs the school took, I think this is wrong is a bit off, one rule for one, a different for another.
I think children should be protected from people who pray on them who are out there, recently I saw my daughters collection of prom shots her school paid a "professional photographer" to cover the event, the were nigh on the worst images I've ever seen, yet all the pupils got a disc each, wether the images were also posted on the schools site I don't know, but because of the lead up and hype and importance of this event for the kids involved, the results of those dreadfully captured images that should have gone in the bin were not sorted / deleted, for the reason being that's all that "photographer" had to give, most being out of focus, a large percentage being really unflatering images, and everyone got a copy, now with the internet bullying of todays society with social networks, that "photographer" should be hung, drawn and quartered! A lot of those self concious kids would be horrified when they seen the images, even more horrified that their fellow pupils and families would see them as well, but that person should never have been allowed to photograph those kids in the first place, I saw the images and immeadiately thought, there's going to be a lot of upset for those kids, even the possibility of bullying and taunting because the images were so bad.
Serious thought needs to be put in before photographign children, and a lot of common sense adhered to when you actually do it.
I worked for an wedding photographer and about 10 years ago on visiting the brides room, there was 3 little toddlers, all 2-3 year old's, the guy I worked for asked me to photograph them as they were together getting ready etc, I immeadiately said no and went to the next room to photograph someone else, they were only in nappie's, even back then you had to be careful of photographing children in the right way, he continued to photograph the 3 children and I put my case to him later that day, but as in most circumstances as on that day people don't stop and say "no I don't think taking photographs is a good idea", one it invaded their privacy as they were too young to give permission and two for the portrayal of that photographer who took the images by people who see the images at a later date, needless to say the guy used those "oh, how cute" images in his portfolio and unpteen folk saw them, even professional photographers cross the line and use very little if any sense on this delicate matter, there's still some shooting and using the images on their sites for the whole world to see of children or babies half dressed, for me it's a complete no no, you can't get away with this simply because your a "photographer".
I've seen places like my daughters school have facebook accounts and regularly show their pupils taking part in activities at school etc, the school is very strict on others photographing the pupils at events, yet are allowed to show lots of their pupils publically via the internet of photographs the school took, I think this is wrong is a bit off, one rule for one, a different for another.
I think children should be protected from people who pray on them who are out there, recently I saw my daughters collection of prom shots her school paid a "professional photographer" to cover the event, the were nigh on the worst images I've ever seen, yet all the pupils got a disc each, wether the images were also posted on the schools site I don't know, but because of the lead up and hype and importance of this event for the kids involved, the results of those dreadfully captured images that should have gone in the bin were not sorted / deleted, for the reason being that's all that "photographer" had to give, most being out of focus, a large percentage being really unflatering images, and everyone got a copy, now with the internet bullying of todays society with social networks, that "photographer" should be hung, drawn and quartered! A lot of those self concious kids would be horrified when they seen the images, even more horrified that their fellow pupils and families would see them as well, but that person should never have been allowed to photograph those kids in the first place, I saw the images and immeadiately thought, there's going to be a lot of upset for those kids, even the possibility of bullying and taunting because the images were so bad.
Serious thought needs to be put in before photographign children, and a lot of common sense adhered to when you actually do it.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 12,788
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
The bits that I've highlighted in bold are completely wrong.
The passage in red is irrelevant. The standard of photography hasd nothing to do with whether the shots should be taken or not.
- Messages
- 456
- Edit My Images
- No
Taking a photo of a child in a studio is an invasion of their privacy?
I'd like to hear more about how this could be, kb119.
I'd like to hear more about how this could be, kb119.
Hi HMansfield, firstly I’ll give you my thoughts on this, say a little girl of say 2 years or upwards to say 6 or so was taken to a studio by her parents and their parents wanted her to be photographed in just her underwear or naked from the waist up, that child is being put in poses as she is for a photographer to take images of her, she has no choice in the matter, now when she’s a teenager, I bet she’s not going to be pleased if those images are still up on the wall or her parents dig them out to show people who come round is she?
