View Full Version : To shoot or not to shoot... that is the questions...
lightinsky
03-21-2007, 08:20 AM
Not sure if this tread should be here, but let me know and I'll move it somewhere else.
So... I'll like to bring up the issue of shooting habits.... I guess my problem is not knowing whether to shoot or not to shoot...
Here's some background... My experiences in shooting people, in places like Nepal and Vietnam (as a tourist), is that you SHOULD ask someone before you take a picture of them... They look unique and their cultures and costumes are inetersting and colorful enough to be a reason to shoot them in itself... of course for general scenes, involving many people.. one can shoot at liberty... But even for shooting a shop, say selling toys on a roadside... its always better to ask... (just point to the camera and nod... and see if they nod in response)... Usually they are friendly and and there would not be problems getting your shot... Maybe they are used to tourists or they are extremely friendly... i don;t know... bottom line.. you do get your shots...
But transposed to big city like NYC or in western countries... shooting other people poses a problem, at least to me... would they be offended if one take picture of a random person on the street?? Should you even ask?? I know that if someone ask me if they can take a picture of me... I'll be weirded out for sure!!!
What about candid shots of someone else, a stranger??? does it constitute an intrusion of privacy??
For the purpose of discussion, say you see a little boy chasing some birds in a park... or whatever... do you ask the parents if you can take a picture of him??? by the time they say yes, the action is already over!!! even worse... they'll be weirded out by you, grab their boy and run!!!
So I guess my question is really... to shoot or not to shoot??... and how do people (esp in a modern setting) feel in general about photographers taking random/candid shots??....:confused: :confused: :confused:
Sunesha
03-21-2007, 09:01 AM
When shoot people here in Sweden. I always ask before taking the shots. I usually take 4-5 shots with auto to make them relax first as they kinda wait for me. But I always continue with more tweaking after those relax the subject shots. I always show the pictures for my subjects and ask if they feel comfortable with the shoots. I also tell my intention with photo to explain if take strange shoot. This often make people curious and more positive to strange and not eye pleasing photos. I kinda hype that my favorite shoot show their most beautiful view off the subject.
I ask because today's world there is plenty off invading off peoples privacy. Newspaper photographers often publicize photo without asking the subjects. Also I feel like a paparazzi otherwise. I dont feel right morally if I dont ask.
The only ones that get my paparazzi shots is my friends. But if I dont know a person I always ask.
Maybe I dont get that great shoot, but at least my conscience is free. Thats more important to me then take good photos.
tcadwall
03-21-2007, 09:06 AM
Legally you can shoot in a public place. I would avoid shooting children without permission.
This doesn't mean it is "acceptable" to everyone and you really might tick some people off!
I tried to find the article that helped me a lot, but I couldn't find it. I think I originally found it on luminous landscape. But the essence of the article was how to get candid street shots, and be able to use them as stock photography.
The big thing that worked for the photographers in the article, was that they would first compliment the subject in some way, and then introduce themselves as "A student of photography". They would explain that they were accumulating some street photos, and portraits for a project. They would then ask if the person minded if they took a few pictures. If there was any hesitations, they would offer to email a full-res. photo to them, or mail them an 8x10, whichever they preferred. During the shooting, ensure that they can see the images on the LCD, and that they are happy with your work. When completing the shots, you then would pull out a waver, and apologetically explain that "unfortunately in these litiguous times, I need to ask if you wouldn't mind signing this." - as you pull out a model release. The article included a sample model release. You can google for these easily. The big difference in this particular one is that it defines the compensation as being a digital or 8x10 photo, as well as being informed of "publications where these photographs may appear, but both parties agree that he is not required to do so."
Not sure if this helps, but I do carry copies of the MR with me in case I happen across that individual that just screams take my photo.
It should be noted that a model release is required if you plan on selling your photos. Not required if you aren't going to sell.
Sunesha
03-21-2007, 09:07 AM
Also another note. There is some difference in cultures. In my hometown we got alot off Muslims. The more stricter Muslims are really offended if take shoots off women without permission. Their husbands can get really angry.
