the end of photographing children??

<p >“Allen, jeez, your sweat is oozing through the Internet. Chill out man, don't have a cow!”</p>

<p > </p>

<p >John, you are like a dog old howling into the night in the belief that I’ve just stepped on your tail.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Now we the formalities over shall we continue? </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >“Hey, do you tell folks in person what they "should" and "should-not" do ... or do you only do that online?”</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Only you, John;) </p>

<p > </p>

<p >“Tribal identity is not vaguely similar to nationalism.”</p>

<p > </p>

<p >John, let’s stick to the trail you are off wandering into the bushes playing with twigs and sticking feathers in your hair. Tribal identity is the same as tribalism and nationalism the loyalty and devotion to the tribe or nation. Try the words cultural identity. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011504018.html</p>

<p > </p>

<p >To go back to the original posted question a paranoid society will indulge in paranoia. It might well be the case now, or in the future, when a parent/grandparent will be taken to court for taking photos of their children in an unsatisfactory way. What would be considered unsatisfactory will always be an open ended question subject to interpretation. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The fear will then set in.</p>

<p>"Tribal identity is the same as tribalism and nationalism the loyalty and devotion to the tribe or nation. Try the words cultural identity. "</p>

<p>Allen, you're using words carelessly. "Cultural identity" is not similar to personal identity. A tribal person doesn't have "devotion a culture" s/he IS a tribal person to the bone. This isn't a matter of the person's "belief" ("ism"). It's nearly genetic. </p>

<p>I don't know why anybody "should" get back to the original silliness, but you've taken a big step in that direction by fantasizing about parent/grandparent/court. Do you write material for Sarah Palin?</p>

<p >“Allen, you're using words carelessly. "Cultural identity" is not similar to personal identity. A tribal person doesn't have "devotion a culture" s/he IS a tribal person to the bone.”</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I really don’t know what you are talking about, John. You seem to have wandered off into some semantic byway. Culture identity is interesting in the sense of a way of life, core values; the culture of a group which is appealing to the individual. For instance the culture of the Native American is appealing as it puts emphasis on respect for nature, spiritual values, and lesser concerns for material possessions…</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I question the values of tribal groups where the individual is expected to give total devotion to the tribe often and the expense of other tribes. With the re emerging Native American nations it is an interesting question whether there will be a hierarchy of pure bloods, half bloods, and the others. If there is you can guarantee conflict will take place.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The truth is we can all trace our genetics back to a single mother. We are all tribal brothers and sisters; we are just one big family. I can only think our ancestral mother would turn in her grave if she new how her family were behaving towards each other. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Enough said.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >do-na-da-`go-v-i</p>

<p>"For instance the culture of the Native American is appealing as it puts emphasis on respect for nature, spiritual values, and lesser concerns for material possessions…"</p>

<p>Hogwash. A little Kevin Costner is fine, but the racial stereotype above goes too far. Black folks have natural rhythm, right?</p>

<p>There is no such thing as "the culture of the Native American." They are human beings, most of whom blend right in to Walmart World, many of whom live in their own realities, not representing a "culture," only participating as who they have found themselves to be...tribal, clan, family etc. </p>

<p>That Mr. Whitebread identifies them as having a "culture" is not their concern. That kind of concept is academic, shallow, and necessary as a manipulative divisive tool for their oppressors..</p>

<p>The relevance to photographing somebody else's child: If the photographer is afraid to introduce himself and ask permission to photograph, the bad stuff justifying that fear can be smelled, making him too weird to be near tribal people...or kids. </p>

<p>I don’t know, John. Sometimes I think you are a character who has stepped out from one of those old BW 40’s Bogart movies I like to watch….. with the values and thoughts of those times. Your excitement with moving still images as something amazingly new sort of confirms it.</p>

<p> “Hogwash. A little Kevin Costner is fine, but the racial stereotype above goes too far. Black folks have natural rhythm, right?”</p>

<p>Who is talking about racial stereotypes? What has the so called physical abilities of a race got to do with our conversation? Indeed what has a movie got to do with anything? Why would the natural expressed values of culture have anything to do with oppression or racial stereotypes? “</p>

<p>There is no such thing as "the culture of the Native American." They are human beings, most of whom blend right in to Walmart World”</p>