More so, a real life situation several years back where I live which really got me thinking on this subject was one of the regions top 3 photographers was advertising all over the region even on places like backs of buses (with half naked children in the ad's) if memory serves me correctly of wanting young children to be portrayed as angels, now that included top half shots or underwear type shots ok, the photographer got a good collection together of local children for ranging from 2-10 I guess, his site was splattered with these images as he was wanting to do a big exhibition I believe, now because of the angles or framing a lot of these children looked naked, it got a lot of people in the industry talking, it was border lining on k****e p**n in a lot of people opinion, but I don’t think anyone pulled him up on it or where it went as he had been around 15 years or so and had quite a reputation as a successful photographer, those images were used in magazines throughout the region, probably the exhibition, and internet use, now when these children grow up may well still see images of themselves from these shoots, how will they feel, I’m sure not all of them are going to be happy about being photographed that way and for the world to see, that’s my opinion.
If the children were fully dressed, to me that’s not a problem or an invasion of privacy, everyone has childhood photographs and think “oh no” but it’s when children are photographed not fully clothed is where I think is wrong and is crossing the line on their invasion of privacy.
More so, a real life situation several years back where I live which really got me thinking on this subject was one of the regions top 3 photographers was advertising all over the region even on places like backs of buses (with half naked children in the ad's) if memory serves me correctly of wanting young children to be portrayed as angels, now that included top half shots or underwear type shots ok, the photographer got a good collection together of local children for ranging from 2-10 I guess, his site was splattered with these images as he was wanting to do a big exhibition I believe, now because of the angles or framing a lot of these children looked naked, it got a lot of people in the industry talking, it was border lining on k****e p**n in a lot of people opinion, but I don’t think anyone pulled him up on it or where it went as he had been around 15 years or so and had quite a reputation as a successful photographer, those images were used in magazines throughout the region, probably the exhibition, and internet use, now when these children grow up may well still see images of themselves from these shoots, how will they feel, I’m sure not all of them are going to be happy about being photographed that way and for the world to see, that’s my opinion.
If the children were fully dressed, to me that’s not a problem or an invasion of privacy, everyone has childhood photographs and think “oh no” but it’s when children are photographed not fully clothed is where I think is wrong and is crossing the line on their invasion of privacy.
Last edited:
I thought the original topic by Bertie TBE was regarding the question should you take photographs of children without permission in public, Mark, the first part of what you have highlighted isn’t wrong my friend, I recently attended a charity do where a dozen or so local acts with various different talents performed, several of these acts were children under 16 years old, the Customs House in South Shields to be exact, my choir from my church were performing, I took my gear but no one who was there wether that be performers or parents in the audience were allowed to take photographs, it was announced just before the start of the show but some parents obviously tried in the first childrens act which was met with a stern warning to stop when the act finished, I’ve come across this a few times now, I’m not saying it happens everywhere or course but it is happening.
It’s a complete no no is my personal opinion.
If your photographing a child of 2 years old who’s parents aren’t present but say they have a relative or friend present like in the wedding situation, that was invading that child’s privacy, even if their parents were present and gave permission to take photographs of a baby or child half naked, what would that child say in say 15 years time, that baby or child has no say in the matter, so it is invading their personnal privacy to be photographed half naked I believe, all those childrens parents weren't present, so what would their reaction be to those who were there or the photographer when they found out their child had been photographered half naked and then used pubically to advertise a business?
Regarding the school having a facebook account showing numerous photographs of their pupils, what need is there for it? I’m not sure if the page is private or not as I don't go on there, even if it is, it’s still showing children out of a private event, giving paedaphile’s material that has no need to be out there in public, this is how some paedaphile’s target certain children in particular, they see them and get to know the school or area they go to, that sort of thing is always being documented on the news.