I think you really can get in trouble sometimes :).
LR Max
03-21-2007, 09:11 AM
Our rule for the newspaper is if the shot has five or more people in it, then do not get names. If the shot has less than that then talk to the subjects.
If you are singling out one or two people, yes, ask for permission. But if its a large crowd then don't worry about it too much. Still, go ahead and prepare your retort in case you have a problem. Better to have a backup plan and not need it rather than the opposite.
Out of all the photography I've done, I have had two occasions where I had conflict with a subject. The first one was at an expo and one guy said I could not take pictures of him because everything was copyright (fair enough). The other was a drunk chick who decided it would be cool to throw a fit on some poor photographer minding his own business (I was taking pictures of a large crowd).
I retrieved the speedlight from my pouch and proceeded to discharge it twice in her face. That solved the problem. You be a jerk to me, I'll throw it right back in your face (literally).
Sunesha
03-21-2007, 09:11 AM
If there was any hesitations, they would offer to email a full-res. photo to them, or mail them an 8x10, whichever they preferred. During the shooting, ensure that they can see the images on the LCD, and that they are happy with your work.
Great tip, I will really take this approach. As it is important to me that people are feeling allright.
I would myself feel better at such approach from a Photographer.
Camerajunkie
03-21-2007, 09:37 AM
As a parent, I would be greatly upset at anyone taking pictures of my children without my permission. (Which I wouldn't give in this day and age.) But if I saw someone, especially a man, taking pictures of kids that weren't his, I'd be more than suspicious.
HOWEVER, there have been times where my dad was at a playground taking pictures of his grandkids and had strange kids wander over and want pictures taken. He ALWAYS asks and he ALWAYS gets email addies to send them copies. And he always spends time talking to the parents too. But I still wouldn't be comfortable with someone else having shots of my kids.
As for other people..... I think a lot would be how obvious it was that you were taking pictures of them.
lightinsky
03-21-2007, 09:47 AM
Tcadwall, that is good advice... and certainly let me get a perspective of street shots and candid shots...One way is also to ask first and then ask them to go on doing what they are doing, so you can get the "candid" or "actions" shots...
Sunesha, I'm with you on the conscience thing... better feel guiltless then get a great photo... That's why i posted because I wasn't sure how things work....
LR max, the "rules" proves useful for a guideline. thanks.
I guess my problem is one of "shyness"... Takes me some courage to start talking to someone... and then the fear of rejection and embarrasment!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:
And also, from where I'm from, Singapore.. People in general do not talk to other people on the streets... you get strange looks... people will think you are mad... When someone approaches you on the street, they MUST be trying to sell you something or its a scam of some sort, no matter what their approach is!!! But am now in NewJersey... so still finding out the cultural differences...
Also in Vietnam once... someone offered to take picture of me and a female friend in this touristy national park.... of course he spoke vietnamese... so I did not understand and assumed it was for photography sake... because he was using an slr.... so my friend and I happily posed for him... only to find out that when we were leaving... he came after us... (yes.. he got the photos printed very fast.. less than 15 min..) and asked us for money... it was some $10-$20 for some lousy shots... which I can definitely do better by myself!!!
That's why I come to assume that if I ask... other people will have the same suspicion!!! lol!!!
on another note, So I guess there's no way of getting really candid shots??....
What about the back view of people?? eg silhouette of a couple walking into the sunset??? etc?? those shots that will not compromise their faces/identity???...
lightinsky
03-21-2007, 10:03 AM
As a parent, I would be greatly upset at anyone taking pictures of my children without my permission. (Which I wouldn't give in this day and age.) But if I saw someone, especially a man, taking pictures of kids that weren't his, I'd be more than suspicious.
Agreed on this one... Hell, I'll be suspicious of people taking MY pictures... let alone my kids'... (though I have none at this point in time)
I would suggest speaking to another member here called "LoveLife" he takes great candids in NYC and I think he could help you with what he does/doesnt do.
