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

[nolefan32]

I find this discussion interesting, especially in light of that guy that's been on the news lately because he's got a web site set up where he displays photographs of children he's taken in public arenas and then goes on to describe their "cuteness" factor, and what he'd like to do with them (hold them on his lap, cuddle them, etc.), and on other parts of the site, outlines for other pedophiles where they can go to be around children, how to avoid the cops, etc. ... and yet nothing can be done to this guy because he has somehow managed to stay legal. Creepy as can be, but legal.

 

As a father, I get why people would be uncomfortable if someone were to just show up at the playground and start taking pictures of our kids. The images can't be legally published without a proper release, but I would then come to wonder why some stranger would want pictures of my daughter for his personal use. But on the same token, I find it hard to believe that the cops can't do anything to the guy in the situation on the news and yet they think they have a leg to stand on in harrassing the OP in his situation, at least based on the OP's description of events. And I agree with the sentiments that once you're in a public place, you can take pictures of whatever or whomever you want.

[jacob_brown]

"I agree with the sentiments that once you're in a public place, you can take pictures of whatever or whomever you want."

 

In the USA those aren't sentiments, they are the law.

[wigwam jones]

David, I had not heard of this guy. Do you have a link to the news story?

 

I 'get' why parents are uncomfortable also. I've never doubted it. And I have no burning desire to make people upset or angry - I'm not 'in their faces' about my rights to take photos.

 

I have noted that the same 'uncomfortable' feeling that parents get when a stranger photographs their child is the same 'uncomfortable' feeling their parents or grandparents might have gotten if a person of a certain color or religion moved into their neighborhood a generation ago. If it would have been wrong for the last generation to run off a neighbor whose skin color made them uncomfortable, then it is wrong for a parent to run off a photographer whose photography makes him uncomfortable.

[nolefan32]

"In the USA those aren't sentiments, they are the law."

 

Um, I was referring to those who, on this board, had voiced the sentiment that they agree with that law.

[nolefan32]

Wigwam - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262700,00.html

 

Fox News is the main outlet reporting on it, but I did a search and found several other outlets that at least did a drive-by on it.

[wigwam jones]

David, thanks. No, I had NOT heard of this guy. What a sicko! As you say, he appears to flaunt his rights - and also as you said, the police say that he's not breaking the law. An example from the extreme edges, like Reverend Phelps or the KKK and so on. Ugly, ugly, but that's what the edges are in a free society. It squicks me to shrug and move on - but I don't know what else we as a society can do.

[demaya]

Of course by the end of this I've forgotten 80% of what I wanted to respond to..ah well.

 

I will say this - it's amazing how different the laws are in the US to here in Canada!

 

I have a link too:

http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/photographers-rights-and-photography-privacy-advice/

 

Canada - things are a tad more strict here!

http://ambientlight.ca/laws.shtml

[allison_burdon]

Wow! I'm new to the site and still exploring. Great discussion, aside from the occasional snitty comments.

 

Posting from New Zealand, and having come from the UK, I can't comment on the American issues being thrown up. All I can say that I know of friends in both countries who have been advised that photographing children in public places wasn't welcome. It wasn't enshrined in law that photographs couldn't be taken, it was requested that they weren't. In one instant it was the childs grandfather at the boys first swimming lesson. Entirely innocent, but you know what? He respected that other parents might not feel comfortable with their children in bathing gear winding up on a strangers video camera. Whilst you can discuss for eternity your right to photgraph children in public places, the sad fact remains that the next photographer happening along may have some really unsavoury intentions. I'd kick my rights to the kerb in an instant if sticking to my guns meant some mother was left with a nagging doubt that her child had been compromised somewhow.

 

That said, the reaction of the police officers was outrageous, extreme and would surely have abused the rights of the photographer full stop. That's not law enforcement, that's getting carried away.

[ray .]

David, what's the difference between you posting your own pics of your kids on the

internet

(as you have in your pnet folder)

where they're accessible to anyone with a computer and a photographer taking pics of

them

in a park?

[dave_thielen]

So many red herrings, so much retoric, so little reason. So lets bring it back to the basics.

 

Were any laws broken by the photographer? NO.

 

Did the police break the law when they took the camera and memory cards. YES.

 

On a totally seperate, but related issue. The only time I have had anybody complain about my taking pictures of kids, and I called the cops, it was found out that the person that was doing all the shouting was actually the non-custodial parent who had "kidnapped" his kids.