Regarding your red highlighted areas, yes it’s irrelevant to the original question to a degree, but I thought it was an important issue to raise especially as it was only this morning that a young girl hung herself regarding school bullying on social networks regarding how she looked, we are photographers and images play a big part on these social networks and if you could see some of these really bad photographs this photographer in question who covered the prom caught of these young people while they were getting off coaches etc, kids will take the micky and more between themselves, so the photographer had a duty to bin images like this knowing that the up to 100 pupils would all get a copy of all those images, I imagine some of those girls cried their eyes out and are still upset that images like that were handed around, you know what teenagers are like, it‘s all image, lets say some of those pupils at the prom were bullying a fellow pupil, and that pupil was one of the pupil’s caught in a very bad pose, those other pupils had that image to post to wherever they liked, they could have posted it all over the internet, what is that poor pupil going to be like? Teenage suicide is high, that is the world young people live in, it’s all about image and we live an culture today that focuses on self image to a huge extent, all I was trying to say was as photographers photographing children wherever that may be, at an event, private portrait or in public, need to think about consequences not just to the children but also to ourselves.
An example of what I’m trying to say is take that famous photograph taken of that little Viatnamese girl running for her life back in the late 60’s, did she have any choice or gave permission in that situation? No, she was naked, no dignity, I’m not sure how old she was at the time, but the whole world has seen that picture, it’s used in all forms of the media even 40+ years later , I remember seeing that girl when she had became an adult not long ago on tv if I remember correctly, now I can’t remember what was said, I can’t remember the photographer, I don’t know the girls name even though I've seen that image since I was a child, I don’t know how much if anything the photographer made from that use of that image, I don’t know if the girl has ever had commission from the use of it, the photographer and individual person become irrelevant, it’s the image and the way it’s used that can have effects, but I guess that girl or woman today see’s that image regularly and she has got to have deep feelings on the world seeing her like that, we know if that sort of image was taken today, what it would be called but also if a photographer took an image like that today of say a little girl on the beach, how would he be perceived or would he get into trouble today? The world and photography on this matter has changed considerably in recent years.
As I said photographing children is a very delicate matter and serious thought needs to go into it.
It’s a complete no no is my personal opinion.
If your photographing a child of 2 years old who’s parents aren’t present but say they have a relative or friend present like in the wedding situation, that was invading that child’s privacy, even if their parents were present and gave permission to take photographs of a baby or child half naked, what would that child say in say 15 years time, that baby or child has no say in the matter, so it is invading their personnal privacy to be photographed half naked I believe, all those childrens parents weren't present, so what would their reaction be to those who were there or the photographer when they found out their child had been photographered half naked and then used pubically to advertise a business?
Regarding the school having a facebook account showing numerous photographs of their pupils, what need is there for it? I’m not sure if the page is private or not as I don't go on there, even if it is, it’s still showing children out of a private event, giving paedaphile’s material that has no need to be out there in public, this is how some paedaphile’s target certain children in particular, they see them and get to know the school or area they go to, that sort of thing is always being documented on the news.
Regarding your red highlighted areas, yes it’s irrelevant to the original question to a degree, but I thought it was an important issue to raise especially as it was only this morning that a young girl hung herself regarding school bullying on social networks regarding how she looked, we are photographers and images play a big part on these social networks and if you could see some of these really bad photographs this photographer in question who covered the prom caught of these young people while they were getting off coaches etc, kids will take the micky and more between themselves, so the photographer had a duty to bin images like this knowing that the up to 100 pupils would all get a copy of all those images, I imagine some of those girls cried their eyes out and are still upset that images like that were handed around, you know what teenagers are like, it‘s all image, lets say some of those pupils at the prom were bullying a fellow pupil, and that pupil was one of the pupil’s caught in a very bad pose, those other pupils had that image to post to wherever they liked, they could have posted it all over the internet, what is that poor pupil going to be like? Teenage suicide is high, that is the world young people live in, it’s all about image and we live an culture today that focuses on self image to a huge extent, all I was trying to say was as photographers photographing children wherever that may be, at an event, private portrait or in public, need to think about consequences not just to the children but also to ourselves.