A personal experience of mine, I decided to o down to the beach last summer and take pics of the people playing in the sand, swimming, volleyball, whatever. When I got there and got out of my car, I felt VERY uncomfortable and like I was standing out from everyone else, just felt very strange. So I left, lol.
To me, shooting children is a big no no. So many bad things can happen with that. I think all of the posts prior to mine were very helpful and gave great tips. I do think speaking to LoveLife could help too.
Kellie
03-21-2007, 06:53 PM
Great advice in this thread!
I guess my problem is one of "shyness"... Takes me some courage to start talking to someone... and then the fear of rejection and embarrasment!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:
I highly recommend reading Bryan Peterson's book Beyond Portraiture (http://www.ppsop.com/site/bookstore.html). The first two chapters are about understanding and working with people (one sub-section is called "Breaking through the Shyness Barrier"). It's a must read for anyone interested in people photography.
edited to add Amazon link: http://tinyurl.com/2crmar
Honest Gaza
03-21-2007, 07:14 PM
As a parent, I would be greatly upset at anyone taking pictures of my children without my permission. (Which I wouldn't give in this day and age.) But if I saw someone, especially a man, taking pictures of kids that weren't his, I'd be more than suspicious.
You see camerajunkie....you and I would not get on well at a Barbie.
It is this attitude (which I will admit is becoming more widespread, and I could be in the minority).....that pisses me off :(
I'm a man with a camera.....so that makes me suspicious :( :(
....and as a sub note....if I saw someone taking pictures of my children out in the open, public place etc....I am prepared to offer them the benefit that their intentions are good. It is my hope that the good people still far outweigh the bad.
Let's face it....if the photographer turned out to be a pervert, so he's got a couple of photos....so what.
I kinda agree with both sides here. HG makes some valid points and its sad that people with cameras taking pictures in public get those assumptions. However, children can be a very touchy subject. Yes theyre just pictures, but to answer your question of "So what?"... its very hard to guess what that "perv" will do with those photos of our children. There is one member here that I know of that has had a horrific experience with picitures of his or her children on a pornographic site. I would be pissed off beyond belief if I found pictures of my one year old niece on a site like that or sold to ppl like that.
Sadly, this is the world we all live in. Sure, its more evident in more places than others, but it does happen and I dont blame parents, guardians taken precautions.
Like I said, I can see both sides here.
Honest Gaza
03-21-2007, 08:07 PM
I kinda agree with both sides here......
Sadly, this is the world we all live in. Sure, its more evident in more places than others, but it does happen and I dont blame parents, guardians taken precautions.
Like I said, I can see both sides here.
That's it Jason....you're not coming to my Barbie either :mad:
Just kidding mate :D :D :D
Yes, there are two sides. I'm possibly naive enough to believe that the intentions of most people are good...and am therfore willing to take that chance.
I respect the fact that others are not willing to take that chance....but I don't have to like it.
Youre 100% right. I wish I could be as trusting as you.
Ill bring the shrimp and potato chips.:D :D :D
Camerajunkie
03-21-2007, 10:45 PM
Yeah, it bites that a few very, very bad people out there have affected things for others. But if my options are letting you get some pictures or keeping my kids from potentially being stalked by a perv... well, that one is a no brainer.
And I would hate to reach the point where I felt I had to keep my kids locked up in my house to protect them.
But I do understand and sympathize with your frustrations. It isn't right. But it is the way it is.
But if I saw someone, especially a man, taking pictures of kids that weren't his, I'd be more than suspicious.
For that matter, a female could be taking the photos and selling them online.
I've also met a few people who shoot lots of high school sporting events and sell the photos to parents for around $50 each (as well as read posts about newbees wanting to take their own photos so they don't have to pay someone else for photos of their kids). The math can add up very quickly either way--camera equipment vs. paying for photos. It also doesn't mean that the photographers are asking if they can take the photos before selling and/or attempting to sell the photos, especially if the photos are taken from public property.