 

Something else to think about - and I don't have the citations handy - but many of the child molestation complaints that involve family members (usually the husband/father) are laid during a nasty divorce battle, and are later found to be unsubstatiated.

[nolefan32]

Ray -

 

If I choose to take a photo of my child and if I choose to post it on the Internet, that's by my choice and as the parent, I have the legal right to do so. If I were to choose NOT to post them on the web, that's also my choice. And because it's my right and my choice, other photographers don't have the right to take photos of my child and publish them without me signing a release allowing them to do so.

 

If a photographer were take a photo of my daughter for their private collection, they are legally allowed to do so. I never denied that. I only noted that I understand why it would make parents uncomfortable because it would make me uncomfortable. Pedophiles are a reality, and if some stranger is taking photographs of my child, that's the first thought in my mind, that it's some creep wanting to use my child's image for his own sexual gratification.

 

However, my discomfort doesn't change that we're in a public place and thus that photographer wouldn't be breaking any laws. And if I decided to take the law in my own hands and assault the photographer because I didn't like him taking pictures of my kid, it would indeed be me going to jail, not him.

[mike dixon]

<i>And because it's my right and my choice, other photographers don't have the right to take photos of my child and publish them without me signing a release allowing them to do so. </i><P>

 

No, it's still their right and their choice, depending on the type of "publishing." The right to take and display a picture of your child doesn't belong exclusively to you.

[wigwam jones]

"Pedophiles are a reality, and if some stranger is taking photographs of my child, that's the first thought in my mind, that it's some creep wanting to use my child's image for his own sexual gratification."

 

I understand your fear and your concern. But if I may, a few questions designed to provoke thought...

 

1) How does this fear jibe with the fact (according to FBI statistics) that most child molestation is done by family members, not strangers?

 

2) Same question as above, but regarding child abductions (kidnap). Most done by family members.

 

3) A pervert who sees your child's photo on the internet would have the same sick reaction whether YOU posted it, or some STRANGER posted it, wouldn't they? So how is it different?

 

A little more unusual question - one which I often ask but never get an answer to on this type of thread:

 

* In what way is a person harmed by what another does to a photograph of the first person?

 

We live in a modern world, we know that photographs don't steal souls. But presumably, we're "OK" if a photographer-stranger takes a photo of our child and just 'enjoys' it, and not OK if the stranger gains some sick fulfillment from the photo. Why? How is the child whose photo it is harmed in any way by either use? I grok that the mental image conjured up by the thought of the trenchcoated weirdo hunched over his private stash of little kid photos is squicky - but I'm trying to get past that and ask honestly - what 'harm' is done - to anyone?

 

If we decide that yes, some pyschic damage is done when a person looks at a photograph 'the wrong way', then are we not setting outselves up in the role of examining people's private thoughts and motives before allowing them to take a photograph?

 

That's what parents are really asking when they ask a photographer "What is this photograph for?" What they really want (I presume) is to be assured that the photographer is not going to do something awful to it. But they never seem to take that next step and ask themselves - why? What does it matter?

 

Sports Illustrated does a swimsuit issue every year, do they not? I am sure some guys just like photos of pretty girls in swimsuits. And I am sure some do something they ought not to. In what way are the models harmed by ANYONE who looks at the photos, regardless of what, erm, 'desires' they might have?

 

I have also pointed out before that we are a heavily surveilled society. Cameras watch us day and night, pointed at us by ATM machines and security cameras and traffic signals, and so on - some recorded, some not - some monitored and some not. And who is to say what is happening at the receiving end of those cameras? What the operator/monitor is doing that perhaps they ought not do? Do we demand that the cameras turn away when our children walk by? Do we insist on reviewing all footage recorded to make sure our children are not being revealed indelicately? Do we call the police and insist that the cameras be turned off, or the film confiscated?

 

You may see where I am going with this - and I am sorry to belabor the point. For those who are not following my logic, it is this in summary:

 

We lash out at the anonymous photographer-stranger because they represent a perceived threat to our children that we can see. We do not stop to think that our own web-published photos could be put to evil use without our knowledge or consent - or that we have no way of knowing what use a stranger might put to their own photos of our children. Nor do we stop to consider that our children are not damaged in any way by what how a person gazes at a photograph of them. We seem to dismiss the fact that the FBI says our family members, whom we trust, are far more likely to kidnap or molest our children than some random stranger. And ultimately, the fact that we and our children are being scrutinized and photographed by anonymous sources every day, who could well be putting the resulting images to the same nefarious uses - we don't reach out to control them, because we don't think about them. Only the threat we perceive that is front of our eyes. Even if it makes no logical sense.