An example of what I’m trying to say is take that famous photograph taken of that little Viatnamese girl running for her life back in the late 60’s, did she have any choice or gave permission in that situation? No, she was naked, no dignity, I’m not sure how old she was at the time, but the whole world has seen that picture, it’s used in all forms of the media even 40+ years later , I remember seeing that girl when she had became an adult not long ago on tv if I remember correctly, now I can’t remember what was said, I can’t remember the photographer, I don’t know the girls name even though I've seen that image since I was a child, I don’t know how much if anything the photographer made from that use of that image, I don’t know if the girl has ever had commission from the use of it, the photographer and individual person become irrelevant, it’s the image and the way it’s used that can have effects, but I guess that girl or woman today see’s that image regularly and she has got to have deep feelings on the world seeing her like that, we know if that sort of image was taken today, what it would be called but also if a photographer took an image like that today of say a little girl on the beach, how would he be perceived or would he get into trouble today? The world and photography on this matter has changed considerably in recent years.
As I said photographing children is a very delicate matter and serious thought needs to go into it.
Last edited:
My local soft-play facility has a very annoying sign on the wall which says:
"Due to the data-protection act, all photography is prohibited."
Fair enough if they want to ban photography inside their private premises. There may even be good reason for it (the irrationality of other parents). What annoys me is the nonsense excuse that it's anything to do with the data-protection act.
"Due to the data-protection act, all photography is prohibited."
Fair enough if they want to ban photography inside their private premises. There may even be good reason for it (the irrationality of other parents). What annoys me is the nonsense excuse that it's anything to do with the data-protection act.
- Messages
- 12,788
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
You seem to be a photographer and yet the above post is symptomatic of why photographing in public can be a complete PITA - even when it's for a job rather than just hobby shooting.
A complete misunderstanding of the law and why photographs are generally taken.
- Messages
- 4,968
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The InformationCommissioner clarified clearly that banning photogrsphy in schools under the DPA was incorrect. It may not be the case elsewhere. Universities have a different take.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...4ICwDQ&usg=AFQjCNEuLQma4BpPcODelXz5ZpO94AUCQg
The DPA only applies if you have or hold personal information (names etc) of the people in the photos.
That's a really bad example.
Sorry Laudrup, how is that a bad example? That photographer in the midst of bombing or whatever was happening around him choose to take photographs of a naked little girl running for her life who was in much distress, there's things that come first before taking photographs, things like picking her up, help cover her up as you both try and escape, I believe if I remember correctly the photographer was also running and snapped this quickly, he may have eventually helped the little girl or was it the soldiers around her who helped, I'm not sure but I think it was the later.
At the end of the day the subject was a child, a naked child at that, that image was broadcast round the world, where's that little girls dignity or respect for her personnal privacy? That photographer became worldly famous for that shot, I can't comment without researching how much money he made from it, even if he didn't to me it was exploitation in this individual circumstance, I'm not going to get into politics of how the image affected others after it was broadcast, the original post was a stranger photographing a child in public, the fact is that photographer became very famous for taking a photograph of child when surely it should have been the last thing on his mind with what he saw when he saw the state she was in.
I think that is a perfect example of photographing a child in public and consquences thereafter on that child and photographer.
At the end of the day the subject was a child, a naked child at that, that image was broadcast round the world, where's that little girls dignity or respect for her personnal privacy? That photographer became worldly famous for that shot, I can't comment without researching how much money he made from it, even if he didn't to me it was exploitation in this individual circumstance, I'm not going to get into politics of how the image affected others after it was broadcast, the original post was a stranger photographing a child in public, the fact is that photographer became very famous for taking a photograph of child when surely it should have been the last thing on his mind with what he saw when he saw the state she was in.
I think that is a perfect example of photographing a child in public and consquences thereafter on that child and photographer.
Last edited:
Hi Mark, I was putting my own personal thoughts and feelings to the original post of “photographing children in public“, wether that be professionally or for a hobby point of view, that won’t matter when someone complains and you get confronted or have the police pull you, that’s not out of experience but from past media events, I remember a innocent case a few years back which was in one of the photography magazines, a photographer was photographing a child in public, in London I think it was, and the parent or someone close by phoned the police and the poor fella was requested I believe to hand over the images, and argument between photographer and police, though they were just innocent shots it made the national press, either way it could get you into a spot of bother.