<p>I don’t think a Native American would agree with you, John…..or, an Italian, a Frenchman or anyone else apart from rednecks. Folk are proud of their culture, their roots, and feel a natural enjoyment to identify with it. Have you noticed how Black American women like to wear traditional African clothes particularly at functions? Of course they all blend in with society in general, and have their individuality, but it does not mean they have turned their backs on their own culture. Indeed the Native American’s culture was taken away from them by the Europeans and replaced with their culture and values. I strongly suspect they are looking in part to return to their own culture and values,</p>

<p>“The relevance to photographing somebody else's child: If the photographer is afraid to introduce himself and ask permission to photograph, the bad stuff justifying that fear can be smelled, making him too weird to be near tribal people...or kids.”</p>

<p>A load of old codswallop.</p>

<p> If you actually went out with a so called street photographer, had some actual understanding of what you are talking about, you would have an opinion on the subject worth listening to. Street Photographers photograph anything and everything which catches their eye. That could be a building, someone’s foot, a door knob, or people including children. Most folk ignore them as they move from subject to subject seeing them as sort of nerd akin to train spotters. However, if they stalk ,someone, following someone around…… stalk their family they will be challenged and rightly so… These people are not photographs and are at best rank novices.</p>

<p>In the real world I have never heard of a case of a photographer stalking children and abusing them. I’m sure if there had it would be all over the world media. However, I have heard of 10’s of thousands of children being abused by their own families from all classes of society. Indeed, if a child goes missing it is the family and close friends who are first questioned not some fantasy blacked cloaked stalking photographer.</p>

<p>So, lets keep these things in perspective, and use our common sense . by not listening to some silly hysteria on the internet.</p>

<p>I think this is a very important issue. In July of this year, the British social documentary photographer, Jimmy Forsyth, died, aged ninety-five. Much of his work included shots of children in his locality and they tell us much about the time (1950s and early 1960s) in which he was working - the social and economic conditions. These days it would be very difficult to produce such work, and it is very sad that we have become so suspicious a society.</p>

<p>Chris, that is a very valid point and one that i would share wholeheartedly... it is a sad time that we live in when the paranoid has become the norm and there is an immediate association with the worst possible case scenario... photographers like Jimmy Forsyth would be looked at suspiciously in todays society and as a result we are looking at a time when images capturing the everyday street life of children are proving more and more difficult and 'uncomfortable' to capture...<br>

RIP</p>

 

<p>This does seem to be a ''very'' western phenominon. It is certainly something I have not experienced during my travels in South East Asia where almost the opposite occurs, everybody is happy to be photographed and if there child is neglected its almost ''why is my child not having its picture taken, is it not good enough''. I have taken many pictures (innocent) of young children abrode without any problems but would not now attempt to do the same in the UK.<br>

<br /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3018/2722140451_26415de5af.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="395" /><br>

<br /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3244/2680581757_99bf57566e.jpg" alt="" width="378" height="500" /><br>

<br /> Almost certainly the second image could cause problems for some but was taken in a public park in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, with the knowledge and consent of the parent (the lady in the pic) who had no problem with the image and smiled when she saw it...<br>

It is very common in Asia for kids to wander around naked and nothing is thought of it, there is no false sence of modesty or embarressment. I have ha a number of comments on my flickr site about some of these and wether I consider them inappropriate, I do not and consider the innocence of the images shows through, the are neither pornographic or invasive, but seek to document an innocence lost in this country and many in the west.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>excellent point Ian</p>

<p> this is all just amazing where will it all end?</p>

<p>IMO much of the "fashion photography" we see, right here on P.N, is wide-open abuse of children.</p>

<p>Not a new idea: Tart your 12 year old daughter up and sell her to some knockoff of Vogue. Or Photoshop some 20-year-old to look like she has 12-year-old innocence.</p>

<p>I don't think many still care much about children anyway, so if a little excessive concern, maybe violence, pops up related to "street" photographers who disrespect parents, that's evidence that human values still survive in de-volutionary times. </p>

 

<p>“so if a little excessive concern, maybe violence, pops up related to "street" photographers who disrespect parents, that's evidence that human values still survive”</p>

