Pictures of kids-to post or not?

[htarragon]

<p>I took some street pictures a few days ago of mothers and their children and am feeling a bit uncomfortable about posting them. My discomfort is on two levels: 1) Placing pictures of "private" moments on the net without permission. 2) Not being able to remove from or spoiling a thread by removal. This NY Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/fashion/25facebook.html?hpw">article</a> sort of encapsulates the problem.<br>

I'm more concerned about privacy issues than legal ones.</p>

 

[hal_b]

<p>There is no hard-and-fast rule, no clear line, no general advice that will apply to every situation. This kind of argument will always come down to the subject matter in the photo. Posting one photo may be okay, but another one isn't. It's always a judgement call, and others will judge you based on how well you judged your own work. If you aren't comfortable with it, don't do it. If you think the mother might not be comfortable with it, don't do it. If you think she might be comfortable if she only knew about it, get her permission first. If the photo is incriminating or embarassing, it could be a liability. If the photo is innocent, it could be very rewarding. Who can say, without being the judge of the photo and taking responsibility for it?</p>

[ds_meador]

<p>Howard,<br>

This is a very real concern. I did not read the whole NY Times article, but I've heard most of the first page already.<br>

I am an American living overseas. Most of the locals around me assume I rich for this very simple fact. For that reason alone, I limit how much information is online about my family.<br>

That being the case, I don't usually put any pictures online of other people's children without permission. I say usually. A while back I did put one up here in a PN thread that showed a man with his head in his hands and his two daughters beside him. They were in a crowd at a religious festival. I used it to illustrate what I like about street - it is real life. I have not posted that picture anywhere else and I have not even done any post processing to the RAW file besides that low rez jpeg conversion.<br>

One exception I have made was from a dance competition. Some of the dance routines were done by teens and pre-teens. The pictures I posted were completely of people I did not know and all were in good taste.<br>

Where friends and relatives are concerned - if I know the person puts pictures of their own kids on Facebook or similar sites, I might put up some of their kids that I took, but I'd seek permission first. If they were not in the habit of doing that, I'd definitely ask permission first.<br>

If I had a photo that actually showed criminal activity against a child, I would probably be legally bound to hand it over to the authorities - at least in the US. So, crimes against minors may come with obligations and the failure of compliance itself being criminal activity - that probably depends on which country you live in.<br>

So, personally, I most of the time do not put pictures of kids online. Again, it is a decision you have to make. Sadly, some of us live in places in a time when this is actually a security issue and not simply a privacy issue.<br>

DS Meador</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I wouldn't worry about it if it was in a public place. If it was just the kid, I wouldn't, unless I specifically ask the parent (which I always do). I don't take pics of kids (by themselves) at all, unless I have the parents verbal permission.</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>Hi Howard. I had the same quandary for a long time. Like for you, it came down to privacy. "I'm more concerned about privacy issues than legal ones." The solution for me was to respect privacy. It is what i would want and it is a solid assumption that others would want it to. With extra special regard for kids. Ask when you can. But many will say please don't post my child. </p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>it's real simple. You don't feel comfortable about posting them, so don't post them.</p>

<p>Aside from legal and moral issues however we should always consider if we want our lives ruled by fear and other peoples paranoia. Where I live the law is very clear about the non-commercial use of photos taken in the public domain and as far as I know it's the same in the US.<br /> When people tell me no when I want to shoot something then no it is, always. I don't shoot a lot of kids out there but apart from that I have no reservation whatsoever about posting photos that I have actually shot like this one.</p><div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

<p >“Pictures of kids-to post or not?”</p>

<p > </p>

<p >To be honest with you, Howard, it’s very much a personnel call. If you feel the need for moral guidance, and are of religious persuasion, perhaps your spiritual advisor can help. On an open public internet forum you will get a variety of opinions which will probably only confuse you. It’s very much an individual decision and only you can really decide. Sorry I cannot be more helpful but morality questions always make be think of my fellow brothers/sisters of humanity…………..</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >As I tuck into my fillet steak they simply starve……do you have the same moral dilemma? </p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>Trust your feelings. If some inner voice tells you this is not a good idea, believe it.<br>