I’m not stating any laws here, I’m just saying exactly how it is in places we go today, Ghoti is right, signs are appearing, rules are becoming stricter everyday in independent places. I tell you another place is churches, where pastors or church staff are terrified of even someone from their own congregation taking photographs of children in the church, it’s a complete ban in some churches I’ve been to them, if there’s any photographs taken of say a kids event, only certain church leaders have that right and only after each child has taken home and the church have a received a signed letter giving permission from the parents that their child be allowed to be photographed, this is fact not laid down laws, the fear of being sued I think, different places have their own rules but they all seem to be following this example.
Mark I haven’t stated any info on laws so I can’t be accused of having a misunderstanding of them, can I?
Steve, that link is interesting, I can’t comment on different schools takes on allowing photographs or video at school events like sports day or plays, I don’t know where schools stand on that one, but that would be sad if there was a ban in schools at these events for parents, the place I was at was a public venue normally for bands, artists and plays, even though you had to pay for a ticket to get in that night, I felt sorry for the parents not having the right to photograph or video their own child performing in front of a few hundred people.
I guess when it comes down to it because of the world we live and how society is on the subject, if your going to photograph children, do it with permission, be very weary of taking public photographs of children without permission from their parents or you could land up like the poor fella in the original posting who was physically beaten, and I feel very strongly on photographers or places like schools who socially use images of children for their own advertising.
One way of solving this is to go out at the weekend and try taking photographs of children in public and see the response you get! Let me know how you get on if anyone does…
I’m not stating any laws here, I’m just saying exactly how it is in places we go today, Ghoti is right, signs are appearing, rules are becoming stricter everyday in independent places. I tell you another place is churches, where pastors or church staff are terrified of even someone from their own congregation taking photographs of children in the church, it’s a complete ban in some churches I’ve been to them, if there’s any photographs taken of say a kids event, only certain church leaders have that right and only after each child has taken home and the church have a received a signed letter giving permission from the parents that their child be allowed to be photographed, this is fact not laid down laws, the fear of being sued I think, different places have their own rules but they all seem to be following this example.
Mark I haven’t stated any info on laws so I can’t be accused of having a misunderstanding of them, can I?
Steve, that link is interesting, I can’t comment on different schools takes on allowing photographs or video at school events like sports day or plays, I don’t know where schools stand on that one, but that would be sad if there was a ban in schools at these events for parents, the place I was at was a public venue normally for bands, artists and plays, even though you had to pay for a ticket to get in that night, I felt sorry for the parents not having the right to photograph or video their own child performing in front of a few hundred people.
I guess when it comes down to it because of the world we live and how society is on the subject, if your going to photograph children, do it with permission, be very weary of taking public photographs of children without permission from their parents or you could land up like the poor fella in the original posting who was physically beaten, and I feel very strongly on photographers or places like schools who socially use images of children for their own advertising.
One way of solving this is to go out at the weekend and try taking photographs of children in public and see the response you get! Let me know how you get on if anyone does…
- Messages
- 12,788
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
kb119 said:
Read and learn:
http://abcnews.go.com/news/t/blogEn...Yi90QW574C4Bg&ved=0CDIQ1QIoAA&biw=768&bih=922
I thought we were talking about the ethics of photographing children in public, not nit picking my opinions???
Learn what??? As I said I can't remember details of this event, I said regarding the photographer he may have helped didn't I, the fact they were reunited and stay in touch hasn't much bearing on the original question posted, go photograph children naked today and see if their parents or surrounding public or the child stays in touch with you, yes the Napalm girl photograph is highlighting war and the affects it has on people involved who's caught up in the war, but she was still getting photographed naked in the photograph to the right of your link, I'm sorry but my take maybe different from yours on photographing children nude in any situation, that's just my ethics, and think it's wrong and I stand by that ok, I've said my piece, I'm moving on...