<p> So, a little excessive concern, maybe violence it okay….to be admired showing real human values. What level of violence, on a street photographer exercising their legal rights in a public place, do you think is okay to be admired; a solid blow or perhaps a good beating? I know several elderly ladies who enjoy street photography, they often take photos of children playing reminds them of their grandchildren. What level of violence should they receive from this little level of concern?</p>

<p>Reflect on what you have just said, John…..i like to think you are writing out of character.</p>

<p>Allen, first, what you "like to think" is a problem in itself. That you claim to know elderly ladies is worrisome.</p>

<p>I don't disapprove of street violence nearly as much as I disapprove of the disrespect you encourage for parent/child relationships. You see people on the streets, but you don't seem to respect them. You seem see them at a distance, as mere figures.</p>

<p>People like you, on other threads are at this moment making exactly your point: that the humanity of parents/children don't trump the "legal rights" of isolates who think their camera ownership gives them a free pass to disrespect individual, family, and social/tribal rights.</p>

<p>I see nothing wrong with a parent attacking a street photographer if that photographer is so personally depraved that he disrespects the relationship between parents and children...the relationship that exists in most mammals, not just in humans...a relationship you believe is not as important as your hobby. </p>

<p>There may be worse things than being beaten. A beating might be the kindness that keeps a child abuser (like someone who doesn't respect parents) from being locked up. Call it "tough love." You know, like pointing out someone's alcoholism.</p>

 

<p><em>Ignorance about basic human values is common among photographers. We often cross boundaries that non-photographers might not cross. We presume that the camera makes us privileged.</em></p>

<p>Defining your own views as "basic human values" seems pretty common among internet philosophers. It seems that, if I violated people's "basic human values" (as you define them) as frequently as I do, I'd be fighting off angry mobs or defending myself regularly. But I get far more flack and hostility from people on the internet who think I should work according to their ideas than I do from real people in the real world.<br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

<em>People like you, on other threads are at this moment making exactly your point: that the humanity of parents/children don't trump the "legal rights" of isolates who think their camera ownership gives them a free pass to disrespect individual, family, and social/tribal rights.</em></p>

<p>And people like you define respect for humanity or for people's rights based on theories you formulate while sitting on your ass behind a computer. Has it occurred to you that people who are out actively interacting with the public (and photographing in public) regularly and frequently might have developed their own ideas about what is acceptable and that, unlike armchair theories, those ideas are regularly tested and refined?</p>

<p><em>There may be worse things than being beaten. A beating might be the kindness that keeps a child abuser (like someone who doesn't respect parents) from being locked up.</em></p>

<p>Are you saying that people who take photos of children without asking the parents' permission first are child abusers? Because that seems to be a very direct implication of your statements.</p>

<p>Mike, parents exist to raise children and to protect them. Wouldn't you agree?</p>

<p>I've not traveled the world much beyond metropolitan France and the American West. My experience is mostly with people who seem like me, and with Navajo people with whom I'm well connected, and with Pueblo and local hispanic people. I rarely photograph people secretly or with long lenses as a matter of gut preference. YMMV. I'm not interested in reducing people to ants, or sniping at them with long lenses. I get more of a thrill from facing people with a camera than I ever did in commercial photography.</p>

<p>When parents sense a threat, as from some photographers, it's their job to take action, even if that action is illegal. That's my gut feeling. <strong>Please explain how you disagree, as there's been almost no coherent response from others.</strong></p>

<p><strong>Do a snapping tourist's or wannabe-sorta' photojournalist's or "street photographer's" convenience trump parents? </strong></p>

<p>Some here think parents' understanding of responsibility to their children (their judgement call per the moment, "right or wrong") is secondary to the convenience of a camera carrying loner's. Is that your view? I'm amused at the level of upset that my view has stimulated.</p>

<p>I agree with photographers who respect human relationships in local terms. It evidently does lead to intimate photography when a connection is made with the subject. I's easy to understand why someone would disagree with me....after all, it's easier to avoid relationships with people whose language you don't speak, or who we pretend are culturally "beneath us"</p>

<p>There are often clues in the awareness of the people in the frame: Shot openly and up close for example, or shot shot from a distance, like ants. That concern isn't just mine... I agree with what seems Magnum's philosophy, and National Geographic's. Salgado has photographed people-ants, but he has a coherent and intentional view, is not just a fearful outsider, and more often engages his subjects directly, as humans...up close.</p>