I'd also be willing to guess that the photographers have easier access to high school sporting events than college and professional events since the higher level events may require an event pass or media credential. Consequently, it would probably be easier and "cheaper" to make mistakes at a high school event than at a college/pro event if one could even get in to take photos.
And if your wondering, I have taken photos at frisbee and soccer events (high school/college/adult) since they also play next to an R/C field I go to--my purpose was PRACTICE and that is probably why I've been able to get into more and more PRO events. My recent tennis photos taken in low level lighting would probably look like $h*& if I was limited to still photography and/or limited to daytime photos only. The R/Cs are also smaller and much faster than humans. From my perspective, if someone wants to become a better photographer, that person needs to practice and if that includes "fast" moving subjects in low-level lighting, one needs to go where the fast moving subjects in low-level lighting are located. After all, "still" subjects don't help perfect a panning shot. Then there is timing and schedules which may effect when one can shoot and what is available to shoot.
Yes, I can see the potential arguments from both sides but in reality the only sense of security, is a false sense of security whether someone has a camera or not, is male or female, is young or old, is poor or rich. In my opinion, stereotypes can be a dangerous thing as well. After all, a person taking photos with a dSLR is probably more in the open than someone blending in with a small point and shoot. Good common sense and awareness can probably help the most instead of misguided paranoia.
You see camerajunkie....you and I would not get on well at a Barbie.
It is this attitude (which I will admit is becoming more widespread, and I could be in the minority).....that pisses me off :(
I'm a man with a camera.....so that makes me suspicious :( :(
....and as a sub note....if I saw someone taking pictures of my children out in the open, public place etc....I am prepared to offer them the benefit that their intentions are good. It is my hope that the good people still far outweigh the bad.
Let's face it....if the photographer turned out to be a pervert, so he's got a couple of photos....so what.
sorry mate, i gotta say that if i was at a public park and some dude started snapping my kids without asking, they'd likely get a smack in the mouth, (and thats just waht they;d get from my kids :D ). they asked about it, well i dunno but i never been asked, but i think i'd politely say that i'd prefer they didn't. i hate that it's like that, but thats the world as we know it. things have changed. :(
the contradictory thing here though is that at sporting events, parents take pics of their kids, (actually in some places this is now banned), so whats to stop a pervert acting like a parent and taking photos ? i dunno the easy answer to this one...it's a scary world sometimes.
sorry mate, i gotta say that if i was at a public park and some dude started snapping my kids without asking, they'd likely get a smack in the mouth, (and thats just waht they;d get from my kids :D ). they asked about it, well i dunno but i never been asked, but i think i'd politely say that i'd prefer they didn't. i hate that it's like that, but thats the world as we know it. things have changed. :(
the contradictory thing here though is that at sporting events, parents take pics of their kids, (actually in some places this is now banned), so whats to stop a pervert acting like a parent and taking photos ? i dunno the easy answer to this one...it's a scary world sometimes.
So do you only take photos of your own kids in sporting events or do you ask the other parents if you can take photos of their kids as well? Do you "crop" the other kids out of the photos? What if one parent says "yes" and another parent says "no"? With this line of thinking, I can see why banning cameras, point and shoots, videocams, telephones, and any other type of recording devices would become a reality. In this country, that would be striking down the 1st Amendment. Of course, big brother may love that concept since they would still be able to use zoom lenses longer than any of us could ever afford to own.
Check out this MF Nikkor Super telephoto Zoom lense 1200-1700mm f/5.6~8.0s P ED IF--with a lens like this, nobody should even know the photographer was taking photos.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/zoomsMF/12001700mm.htm
Honest Gaza
03-22-2007, 12:40 AM
Looks like I can put a lot of the snags back in the freezer.....'cause there ain't many people turning up to my barbie :p
They say the measure of success with terrorism, is how well you have inflicted change on people's every day lives by playing on their fears.