Learn what??? As I said I can't remember details of this event, I said regarding the photographer he may have helped didn't I, the fact they were reunited and stay in touch hasn't much bearing on the original question posted, go photograph children naked today and see if their parents or surrounding public or the child stays in touch with you, yes the Napalm girl photograph is highlighting war and the affects it has on people involved who's caught up in the war, but she was still getting photographed naked in the photograph to the right of your link, I'm sorry but my take maybe different from yours on photographing children nude in any situation, that's just my ethics, and think it's wrong and I stand by that ok, I've said my piece, I'm moving on...
Last edited:
- Messages
- 20,423
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Mines the same. Also has signs saying u can't eat own food and drink or health and safety reasons!!! Now I don't mind them not allowing it as they have own cafe, but to hide behind health and safety. Pathetic.
It's a bad example when you actually know the story and the aftermath. Reading through your other posts on this subject I have an educated guess why you hold these opinions, but they are very bizarre to me.
- Messages
- 456
- Edit My Images
- No
This is quite possibly the worst response to anything I've ever read on the internet.
If a child is taken by their parents to a photo studio, then they aren't in public, and so this scenario is irrelevant to this topic.
Secondly, you can't go to a photographer's studio, and then moan that your privacy is being invaded. It's not your private property.
Thirdly, a stroppy teenager moaning about a baby photo of themselves on the living room wall has no baring on the subject of taking a photo of a strange child in a public place.
- Messages
- 456
- Edit My Images
- No
This has overtaken your previous post as the worst response I've ever read.
It's full of inaccuracies, contradictions, nonsensical situations, irrelevancies and just general jibberish.
You've demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of not only laws surrounding privacy, but the actual concept of it.
Neither do you understand the role of the war photographer or photojournalism, and linking the Kim Phuc photo to this subject is distasteful to say the least. There is no sexual or exploitative context in that photo.
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 25,411
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Not to mention the 'doing the job' bit and that image had a massive political impact that arguably saved thousands of lives.
There's a moral question, is that child's 'privacy' worth those lives?
What price privacy when we're reporting news? I'm not talking trashy paparazzi, but do we respect MPs privacy or publish their expenses? There are thousands of other examples, the media has to balance these and consider the greater good.
That image is iconic, and I find the notion that its just a picture of a naked child to be utterly perverse. There are few images in history that have had anything like that power to change the views of the world.
- Messages
- 125
- Name
- Greg
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Last edited:
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
I think it should be mentioned that it actually turned around the American public's perception of the Vietnam war.
Steve.
- Messages
- 4,968
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And thus it continues...... Camera + actually using it 'somewhere" near a public toilet....... Dodgy person so I will use an axe on that pervert.......
Thank you Judge - now give the drunken half wit 25 years.
S
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
as i said in the other thread, the guy was very drunk so if it wasnt a camera that sparked the incident then something else would've
- Messages
- 1,110
- Edit My Images
- No
Worst response? Fair enough those “angel shots” were taken in studio but they were advertised publicly on buses, shopping mall etc, if you saw large posters in public places liked I’ve mentioned as it did happen of a girl of about six shot from the waist up naked with a pair wings coming out her back, you wouldn’t have feelings of oh’ that’s not right?
And again my point was regarding parents taking children to studio’s and being shot in this same way above, semi naked isn’t invading that child’s privacy? I beg to differ, does that child understand what is going on? Maybe it’s irrelevant to the original question but it’s in the general area of photographing children which is part of the main question.
“Secondly, you can't go to a photographer's studio, and then moan that your privacy is being invaded. It's not your private property.” as you say...
That’s the point I’m trying to make, I’m not talking about an adult here about privacy, how can a child go to a studio and moan about their privacy being invaded, they won’t understand until their older will they? The question we have to ask ourselves as a photographer in situations where we could see a child in public that would make a good shot or asked to do shots (semi naked) in studio is “our we invading the personal privacy of this child who isn’t old enough to understand?”