<p>It's one thing to photograph the easy (quaint "foreigners" in their own country, dwarfed in a larger scene...or somebody else's children without considering the parents). It's another thing to connect.</p>

 

<p>Dang to think I used to give my three boys a bath fully unclothed (them not me). It is a sick world and it is the politicians to pass the laws that seem to be the sickest persons around. I guess they think that we all think the same perverted way they do.</p>

<p>Manuel, this was a bogus topic from the beginning. The OT's allegations are fantasies.</p>

<h1>the end of photographing children??</h1>

<p>Probably not, but one can hope.</p>

<p>However, to put a philosophical spin on the question: are 'children shots' a subset of 'pet shots,' or is it the other way around?</p>

<p>I'm thinking it's one set.</p>

I think just the opposite will happen. Labs were once the inspection point. But in a labless world of digital cameras and home

printing no one passes judgement on your pictures without your approval or a warrant. Labs were also an expense that kept

most parents from accumulating umpty-gazillion pics of their kids.

<br><br>

That said, the anti-archival nature of most people's interaction with their digital assets means in most cases the booty will be

gone long before the first opportunity to humiliate the kid in front of a potential spouse arises.

<br><br>

Kids will continue to be shot in public, by art-only street photographers and by twisted perverts. The public aversion may

continue to advance but so will the opportunities for stealth. Like in so many things, security/paranoia will be very effective

at inconveniencing the innocent and clueless, but toothless against those who put thought into avoiding it.

<br><br>

And folks like John will continue to see candid photography as an evil that justifies violence. He's useful as reminder that

there really are people like that out there.

<p>“You see people on the streets, but you don't seem to respect them. You seem see them at a distance, as mere figures"</p>

<p>I see people on the street as my fellows in this dream which we call life. I don’t see them at a distance, or as mere figures, just as fellow travellers. Interesting to capture their candid moments, to feel their humanity and the life it contains. Why particularly in a photograph…..just because it helps to focus the mind and gives cause and time for reflection.</p>

<p>Jeez, i'm waxing lyrical tonight.</p>

<p>To the original poster,<br>

<br /><br>

While your paper is probably long written and turned in, if I was writing it, I would address “the potential end of photographing children in society” both from a legal standpoint (what is legally permitted) and in societal terms (what will society accept). To narrow the paper’s scope, you should focus on a specific jurisdiction. This is because the answer to these questions depends on whether you speak of, <em>e.g.</em>, the United Kingdom, Afghanistan, or the United States.<br>

<br /><br>

I suggest you focus on the jurisdiction where you reside. You can then include a section that addresses how other jurisdictions handle these issues. Personally, I reside in the United States and so I look at these questions through that prism.</p>

<p>One case of interest is Steve Connolly’s and Paul Adao’s lawsuit against Woody Harrelson. The allegations were that Woody Harrelson allegedly assaulted them at a wedding when they photographed his daughter. They claimed he interfered with their right to make a living, etc. He argued he was merely protecting his daughter’s right to privacy. </p>

<p>The result illustrates the dichotomy between the legal and social aspects of this question. The Court granted Connolly and Adao a directed verdict. As a matter of law, Woody Harrelson did violate their rights. The jury then awarded Paul Adao $1 for this violation. Steve Connolly got approximately $2,500 (I suspect for damaged camera gear). In other words, while the law may permit someone to photograph children without permission, society may not place a high value on that right.</p>

<p>Another case that illustrates this dichotomy is the Alec Baldwin matter. He allegedly assaulted a photographer named Alan Zanger for photographing Baldwin’s newborn daughter as she returned home from the hospital. The police arrested Baldwin and the district attorney prosecuted Baldwin. A jury then acquitted him of all charges.</p>

<p>Perhaps the quintessential case that illustrates what drive’s society’s increasingly vigorous rejection of the right to photograph other people’s children involves the infamous Jack McLellan who allegedly travels the country taking pictures of young girls for a website. Never convicted of any sex crime, he takes the photographs in public areas (parks, etc.). I won’t detail why he takes these shots (it’s disturbing).But when law enforcement could not or would not act, California parents went to Court and got a permanent injunction barring Mclellan from coming within ten yards of any child in California and loitering where children congregate. Many legal scholars (without defending Mclellan) have argued that the permanent injunction likely violates McLellan’s First Amendment rights. Nevertheless, a California Court of Appeal upheld the injunction earlier this year.</p>

