Fears

sparx · Sep 28, 2004

The reason i asked the legal question is because i have been asked to photograph a neighbours children and i prefer the candid approach (inspired by cheryl). I also spent last weekend walking around the paddocks at Donington Park talking what I hope are some bresson-like candids of the world around a bike race.
I am sick and tired of hearing about peoples over-reaction and self-righteous indignation which, to me, smack of trouble for the sake of causing trouble. I get it whenever I ride my bike and now I'n going to get whenever I take pictures. God knows what will happen if I lashed my camera to the front of the bike and rode past someone pushing a pram .

RAP · Sep 28, 2004

It's simply not reasonable to say that "the amount of abductions, pedophiles, the dangers from predators" justifies the way we're behaving.

Ian[/QUOTE]

In the US we now have an Amber Alert system for a quick public alarm if a child is abducted, and Megan's Law which essentially states that a convicted child sex offender has to have his address registerd with the police where they live.

It was named for a little girl who was stalked by a neighbor, abducted and murdered. I cannot imagine the torture, terror and horror that child felt as she was being killed, and dying with the face of a madman staring at her. Just to have these laws in front of the public eye, is more then enough to keep parents on guard.

There have been a rash of child abductions and murders over the past 10 years and as far as I am concerned, it only takes one to make me shiver in disgust and fear for the little children.

TPPhotog · Sep 28, 2004

sparx said:
The reason i asked the legal question is because i have been asked to photograph a neighbours children and i prefer the candid approach (inspired by cheryl). I also spent last weekend walking around the paddocks at Donington Park talking what I hope are some bresson-like candids of the world around a bike race.
I am sick and tired of hearing about peoples over-reaction and self-righteous indignation which, to me, smack of trouble for the sake of causing trouble. I get it whenever I ride my bike and now I'n going to get whenever I take pictures. God knows what will happen if I lashed my camera to the front of the bike and rode past someone pushing a pram .

I know Donington Park quite well and as the great sooty said "easy peasy lemon squeezy" you shouldn't have any problems there. There's many wonderful compositions available to you there as you will have found out, so happy shooting

TPPhotog · Sep 28, 2004

RAP said:
There have been a rash of child abductions and murders over the past 10 years and as far as I am concerned, it only takes one to make me shiver in disgust and fear for the little children.

Not sure there has been any real increase in the UK over the years if you know and think back to the moors murders in what was it the late 60's? I do agree its a disgusting life committed by lowlife.

That said it is unlikely that many paediophiles wanting to take pictures of children will do it openly and in close proximity. As I said I was in the police and when we wanted observation pictures we used the longest focal length we could find and shot from a distance / location where no one could see us. Also meant if we were seen we could leg it without having to explain what we were doing or who were were which would have messed everything up.

jd callow · Sep 28, 2004

I have read where there has not been an increase in child abductions only an increase in reporting. This could be attributed to the media doing a better job, but I have also read that the increase was found almost solely in abductions of white, middle-class girls. This could be attributed to the media's desired demographic and the business rule "if it bleeds it leads."

Ed Sukach · Sep 28, 2004

I can remember an interview of a prominent Social Psychologist ... I think that was his title - Erich Frohm (sp? - It has been a while -). He said that it was possible for societies to suffer form the same abberations as individuals. He was asked about the United States ... and back in the 1980's - his answer, "Neurotic - on the verge of mild psychosis".

Certainly, in the last couple of years, things have not improved. We have chosen paranoia. All this holy quest for "security" has done for us is to multiply our sense of insecurity. We are hallucinating to the point of seeing demons around every corner.

Case in point: In a quiet Massachusetts town, there is a new housing Development - and in the incredibly "cutesy" style of Developer/ Advertisers, the streets are named after famous artists. There is Renoir, Picasso, Homer, Degas...
This guy, with legitimate business, was wandering through an unfamiliar maze ... these streets had not existed a few months before - so he stopped and asked an eleven-twelve year old boy directions to his destination - on Van Gogh Drive. The kid took off like a scared jack rabbit.
When our "guy" returned home at the end of the day, a composite police drawing of him was plastered all over the tube. Wanted, desperately - an undoubted "child molester". It seems that the words "Van", "Gogh" (phonetically pronounced "Go"), and "Drive" had been re-arranged in the "victims" perception to "Go ... drive (in my) Van". That was all that was necessary for a State-wide manhunt and composite drawings on every Boston TV channel.

I cannot be more in favor of protecting our children .. but EFFECTIVE protection is linearly dependent on clear, intelligent, "knee-jerk free" reactions. The one great "sin" of all emergency personnel is succumbing to panic - and lately there seems to me to be more and more mindless panic.

Is there a parallel between the "gun confiscation freaks" and ... ?

I can see the bumper stickers now ... "Stamp out pornography - BAN CAMERAS!!" Hmm... think we should require licensing for telephoto lenses ... and binoculars?

anyte · Sep 28, 2004

Everyone is so willing to give in to hysterics and at the same time completely ignore common sense. People are flying off because they believe someone is photographing their child right in front of them. Think about it. How insanely unrealistic is that? Abductions and assaults don't happen right in front of the parent or other adults (perhaps behind closed doors in the same house and the parent though). These horrible acts happen when there is no one else looking and no one around to be a witness. It is the little children that are left to go to their friends home alone and the children playing at the park unattended that are abducted. It is the children that are always alone that are lured in by pedophiles that photograph the children in private to get the photos they desire.