Your next post makes no sense to me either, have I stated or quoted anything regarding laws in my posts, no, the concept of privacy is going to vary from person to person as the post here demonstrates, everyone has different thoughts on this matter, what I have wrote are mine, yet you and couple of others for some reason have not liked them and are so keen to copy and paste my opinions as way of trying to start an argument.
I do understand the role of the war photographer, as Steve Smith said, other photographers were taking the same shots, maybe this was a bad example to use of the Napalm girl, maybe not, Phil V, the moral question needed to be asked the second that photographer saw that little girl at that moment not afterwards, if that photograph had not become famous and stayed in either that photographers possession or made their way into the hands of paedaphiles or whatever, would your views still be the same?
As the original question by BertieTBE asked ethically where do each of us stand on photographing children not of family or friends in public today? With the Napalm girl situation and that photographer found himself in and this ethical question he was faced with at the time of taking the photograph or the ethical question once he saw his developed film we could very well find ourselves in a similar situation today, say we’re out taking photographs and come across a child, who's been attacked and are naked and distressed, what do we do? Ethically, what would you do? Would you stand there taking photographs? Or cover up the child and phone the police? If you took photographs would you tell yourself that I took these in the hope that they will be shown in the media and worldwide so hopefully attacks on children will stop? (like the Napalm girl situation?), Lets just say that was the case and you did take photographs, the police come, ask why you happen to be there, notice your camera and see the images of this child on your digital camera… what are they going to make of it? Where do you think a photographer in today’s world stands being in that situation?
Do you think the police will say, we respect you wanting to use those images to change the world regarding attacks on children, good luck with those images, do you think the public will commend that photographer for taking such images as well or will the police arrest that photographer on the spot?
The original question I say again was regarding photographing children in public in today’s society, I felt it was also important to discuss ethics on photographing children not just in public but in studio’s where images can at times be made public by the photographer as was the case with the "angel shoots", todays society has changed greatly on it’s views regarding this matter and a photographer can’t take photographs as photographers did in years gone by, it’s just not acceptable by today’s society.
Even BertieBTE said “As a parent, I admit, I might be concerned if a stranger started snapping away at my son or daughter.”
I rest my case…
And again my point was regarding parents taking children to studio’s and being shot in this same way above, semi naked isn’t invading that child’s privacy? I beg to differ, does that child understand what is going on? Maybe it’s irrelevant to the original question but it’s in the general area of photographing children which is part of the main question.
“Secondly, you can't go to a photographer's studio, and then moan that your privacy is being invaded. It's not your private property.” as you say...
That’s the point I’m trying to make, I’m not talking about an adult here about privacy, how can a child go to a studio and moan about their privacy being invaded, they won’t understand until their older will they? The question we have to ask ourselves as a photographer in situations where we could see a child in public that would make a good shot or asked to do shots (semi naked) in studio is “our we invading the personal privacy of this child who isn’t old enough to understand?”
Your next post makes no sense to me either, have I stated or quoted anything regarding laws in my posts, no, the concept of privacy is going to vary from person to person as the post here demonstrates, everyone has different thoughts on this matter, what I have wrote are mine, yet you and couple of others for some reason have not liked them and are so keen to copy and paste my opinions as way of trying to start an argument.
I do understand the role of the war photographer, as Steve Smith said, other photographers were taking the same shots, maybe this was a bad example to use of the Napalm girl, maybe not, Phil V, the moral question needed to be asked the second that photographer saw that little girl at that moment not afterwards, if that photograph had not become famous and stayed in either that photographers possession or made their way into the hands of paedaphiles or whatever, would your views still be the same?
As the original question by BertieTBE asked ethically where do each of us stand on photographing children not of family or friends in public today? With the Napalm girl situation and that photographer found himself in and this ethical question he was faced with at the time of taking the photograph or the ethical question once he saw his developed film we could very well find ourselves in a similar situation today, say we’re out taking photographs and come across a child, who's been attacked and are naked and distressed, what do we do? Ethically, what would you do? Would you stand there taking photographs? Or cover up the child and phone the police? If you took photographs would you tell yourself that I took these in the hope that they will be shown in the media and worldwide so hopefully attacks on children will stop? (like the Napalm girl situation?), Lets just say that was the case and you did take photographs, the police come, ask why you happen to be there, notice your camera and see the images of this child on your digital camera… what are they going to make of it? Where do you think a photographer in today’s world stands being in that situation?