I've been looking through some old photomagazines this week and, frankly, there are pictures in them of children that would probably get you into real trouble these days. It's one thing to say that adults know they're in public and should be prepared for the consequences, but young children cannot reasonably be said to have "consented" in any meaningful way.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>yes, it's very much a personal choice and while there's no denying that culture has changed we shouldn't talk ourselves into believing that there is something wrong in shooting children on the street because there isn't. There's nothing abnormal about it! It isn't a question of consent.</p><div></div>

[htarragon]

<p>I guess it does come down to my comfort level. I guess my next area of growth is to approach the parent(s) when I shoot. That's not possible at this point, since they were strangers. I suppose I could put them in my portfolio and remove them if need be. As I'm thinking about this, if I <em>had</em> approached the moms, they might have wanted to buy prints! Or beat me over the head with handbags :-). I need to think about this some more. I'm grateful for the input.<br /> Howard</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I don't photograph kids unknown to me out of sensitivity to what I think many parents want and out of respect for the kids' privacy, which I think is a somewhat different level of privacy than adults are due in public.</p>

<p>I don't get the impression anyone here is talking themselves into anything. Nor do I get the feeling that people who choose not to photograph others' kids are being motivated out of fear or paranoia anymore than I get the feeling that those who do photographic kids are over-rationalizing their actions.</p>

<p>Making moral decisions about my own shooting is much easier to back up with my own actions (or inaction) than is making moral decisions about something like world hunger. There are degrees of moral relevance, from the small to the great. Every moral decision is not the life-or-death kind. I'd hate to think we would dismiss non-life-threatening moral concerns because they didn't meet the level of significance of other concerns. Sometimes it's the little things we can do, a simple nod of the head, that makes the world what it is. I can feel ill-at-ease taking a picture of someone else's child without their permission and yet eat an ice cream cone guilt free even though people are starving around the world. Go figure.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p >“I can feel ill-at-ease taking a picture of someone else's child without their permission and yet eat an ice cream cone guilt free even though people are starving around the world. Go figure.”</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >We all do .Fred. We are very aware of the niceties of the society we live in…our little moral dilemmas of taking a photos of a child or beggar. Of course it’s nice to take a moral stand and all these small niceties make for the better in our comfortable little world. </p>

<p ></p>

<p ></p>

<p > Unfortunately, there’s a bigger picture…which in reality is what it’s all about, Fred. </p>

 

[Allen Herbert]

<p>The reality is that since the conception of photography, photographers have always taken photograph of children in a candid format…..very harmless stuff in the classic tradition of photography.</p>

<p>If an individual is not comfortable with candid photography, then don't do it.</p>

<p>But please spare others the shallow moralising.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"As I tuck into my fillet steak they simply starve……do you have the same moral dilemma?"<br>

"please spare others the shallow moralising."<br>

Please, indeed.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"I will if you will."</p>

<p>So you judge your morality on others morality. Notice i used the word "i "not Freddy;)</p>

<p>Throw away bad boy statements, Fred. When someone says "go figure" to me it conjures a picture of a tight fitting hawainan shirt, shorts, and a red glowing face berating a waiter for whatever. </p>

<p>If you want to engage in some banter feel free , i enjoy that sort of thing:) Could be fun..go for it.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"But please spare others the shallow moralising...Please, indeed."</p>

<p>There's nothing shallow about the truth, Fred...nothing to scoff at regardless of who is saying it.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"There's nothing shallow about the truth, Fred...nothing to scoff at regardless of who is saying it."</p>

<p>Unless, of course, it's Allen Herbert talking to someone else about their truth. Then the truth is shallow, as in Allen saying to Fred "but please spare others the shallow moralising."</p>

<p>So, Fred's moralizing is shallow and Allen's is the bigger picture and therefore deep, according to Allen. That's convenient for Allen . . . and dismissive of non-Allen.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p > </p>

<p >"So, Fred's moralizing is shallow and Allen's is the bigger picture and therefore deep, according to Allen. That's convenient for Allen . . . and dismissive of non-Allen</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >To be honest, Fred, I agree with, Allen. Fred’s moralising is shallow and only looks at the little corner he is standing in. The little details of his world are all important and he has created a little Emperors Rome. His subjects/friends dress in pretty customs and act out little scenes for him…..and he is happy. Sometimes he calls it street photography.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Handbags at dawn stuff.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > <br>