I guess in photographicc terms, the bad guys have already won......afterall, because of a few bad apples, every photographer is now guilty of perversion....until proven innocent.
So do you only take photos of your own kids in sporting events or do you ask the other parents if you can take photos of their kids as well? Do you "crop" the other kids out of the photos? What if one parent says "yes" and another parent says "no"? With this line of thinking, I can see why banning cameras, point and shoots, videocams, telephones, and any other type of recording devices would become a reality. In this country, that would be striking down the 1st Amendment. Of course, big brother may love that concept since they would still be able to use zoom lenses longer than any of us could ever afford to own.
Check out this MF Nikkor Super telephoto Zoom lense 1200-1700mm f/5.6~8.0s P ED IF--with a lens like this, nobody should even know the photographer was taking photos.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/zoomsMF/12001700mm.htm
thats precisely what i meant by it being a contradiction. and yes, in some sporting areas/ clubs, cameras are banned.
Looks like I can put a lot of the snags back in the freezer.....'cause there ain't many people turning up to my barbie :p
They say the measure of success with terrorism, is how well you have inflicted change on people's every day lives by playing on their fears.
I guess in photographicc terms, the bad guys have already won......afterall, because of a few bad apples, every photographer is now guilty of perversion....until proven innocent.
tis sad...but tis true. i don;t mind what you do with the snags, just leave the beers out. :D
Check out this MF Nikkor Super telephoto Zoom lense 1200-1700mm f/5.6~8.0s P ED IF--with a lens like this, nobody should even know the photographer was taking photos.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/zoomsMF/12001700mm.htm
:eek: :eek: With that bad boy I could take a picture of K1W1 from my front door!:p
:eek: :eek: With that bad boy I could take a picture of K1W1 from my front door!:p
what a horrifying thought.:p
tcadwall
03-22-2007, 06:47 AM
I agree it is sad, but reality is reality. There ARE more bad people out there than we want to admit.
However, there are ways to do this and give people a comfort level. Kids sporting events: Parents often have cheap P&S cameras. I show up to practices with my camera. I take pictures of my son. Parents see me with a DSLR and are curious. I show them the shots I have taken. 100% of the time, so far, they have asked if I am planning to shoot the games. If I say yes, they ask (again - so far 100% of the time) if there will be a way that they can get copies of my pictures.
It is that easy. Make sure they know you have a kid there, and that you are going to make an effort to provide them with quality shots of their kid (shots that will only be ridiculously blurry on their camera). They have even offered to pay for the shots (and at some point I will likely accept it). When we wrapped up the basketball season a few weeks ago, the coach had made a video (his wife was video-taping), and used my shots throughout the video. I included a cd with the images in every dvd case (one for each family). The parents went nuts they were so happy.
I would be absolutely fine with that as well.
I would also be (and have been) fine with a photographer showing up to a game, and passing out business cards with information on how to go online and purchase photos of the game. This provides a way for me to know who to go after if there is foul-play, but it also provides a level of ligitimacy.
It is all about trust. If you can't establish trust with the parent - DON'T shoot the kid. This is called respect.
As far as whether certain parents have a problem while others don't? That is where the law does come into play. There is nothing illegal about shooting in a public place. There is something illegal here where I live. That is, using video (or photos) that show children's faces in focus on school grounds, etc. and using these in the media. The reason for this, is NOT because of strangers, but because of abusive spouses or acquaintances, that may not know where the child is attending school (as protection for the child). Publicly displaying recognizeable children without express permission is illegal under these circumstances.
Kellie
03-22-2007, 09:21 AM
It is all about trust. If you can't establish trust with the parent - DON'T shoot the kid. This is called respect.
Exactly.
I had a terrible experience with stolen pictures of my children (I might be who Jason is referring to). I discovered a photo of my girls in pajamas and diapers on an adult diapering fetish website. :mad: I have never experienced anger like I did that day. I wanted to hunt down those pervs and...well...
It was a photo I had taken and was on my personal gallery website. (The whole story is in the POTD thread, I believe.) After that experience I made my gallery private and only posted pictures of my children on private message boards. I have started to share pictures here and am okay with that since they are fully clothed and I include a watermark (although, I know that can be cropped out :(). They are only pictures and pervs can be anywhere looking at children in real life, unfortunately. I do wonder if I should take them off since this is a public, though.
If we were out in public and someone (man OR woman) approached me about taking photos of my children, I would want to know their intentions and I would request contact information. If I felt it was legit, I would allow them to do so and ask for copies. I love people photography and would be happy to support someone's artistic pursuits. If some random person (again, man or woman) was taking pictures without my permission, I would be very ticked off. If your intentions are good, it isn't hard to simply ask for permission. Like tcadwall said, it's called respect.
Camerajunkie
03-22-2007, 09:55 AM
I guess in photographicc terms, the bad guys have already won......afterall, because of a few bad apples, every photographer is now guilty of perversion....until proven innocent.
When it comes to my kids, then I'm just fine with that. And I will make no apologies about it. Because they are MY kids, and it is MY job, and mine alone, to be their caretaker. (Okay, so I share that with my spouse.) And it's not that they are guilty, it's that I don't want to risk it.
There is something illegal here where I live. That is, using video (or photos) that show children's faces in focus on school grounds, etc. and using these in the media.
Are those private schools or public schools? I take it the "news" doesn't cover sports in your area or at least doesn't bother to cover a certain echlon of sports. Here for example, the local news is all over high school football. To me, there appears to be some 1st Amendment issues where you live based on that comment though someone may just feel it's not worth it to provide coverage of some lower echlon sports (and/or some parents fighting it out in the stands over a ref's call).
From what I've seen, parents "love" to have photos of their kids taken especially if they can get free copies. I've had numerous parents ask me to take photos of their kids--however, there is a limit to the number of freebees I will give away. And if I have to make a special trip, it won't be for free since these parents I know usually want "promotional" photos. To me, it's just "moving" practice.
Either way anyone looks at it, there has to be some level of trust unless the "parent" is going to provide the card to the photographer and watch his every move so he doesn't switch cards. And if it gets that bad, those parents are basically hiring a photographer and should expect to be charged anyway. Of course, by then the parents will be signing a release.
Camerajunkie
03-22-2007, 10:07 AM
A sporting event at the school, that is open to the public is one thing. During school hours is another story. Schools require wavers to post pictures of kids online or have them used in the media. (I know, I've signed several of them over the years, in a couple of different states.)
So, playground during recess is legally different than a crowd at a basketball game.
tcadwall
03-22-2007, 10:18 AM
Well,
I can say, that I know this is irregardless of whether it is private or public. I can't say that I have paid an attorney for advice. But I am a member of a video editing group and we have had this exact discussion led by an ENG videographer for a local TV station and an attorney both members of the group.
I have also noticed that all local school coverage (like when there is some kind of violence or expose on a local school campus) has had student faces blurred. I am not saying that they don't show students faces at all. They do. But normally that is in the case of interviewing a student, and I would have to assume that a release has been signed by guardians in those cases.
I am under the impression that local high schools ask guardians of students in sports to sign releases as well. We were asked to sign a release for our elementary son due to the school putting together some kind of production. The way the release read, it was a bit open-ended, and we chose not to sign.
I don't think this is a violation of any constitutional provisions. You are allowed to video or photograph, but anything that is broadcast on the web, or the air, etc. must be edited to make the students un-identifiable - as it has been explained to me.
Since the photos I have of basketball include the name of the church league on the jersies, I feel it would not be prudent to post them online without specific permission of the parents.
Well,
I can say, that I know this is irregardless of whether it is private or public. I can't say that I have paid an attorney for advice. But I am a member of a video editing group and we have had this exact discussion led by an ENG videographer for a local TV station and an attorney both members of the group.
Was it an attorney that specializes in the First Amendment or a general practice attorney? Never mind, you mentioned that you have NOT paid an attorney. However, what if the photos are for editorial purposes? Same result? What if they were taken by a freelance photographer who sells photos to the newspaper? Same result yet? It seems rather difficult to believe that the newspaper would be "censored" for publishing a photo taken from public grounds that didn't bring anyone into "bad light" and/or publishing a photo of someone who was famous, young or old. Perhaps, it's just a local media/station policy since there is a difference between "taking" the photo and "publishing" the photo as well.
tcadwall
03-22-2007, 12:15 PM
TNB,
I am quite certain from discussions that I paid close attention to, that this applies to ALL public media and regards children. Specifically, pertaining to recording enough detail in a moving or still image that makes a child recognizeable, and places them in an identifiable location. I think this doesn't apply to non-schooling activities, though generally it is respected to include churches or other organizations where children may frequently be involved. This is purely to protect children (and potentially their mothers) from risk of domestic situations.
IOW - If I make a video that contains photos, or video of our kids' church, and show that clip as part or a whole of a presentation at the church (and only at the church), I am not going to worry about this as being a public media. I would not put this video on the church's public website.
Really, are you telling me that you have seen video of random kids walking in / around a school in your area where their faces were in focus? Typically here, they don't fix this in post, the cameraman himself actually shoots the video De-focused - this way it is actually even safer that the video is not going to slip through the cracks.
I can't really say whether this is state or federal law. Maybe someone else would take the time to look that up. But times have changed, when I was a child, you would see these types of shots in focus. I know I was on the news when I was a student, and my parents never signed a release. We are finally waking up as a country and protecting our children more than we did in the past. I really think that you would have a difficult time defending your freedom to shoot someone else's children at their school in focus, rather than out of focus. However, if your child was abducted by your Ex, because said Ex found out on the news what school your child was in, you might re-think what purpose there could be in shooting in focus or out of focus to do your on-location shot.
When a local elementary student in your town gets in trouble with the law, do they always publish the name? No. I am not sure exactly what determines the reportable age, but children do receive special protections in this country.
I did not mean to say you couldn't "Take" their pictures. Parents do it all the time at awards ceremonies, etc. I am/was speaking about public distribution.
I had a terrible experience with stolen pictures of my children (I might be who Jason is referring to).
I have started to share pictures here and am okay with that since they are fully clothed and I include a watermark (although, I know that can be cropped out :().
Yes, was you but I didnt want to name you and out you like that. Didnt know if you wanted your name attached to that again.
As for the watermark and able to crop it out, place it over the middle of the image, if ppl see it there, they wont bother with it.
I find this discussion very interesting and I am really interested in the different viewpoints on this topic!
I remember back when I was 13 or 14 at my brothers soccer game with my parents. I went off and sat in a lawn chair by myself. I noticed someone taking pictures of me, I was young so really didnt care but I did keep an eye on him. A few minutes later he came up to me and introduced himself as a local NP writer/photographer. He asked if he could use my face in the paper and got my info. The next day I was in the paper with a full story about myself and brother. I still have that article to this day:o
I know I stated my stance before but yea, laws do allow you to shoot away, but there are ways to be respectful.
TNB,
Really, are you telling me that you have seen video of random kids walking in / around a school in your area where their faces were in focus? Typically here, they don't fix this in post, the cameraman himself actually shoots the video De-focused - this way it is actually even safer that the video is not going to slip through the cracks.
* * * * *
I did not mean to say you couldn't "Take" their pictures. Parents do it all the time at awards ceremonies, etc. I am/was speaking about public distribution.
Not "randum" photos "in" school nor really on school grounds, but I have seen "specific" video of students after some incident on school grounds and they appear to have been taken either on school grounds or near school grounds since the school property is usually shown in the background, i.e. a shooting and law enforcement activity. By background, I also mean that you can read the name of the school. For that matter, look at all the photos and video footage after the school shootings several years ago that made national television. Hence, perhaps an editorial distinction. Then of course, there are the sporting events.