Do you think the police will say, we respect you wanting to use those images to change the world regarding attacks on children, good luck with those images, do you think the public will commend that photographer for taking such images as well or will the police arrest that photographer on the spot?
The original question I say again was regarding photographing children in public in today’s society, I felt it was also important to discuss ethics on photographing children not just in public but in studio’s where images can at times be made public by the photographer as was the case with the "angel shoots", todays society has changed greatly on it’s views regarding this matter and a photographer can’t take photographs as photographers did in years gone by, it’s just not acceptable by today’s society.
Even BertieBTE said “As a parent, I admit, I might be concerned if a stranger started snapping away at my son or daughter.”
I rest my case…
Last edited:
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
fanning the flames again Neil?
(just an observation)
:shrug:
im saying if the guy was prepared to attack a stranger with an axe, i suspect not much would have pushed the guy to that point. he was clearly a) very drunk as the article says and b) not firing on all cylinders upstairs.
i dont think it was a well thought out specific targeting of a photographer.
Really?
"There is some suggestion he called the victim a paedophile when, in reality, he was a completely innocent visitor taking photos of the gardens in Sidmouth."
- Messages
- 456
- Edit My Images
- No
Read through this thread, and you'll see I've already answered this. I don't have any conflicts of ethics with regards to photographing children as I don't associate children with sexualism.
The way you don't upset anyone is not to be a jerk about it, or go to any of the extreme examples offered in this thread, and hide in bushed with your trousers round your knees.
I find the vast, vast majority of people to be level headed and rational on this subject, and it's only a minority of paranoid Daily Mail readers that stir up problems.
Again, you're implying that I would be looking for the sexual context within that image. I'd probably think, "Dear God, they're not still pedalling those angel pics, are they?", but hey, if the parents want them, then that's there choice.
Is it right for a child to be taken in to a town centre by their parents for a bit of shopping where people can look at them, when they're too young to understand the concept of public and private space?
My views are that this is not a photo with any sexual context whatsoever, and should there be some pervert somewhere who coincidentally has a fetish for black and white photo's of burning Asian children, then that's a product of their sick mind, and does not change the context of the photo for the rest of us.
My view that this is an extreme - almost fantastical - hypothetical example and should not have been brought into this subject has not changed.
Firstly, I'm not a war photographer or photojournalist. If I were, it would be my job and my responsibility to take those kind of photo's, however horrific.
Secondly, if I came across a naked child that had been attacked, I would have a civic duty to call the police and provide them with cover.
With a camera with me, I may consider taking record shots of the injuries and surroundings and provide them to the police as evidence.
There is no sexual context in that situation, so any photo's taken would have no sexual element, unless one were to deliberately create it.
I would have more of an ethical crisis not doing all I could to assist in helping the victim and the police, than sitting back and doing nothing because a few random strangers might frown at me and assert their hang-ups about naked children upon me.
Why would they arrest the photographer on the spot? What crime have they committed?
Nick Ut was commended for taking that photo and for what it achieved.
The only people that seem to have a problem with using horrific photo's to highlight attacks on children and similar atrocities are those that instantly equate a naked child to sexualism.
By the vast majority of people, yes it is. It's the paranoid minority that don't accept it, and they're usually hypocrites that feel their extreme reservations don't apply to themselves.
If some stranger singled out my daughter and started snapping away I'd probably be concerned and curious as to why.
If it's just a tourist or general member of the public taking photo's in which she appears, or someone who appears to be working in a journalism point of view, I probably wouldn't give it a second thought.
At the end of the day, it's just a bunch of coloured dots that from a reasonable distance resemble her. It doesn't steal her soul or harm her. Her physical safety is my concern, not a bunch of ones and zeros on someone's memory card.
Last edited: