Harassed by Police for photography on playground. (Memory card confiscated and harassed by police)

[robert_m_johnson]

" which to the best of my knowledge..."

 

If your really want to pursue this then contact a local newspaper. If they don't help

you, no one will.

[thomas_sullivan]

"...Is takaing pictures of other people's children legal? Sure it is. Are the parents [and the police who represent the parents in this case] are going to encouragne such perfectly legal activities? I don't think so..."

 

Well, when something is legal, and a group of people illegally infringe upon a person's right to excersise this legal endeavor, I believe that, that is illegal. They don't have to encourage it, but, they themselves can not engage in illegal activities to stop it. When you condone the use of illegal activities to stop legal activities...in the end.....the one with the biggest gun wins.

[vverna83]

Thanks Mr. Elder

 

Ronaldo,

The pictures were of children playing on the parks playscapes some shots were group

some were solo with a few portraits (meaning the child smiling at the camera with an

uncluttered background) thrown in. None of them TO MY KNOWLEDGE contained anything

that could be constrewed as inappropriate or revealing in any way I add the to my

knowledge because when you have 15 kids spinning around on one of those centrifical

force rides (the wheel that kids sit on and is spun) shooting motor drive at 5 frames per

second I suppose it is possible. I don't recall any girls wearing skirts though so it really

should be a non issue.

 

A number of the parents there WERE encouraging my photography as i was asked if it

would be possible for me to provide a parent with a copy on more than one occasion.

 

Your ''moral angle'' example sounds similar to a situation along the lines of my mothers

nehibor across the street that has called the police because my mother parked the car on

the street on my mothers side of the street but the nehibor didn't want the car parked ''in

front of her house'' If your wondering about the conclusion the officer told the woman to

not bother them with the issue again.

 

To put it simply. If someone is doing something that they have every legal right to do

perhaps try talking to the person and work out your differences. The police deal with

LEGAL issues (at least in a perfect world they are supposed to) not petty ''i dont want, or i

think it should work this way''

[robert_edge]

I'd still like to know whether any of the "I have a constitutional right to do as I please" crowd is prepared to say that he or she disagrees with the New York by-law, as stated in prominent signs at every children's play area, that an adult cannot enter the area unaccompanied by a child and, if so, whether anyone has violated that law or intends to do so. By the way, outside the US, I have never heard about such a law and I have never seen such a sign.

[robert_edge]

Here's another question that I raised, and that has also not been addresed. If a parent objects to you taking a photograph of his or her child, and you do it anyway, is the parent liable criminally for assault and civily damages, if he or she takes a swing at you, or trashes your camera, to stop you from photographing their ten year old?

[robert_edge]

And here's a variation on the second scenario. A parent sees you take a photograph of his or her child surreptitiously and demands the film, as in the entire roll. Do you acquiesce, or do you say that you have a legal right to do what you are doing? If the parent then takes the film by force, do you have a right to sue him or her? If so, for how much? Punitive damages? Millions? How much should a jury award you against a parent for refusing to let you exercise your legal right to photograph his or her 10 year old child?

[oceanphysics]

<i>I think the problem is the pics are used to advertise children who may be kidnapped and sold.</i><p>

What sort of alternative fantasy/nightmare universe are you living in? That's just about the most absurd suggestion I've ever heard.

<p>

<i>There are cultures, such as in the Middle East, that take serious objection to Americans doing whatever the hell they want photographically on the basis that their laws, as photographers (if not parents) perceive them ought to apply universally.</i>

<p>

There are cultures in the Middle East where a lot of things are true. Who give a flying f___?

<p>

<i>If a parent objects to you taking a photograph of his or her child, and you do it anyway, is the parent liable criminally for assault and civily damages, if he or she takes a swing at you, or trashes your camera, to stop you from photographing their ten year old?</i>

<p>

Without any question, yes.

<p>

As for your question about the play areas, there is likely a law that establishes them. There is

[oceanphysics]

...no law that says you can't photograph people of any age in public, nor would it be constitutional if there were. Personally I expect the police to enforce laws that actually exist rather than making them up as they go along.

[vverna83]

As far as the New York situation as described I would obey the sign unless there was a

medical emergency and my assistance would be helpful.

 

Second question regarding angry parent attacking a photographer, YES as I understand it

that is battery and destruction of private property. You can't just go club some guy (or

girl) because they are doing something that upsets you.

 

Variation- Kindly inform them that you will gladly destroy the frame during processing if

they wish and reassure them that their childs photograph will never be published per their

request. If they take the film by force then they are breaking the law (theft) and you have

every right to sue. Being this is america and people have sued and won millions for

clumsy things such as spilling hot beverages on themselves i suppose the sky (or the

accused persons bank accounts) are the limits on what damages you could receive.

[oceanphysics]

<i>Hey Vincent, go ahead, turn this into a legal issue...</i>

<p>

Gee, it seems to me that being taken in by the POLICE, and having them steal your private property, is pretty much a LEGAL ISSUE any way you look at it. The police, unless I'm mistaken, are normally engaged in LAW enforcement. Sheesh.

[Ian Taylor]

My biz is photographing kids, so I often shoot in parks, playgrounds etc. People in this day and age are hyper-sensitive to this type of activity. How can you not be aware of that?!? I often check with the person in charge of the park to introduce myself and give them my mailer with samples of my images. I also take care not to get other kids in my shots.

<p>

I reckon you're lucky, you could've ended up with your camera stuffed somewhere mighty uncomfortable.

[robert_edge]

"There are cultures in the Middle East where a lot of things are true. Who give a flying f___?"

 

That just about says it all.

[ronaldo_r]

"... If someone is doing something that they have every legal right to do perhaps try talking to the person and work out your differences..."

 

Most people avoid confrontation. Hnnce they'd rather call the cops. This issue boild down to what is known in commercial world "fair use policy". Yes, you have legal rights. But if you abuse them by doing what a reasonable person is likely to object to, be prepared to cop the consequences. Count yourself lucky that the parents called the cops instead of taking the law in their own hands.

[oceanphysics]

<i>That just about says it all.</i>

<p>

Yes, it most certainly does. And I'll say it again: who give a flying f___ what they think in the Middle East about anything? If you do, then you're an idiot.

[oceanphysics]

Specifically, there are places in the middle east where women can't leave their houses without their husband's permission. Places where people have their hands chopped off for petty theft and are hanged for being homosexuals or beheaded for being the wrong religion. So why should anyone particularly care about any sentence that starts with "there are cultures, such as in the Middle East..."?

[robert_edge]

Ocean, I'm not going there.

 

I'm more interested in what people think about the questions that I raised, because they are where the rubber hits the road.

[robert_edge]

Or rather, they are where the rubber hits the road if one insists on treating this as a legal issue rather than an issue of civility.

[ray .]

The question in this instance really has to do with inappropriate behavior by the police

though, and whether he should just let that slide.. You seem to want to ignore that aspect of

it.

[oceanphysics]

The option not to treat it as a legal issue was foreclosed by the police. Complain to them.

[thomas_sullivan]

"...he or she takes a swing at you, or trashes your camera, to stop..."....."...If the parent then takes the film by force,...."

 

The initiation, or the threat of the initiation, of the use of physical force against another person is wrong.........legally and morally. It is at the core of all human rights. It is the reason why human rights are so crucial. There is no middle ground on this issue. The first person to use physical force, or threaten the use of physical force, is wrong......always.

[mpalmquist]

I will preface this with the fact that I am the father of a teenage girl. Of course there are nut jobs out there and we must protect our kids from them as best we can. A photograph of my daughter sitting on a park bench or riding a rollercoaster or whatever in public is less dangerous to her than going to school full of teenage boys.

 

I tend not to photograph kids that are not mine. But at the same time if I am shooting a park, or a streetscape or any other public venue and I happen to capture someones kid(s) in the frame and the parent objects then I am sorry but they have no right to demand a damn thing. If they are nice about it and politely ask I probably would just delete it and reshoot but if they were hostile I would refuse. Honestly have never has anyone complain.