It's also my understanding that there is a difference between "publicizing" and "publication". Of course, the discussion here seems to be more of what someone believes is "morally" correct "subjectively" and not regarding legally permitted "objectively". The simple solution for anyone is if they don't feel comfortable taking photos, don't take them. After all, there are a lot of people that won't take photos on a public beach even of adults.
We are finally waking up as a country and protecting our children more than we did in the past. I really think that you would have a difficult time defending your freedom to shoot someone else's children at their school in focus, rather than out of focus. However, if your child was abducted by your Ex, because said Ex found out on the news what school your child was in, you might re-think what purpose there could be in shooting in focus or out of focus to do your on-location shot.
The sad thing here is that that is another false sense of security since if the idea is to protect a child from a parent, that parent probably already knew were the child was since there is usually something in the divorce decree regarding custody rights. And if a former spouse actually wrongfully abducted a child, I would have thought that the custodial spouse would have been thankful to have located a missing child spotted via a media shot. Amber alert anyone? There was a recent one here and in California--the MOTHER [murder suspect] and CHILD were located. Again, so much for stereotypes.
Amber Alert: Child Safe, Murder Suspect Arrested
http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/11296294/detail.html
:eek: :eek: With that bad boy I could take a picture of K1W1 from my front door!:p
Just don't get my kids in the shot. :D
This whole discussion is really nothing to do with photography per se. It relates to public perceptions and attitudes.
The perception is that everybody with an DSLR is a pervert or terrorist (people with P&S cameras and phone cameras are not - they are just tourists).
The perception is that very male with a DSLR near children is a paedophile.
The fact that these two attitudes widely exist in society shows me that the so called right wing moral majority and terrorists have both gone a long way towards fulfilling their ultimate aims of moulding the world to their aims and that is something I am very sad and upset about. The good thing is that I am old enough to know that these things are cyclical and the wheel will turn I hope sooner rather than later.
For the first time in four years I have stopped taking photos of my daughters Netball games. In the past I have always made a CD of all the photos taken at each game and given it to the coach for club records. The images have been used in club events and promotions and many parents have requested and received (free) copies. The girls have been given a compilation DVD slideshow at the end of each season and the girls and parents have been universally appreciative. Unfortunately the attitude at the Netball courts is now frosty to say the least to photography and I am uncomfortable being there with a DSLR so I don't take it. I can legally take photos there, there is no legal impediment but because of societal attitudes who is now missing out here?
lightinsky
03-23-2007, 08:46 AM
I highly recommend reading Bryan Peterson's book Beyond Portraiture (http://www.ppsop.com/site/bookstore.html). The first two chapters are about understanding and working with people (one sub-section is called "Breaking through the Shyness Barrier"). It's a must read for anyone interested in people photography.
edited to add Amazon link: http://tinyurl.com/2crmar
Thanks, Kellie for the recommendation. I'll pick it up once I finish Thom's eBook and Understanding Exposure! (lol!!! still waiting for them to be delivered)
It seems that this thread should be renamed.:) to "Perceptions and Legal Implications of Being a Photographer." For all you know, my initial example for discussion could be "a man with an orange beard" instead of "kid chasing birds in a park" (lol!!) and the thread would turn out differently.
Don't get me wrong... I think this thread is very interesting (Jcon, I second you).. I never knew photography has so much legal implication... It had indeed been a bird's eye view.... but I'm not sure I want to deal with all those legal jungles....
But it is true that we have to be extremely mindful of other people's privacy... and respect them... Although, my first instinct when I see someone with an slr is "oh, a fellow enthusiast" rather than "oh, a perv".
Just makes me wonder... we think the world had become more hostile/dangerous/more perverted pron site.. etc... but what is the reason exactly... Is it because human race as a whole has become worse?? or is it because we are still the same, but there are more avenues/ways to for perversion to surface.... think again.... internet was only what 10-20 years old??? could we have changed so fast in this short period of time??
anyway... that was a rather philosophical/sociological questions...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.