 

 

[Brad_]

>>> and I am sorry to belabor the point

 

Puhleaze...

 

Seriously though, and only if you have time, could you expand just a little a bit more? We

really are interested...

[wigwam jones]

You always have the option of not reading the thread.

[demaya]

Personally I think Wigwam is very good at clarifying his thoughts & examining things from many different angles. Something quite a few of you cannot do, unfortunately. This also being the very thing that makes these boards an interesting read in it's own respect though.

 

Now if Wigwam would leave something for me to say! I swear I'm two steps behind him whereever I go & he's already voiced my thoughts. (I guess I have my own frustrations at you sir!)

 

How many of you have photos of your own children taken with complete innocence that you wonder if you could be questioned about if the cops ever found them? I do. I have photos of my own 3yr old son playing in my studio & mocking poses wearing just his undies & a pair of my heels. Hilarious blackmail to me. Virtual kiddie porn if presented on it's own. No stranger could ever come up with anything as terrible as that by snapping random pix of him.

[cenelsonfoto]

How is that sort of shot even remotely pornographic? Illicit? Gawdalmightydamn, 3/4 of Americans would be up Shit Creek if that's the case.

 

Now if you'll excuse me... I've got a date with my Nikon, a bottle of olive oil, and a fresh young copy of Jesus Camp.

[demaya]

I suppose you would have to see the pix. They are quite the poses. He's often around my half clothed models. He's learned the postures.

 

Some pix I take just to give him to impress his buddies & give me a giggle. Here's a quick snap when he snuck into the frame for an undie promo. (Ignore the damn technical details. It's humour nothing more.)<div></div>

[Brad_]

>>> Something quite a few of you cannot do, unfortunately.

 

Yeah, we're the ones actually out shooting, rather than talking about it...

[demaya]

I'm glad to hear that. I'd love to be out myself today! Bloody weather.

[gary_watson]

Matt F. hit it, much to the consternation of the incivil who seriously think this is an ALCU matter; instead it's just the result of exceedingly poor judgement on Vincent's part.Taking pictures of other people's kids in a public park is a recipe for just this kind of grief, if not worse.Find another subject to shoot and get over it.

[wigwam jones]

This is the way civil liberties end - not with a bang, but a whimper.

[wigwam jones]

<p>In November 2006, I went to the local "Holiday Magic" Parade in Royal Oak, MI. I took a lot of photos - as did lots of other people. There was press there, of course, with still and TV cameras. I shot photos of the parade and the participants - whatever caught my eye.

</p>

<p>

This family didn't mind me taking their photo:

</p>

<p><center>

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/236/448372423_afdcbd08d2.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Royal Oak Holiday Magic Parade 2006" /></a></center></p>

<p>And this lady did. She stuck her hand in front of her child's face, and then demanded to know if I had taken a photo. She went on in a screechy tone to inform me that I needed her permission to take photographs of her child, and if I had taken any photos of her child, I needed to show them to her immediately and delete them in front of her. I walked away. Her husband did nothing. She did not follow me, but she was steaming mad.</p>

<p><center>

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/188/448378369_91fb7242d9.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Royal Oak Holiday Magic Parade 2006 - FORBIDDEN!" /></a></center></p>

<p>Please note that I am under no obligation to obscure the identities of her husband and child. They were in public - as public as you can get, sitting on a street curb at a public parade. Her demands were invalid, her argument that I needed her permission was specious. I could have told her to go pound sand, and too bad for her. But I didn't; I just walked away, I did not take any more photos of her precious snotgoblin, and to this day I protect their identities, although I am under no obligation to do so.</p>

<p>But according to some here, if she had complained to a cop and he had tackled me, confiscated my camera, refused to return my memory cards, and threatened me with false arrest on a trumped-up charge, then it would be my fault - because I should have known better. I was the one being "incivil."</p>

<p>I have a little trouble following that logic.</p>

[ray .]

If anything, you should be arrested for bland photos.

 

I don't get why you would post this with blanked faces if you really believe in the civil right.

Aside from the fact it doesn't look like a very interesting shot.

[ray .]

It's funny though- how some people like the lady in the top pic looks to have absolutely no

problem with the camera- while others completely lose their marbles. That's how it is on the

street. Takes all kinds.