 

I wonder how many of these parents who get all upset when some stanger with a camera is withing 100 yards of their kids look carefully and destroy any pictures that they happened to snap of their kids where any other kids happen to be in frame? My guess is NONE.

 

 

The more aggregious part of the original post is the actions of the police.

 

"let me save you some time if i EVER SEE YOU TAKING PICTURES AROUND CHILDREN AGAIN I WILL PIN SOMETHING ON YOU AND FUCK YOU OVER."

 

This kind of behavior should not be tolerated from a public servent. Report the officer's action to his supervisor (head of detectives?) and copy the department's internal affairs department and citizens oversight board if detroit has one. Of course proving the allegation will be next to impossible but if he spoke to you this way perhaps others have reported him as well and multiple complaints cannot be dismissed as easily.

 

Also report the entire event to your local paper and TV stations.

 

I hope it all works out for you.

[cenelsonfoto]

<i>"Or rather, they are where the rubber hits the road if one insists on treating this as a legal issue rather than an issue of civility." - robert edge, Mar 26, 2007; 02:07 a.m.</i><p>

Oh, is this merely about <i>civility?, manners?, maintaining comportment?</i><p>

Oh dear, oh my, oh whatever will we do without manners! Egad! Polly! I'm offended, old boy! Do you hear me! Offended, put off, tweaked, razzed, undone, bent, my good will and social bearing listing in a see of syph'd plebs! Mein Gott! So viele schmutzige Zigeuner! Aus hier heraus! Betrachten Sie nicht meine Kinder! Wo ist die Polizei? Jemand rufen die Polizei an! Diese Person ist regelwidrig!<p>

Civility, humph! What does civility have to do with a free society? Little - that is the answer - when civility becomes the sole measure of that society and the basis for laws; oddly enough, the more "civility" the less freedom, that's generally the routine.<p>Those who cry out for civility in these issues aren't out to be polite, only to enforce their narrow-gaged concept of civility. We have a saying in the States: <i>Freedom for me but not for thee</i>. Man, I hate those types.<p>

Civility should be enforced on a forums community, perhaps. On an entire society of freemen - no way. So pardon my Irish, but fook ewe an' yair civility.<p>

C.

[cenelsonfoto]

<i>I reckon you're lucky, you could've ended up with your camera stuffed somewhere mighty uncomfortable.</i> Ian .photo.net patron, Mar 26, 2007; 01:49 a.m.<p>

Mwakmwakmwakmwakmwakmwakmwak, lucky, mwakmwakmwakmwakmwak, camera, mwakmwakmwakmwakmwak mighty... whatever.

[john_h.1]

"Here's another question that I raised, and that has also not been addresed. If a parent objects to you taking a photograph of his or her child, and you do it anyway, is the parent liable criminally for assault and civily damages, if he or she takes a swing at you, or trashes your camera, to stop you from photographing their ten year old?"

 

If you bothered to read the responses above you would have found that this issue HAS been addressed.

[roger krueger]

Civility is merely civility, police misconduct is something entirely different.

<br><br>

The police's job is to enforce the law as written, no more, no less. It's not supposed to

matter at all whether the like who you are or what you're doing. Their own personal

feelings should theoretically have nothing to do with it.

<br><br>

But sometimes you get a cop where it's all about his Superman fantasies, saving the world

from anything he deems wrong, the law be damned. Sadly, complaining about a cop you

don't have on videotape is pretty much useless.

<br><br>

I often wonder what percentage of people who go absolutely nuts over stuff like this had

something ugly happen when they were young, and have a chip on their shoulder ever

after, social workers especially.

<br><br>

We had a well-publicized case of a deranged social worker on a witchhunt here in San

Diego a few years ago:

<a href="http://www.ags.uci.edu/~dehill/witchhunt/ccla/pages/wade.htm">Jim Wade's

testimony before the Senate</a>