 

<p> </p>

</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Allen--</p>

<p>You move from our different moral viewpoints to belittling my work. Nice.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Unless, of course, it's Allen Herbert talking to someone else about their truth."</p>

<p>True, the sunshine shines out of my arse.....the font of all knowledge is a permanent fixture in that dark and forbidding place. With all that stuff going on about me......hey, it's worth listening to some of my thoughts... Next time someone takes your photo unbidden put a few gold coins in a charity box. Sort of a lot better than thinking about your special dignity….. it might help some folks to eat. Now there's a thought.</p>

<p>"You move from our different moral viewpoints to belittling my work. Nice."</p>

<p>Just harmeless banter, Fred. I like your your work...you are a devoloping photograher.Your recent photo on the steet forum was excellent.....i don't give complements easily.</p>

[fi_rondo1]

<p>Howard, the chances of anyone seeing pictures of their kids on this site is incredibly remote...</p>

<p>"1) Placing pictures of "private" moments on the net without permission."<br>

It seems that this is the essence of a certain kind of street photography. Would it be any better if these same pictures were hanging in an art gallery? Or a coffee? Or pressed between the pages of a book?</p>

<p>But, then again, if your conscience is calling you should answer it, listen to it, and obey.</p>

<p>Cautionary tale... This guy took some street shots of kids at a playground, overheard their names and found their address and mailed the pictures to the parents thinking he'd done something nice. A couple of days later the cops show up at his door (he put a return address on the letter!) and they gave him the once over. Of course, he had nothing to hide and the matter was soon forgotten.</p>

<p>In this day and age, my friend, I somehow doubt you'll overhear parents at the park saying, "Look at that nice man with the telephoto lens taking pictures of our children!"Still we should ask ourselves the simple question:</p>

<p>WWHLD?<br>

What Would Helen Levitt Do?</p><div></div>

[fi_rondo1]

<p>Fi, "Or a coffee?" Don't you mean, "Or a coffee shop?" Or "Shoppe?"<br>

Get some sleep, kid.<br>

Respectfully,<br>

Fi</p>

[htarragon]

<p>Fi,<br>

Mailing the pictures to the subjects, I'm sure that freaked them out!<br>

If I thought that pnet was a private little club, I would certainly put them up, but we know it isn't. It also isn't the Inquirer. Hanging on a wall or in a book, they could not be cut, pasted, Photoshopped or whatever.<br>

I don't know. I think I'm leaning towards posting not in a thread but maybe in a portfolio gallery so I can remove if necessary. They are nice shots, I'd hate to have to keep them just for private viewing.<br>

What do you mean remote chance? You mean the roar of audience approval when I post (sound of audience roar made between two hands) is only in my head? Oh Noooo!<br>

Time for sleep. Thanks for your response. It was thoughtful and I appreciate it as I do the others above (although Fred and Allen seemed to get lost somewhere starting at 4:15 :-)).</p>

<p>What ARE we doing up at this hour? Away from the screen, to bed!<br>

Howard</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>If the persons are unknown to you, and you do not have any way of deleting the picture after post, for me the solution is simple: Do not post. To turn it the other way: If some stranger took a picture of you and your child, posted it on the web, and is unable to remove it if you (or your lawyer) asks the photographer to remove it, what would your reaction be?</p>

<p>I take a lot of pictures of children during dance competitions. I never take a picture of them without their mother giving me OK (actually their mothers want me to take pictures of them "in action" and buy the personal CD), and certainly not post on the web without the parents concent. </p>

[newbie1]

<p>I shoot a lot of street photos which include children. I do post some of those photos on my website and here. HOWEVER, I NEVER SHOOT CHILDREN WITHOUT THE PARENTS APPROVAL FIRST. I will look at the parent and look for that nod of approval before I make the shot. I ALWAYS show the parent my camera and the photos I took right when I take them. I will give the parents my email address and tell them they may have the photos; most all of them do and will receive them free of any charge. I did have one woman who paid me for them via mail even though I told her no. I usually will put all of them on a DVD disc and mail to them.<br>

I have had a few parents nod NO to me and I will not take the shot then. Period.</p>