<p>The gap between what the law permits and what society will tolerate is narrowing. Last January, a new law went into effect in California which makes it illegal for any person to publish information describing or depicting a child, the physical appearance of a child, etc., with the intent that another person can use the information to commit a crime against a child and the photograph, etc., may help them commit that crime. Simply photographing children at play at a park or on a public beach without any intent to help someone commit a crime is not illegal. But this law likely grants police probably cause to investigate anyone seen photographing a child. </p>

<p>While you reference the FBI instructing all photo labs and pharmacies printing photographs to report suspicious images, this isn’t really a new development. Since around 1989, almost all states have laws that mandate reporting by photo labs, etc., of any image that might constitute possible child abuse.</p>

<p>In any event, you’re looking for people’s opinions on (1) what society has become; and (2) whether I agree that there will come a generation that will never know the embarrassment of their parents pulling out old photos of them naked or partly clothed as a child that most people of my generation have already experienced.</p>

<p>It’s sad in a way. Photographers have documented and prompted improvement of situations involving children such as child labor, physical abuse, etc. And we’ve seen legislation such as child labor laws that result from such photographs. We’ve also seen great art created by photographers that involve the innocence of childhood. But as society grows larger and more complex, because of people like McLellan, because of people who abuse their ‘rights’ we all will increasingly see our freedom’s curtailed by more and more restrictive laws. This is not a good thing. It may be necessary. </p>

<p>

<p>As for my personal opinion, I agree with Cicero, the more laws, the less justice. On your second question, I do not believe we will never see a generation that will not enjoy the embarrassment of relatives pulling out photos they would rather never saw the light of day.</p>

</p>

<p>Tallaght<br>

If you are writing a paper, then Patricia Holland's book 'Picturing Childhood' is a must read. It provides an outline of different tropes in the imagery of children and an historical context to photographing children. You should also keep an eye out for a short paper by Pauline Hadaway for the Manifesto Club on photography bans and restrictions in the United Kingdom (it has not been published online yet, but is due for publication soon, most likely at the end of September, to coincide with this event in London - <a href="http://www.manifestoclub.com/photosalon">http://www.manifestoclub.com/photosalon</a>). It is very good on the contemporary context, including use of the wonderful phrase 'muddled authoritarianism'. On contemporary concerns about children and parenting, which provide a very good context on contemporary attitudes towards children, see Frank Furedi 'Paranoid Parenting' and also check out the website <a href="http://www.spiked-online.com">www.spiked-online.com</a> - Nancy McDermott is a key contributor on parenting debates in the United States.<br>

Good luck with the paper.<br>

Chris</p>

<p>Chris,<br>

Thanks for posting those links - very useful additions to the debate.</p>

 

<p>Hello, I am coming from a bit of a different perspective in regards to photographing children. I am the Mom of 5 year old twin boys who seem to be a magnet for attention of hobby photographers. We have been approached 2 years ago from a Model Agency to have our boys sign up and we declined. Of course I am partial about my boys and I average about 200 pictures a month myself and I realize people will take pictures of them when we go places HOWEVER we have found ourselves at a battle with a town not far from us who unknowingly took a picture of them 2 years ago at the local Octoberfest (they both had on Lederhosen). Since then they used this picture for advertisement in their flyers and Newspaper consecutively for the last two years to advertise the Festival. We asked them not to use it and they keep telling us they have every right to use this picture. I disagree since I gave no permission to have it published and have never signed a release for this picture. What is a parents right? I am a bit confused......</p>

<p>When you enter a venue or a gathering organized by a third party you normally cede your rights to be photographed as well. Plus if it is an editorial entity that is using the image (a newspaper) they do not need a release, even to promote something that you attended. Many people mix up commercial and editorial photography. The former needs a release and permission, the latter does not.<br>

I am a photojournalist and I get this all the time. Here is the phrase I use that applies to all: If any age human is outdoors they can be photographed no matter what. If any age human is indoors they can be photographed if the venue allows it. You only need parental permission if you are on their property or in their house.</p>