People are so backwards.

rakuhito · Sep 28, 2004

i don't think it is just a blown up fear of pedophiles or abductors, etc.

for the most part we all understand that taking pictures in a public space is allowable, legal. but the thing is, photographs are a thing, that people use. i can take a picture of anyone out on the street. but i can't publish that picture on the cover of a magazine with a headline like "what is wrong with people?" without permission. there are reasons that usually a photographer legally needs a model release and/or other permission/payment to utilize a particular photograph - because, more often than not, the usage becomes the meaning of the photograph.

if someone was photographing my kids in the park, my wife in the park, my dog in the park, photographing me in the park without asking they or my permission - without talking with us about it - i would be very concerned. why are they doing that? what are they going to do with those photographs, how are they going to use them? how will my family/those photographs become meaning?

granted, some of the photography being talked about here in this thread goes down as parent/friend snapshots - photographs between private parties, in which the relationship implies an acceptable agreement and in which the meaning, the framing is largely about rememberance and commemoration. and i am not advocating any sort of freakout. and there probobly is too much fear about all sorts of 'danger' out there. my point is just that photographs are things used, sometimes beyond the the control of those represented.

you, as the photographer - as an outsider, may be entirely innocent, have only the highest motives in mind. unfortunately the same cannot always be said of photography.

i think some of the hostility might be found there.

SuzanneR · Sep 28, 2004

I'm the mother of two young boys, and I clearly want to protect them, so they are rarely our of my field of view, which is why I started photographing them so much! I've never had a problem when I've photographed them in any park, either alone or with other kids around. Or even when I've photographed other kids, although it's often a job, or they are friends with my boys.

When I first got into photography, I did a lot of street photography in NYC, and I totally understand photographing something not directly related to the photographer. Good street photography (like the boy with the wine bottles) are extraordinary records of our time, and I hope it's a tradition that continues. It'd be a shame if our world gets so paranoid that photographers stop pursuing it. Although, I take your point about usage, as a former photo editor, we always required model releases, and if we were ever sued over a photograph (which was rare), it was generally because of the caption! A little tact on the part of photgrapher, and a little care in providing proper context if a photograph is publish can go a long way to diminishing hostility.

Our town got a little hysterical when we found out there were two registered sex offenders living here, and the police got mad when some mothers sent a general e-mail out to the whole school district! I think a few people may have needed to take a chill pill, but frankly, I'm glad I know. I don't change my plans though, and I'd be much more suspicious of a stranger photographing my kids with a telephone, not someone working with a Hasselblad or some such.

jd callow · Sep 28, 2004

rakuhito said:
"i think some of the hostility can be found there."

I think the source of the hositlity can be found in our intrinsic distrust of our fellow man/woman. The answer to why we distrust each other would be a wonderful thing.

If it is 1% or even 10% that have bad intentions, why does one's mind assume or fear the worst. I would argue that If I (or anyone else) shoot(s) a photo with a child in it the immediate assumption should be that the photographer appreciates the beauty of youth, childhood or this specific child.

This is not ment as a slam against rakuhito.

Ed Sukach · Sep 28, 2004

rakuhito said:
.. i can take a picture of anyone out on the street. but i can't publish that picture on the cover of a magazine with a headline like "what is wrong with people?" without permission. there are reasons that usually a photographer legally needs a model release and/or other permission/payment to utilize a particular photograph - because, more often than not, the usage becomes the meaning of the photograph.

Not quite. At least in the United States, if it is a "News" magazine, or "Newspaper", publishing that photograph, without permission, is protected by the First Amendment - "Freedom of Speech" - of the Constitution.
Model Releases are CONTRACTS - to insure that all parties are fairly compensated for commerical use - read: money making - of the images.

There are other issues - invasion of privacy and libel ---

Robert Kennedy · Sep 29, 2004

Personally I'd be more concerned about the government taking my picture in this day and age....

ThomHarrop · Sep 29, 2004

One of my students was photographing school children in a park in Denver. A teacher stormed up and grabbed her while another teacher opened her camera and took her film. We called the police later and were told that if the children were in a public park anyone could make photos of them. He also told us if the student could identify the teachers involved she could file assault and battery charges against them. Ashcroft has pretty much used the constitution for bathroom tissue, but apparently there are still some protections left.

bjorke · Sep 29, 2004

I hope that assault and battery charges were filed??? This is total crap (and unfortunately a near-daily occurence).

Ed Sukach · Sep 29, 2004

I would suggest that everyone here check out [ www.PhotoPermit.org ].

*Very* interesting and useful - and worthy of our support!

Stephen J. Collier · Sep 29, 2004

When I was in a High School photo class, about 4 years ago, I had to do a project on children. I ended up at the beach one day with my girlfriend at the time and we saw this kid throwing sand and rocks into the water. The weather was perfect and the lighting was great, but I was worried that his mom would freak if an 18 year old guy started taking pictures of her son so I had my girlfriend walk with me. The mom, of course, came right over and began the interrogation. My girlfriend handled it from there. After she explained what was going on the mom was more than happy to allow me to photograph her son. It may be sexist, but having a young, sweet and sincere girl with you really takes the edge off of jittery, frightful parents. It might have also been that we were in Half Moon Bay, Ca, a fairly relaxed and liberal town north of Santa Cruz. Well there is my fearful parent story, not that exciting, but an example of how the interaction should go.

c6h6o3 · Sep 29, 2004

ThomHarrop said:
Ashcroft has pretty much used the constitution for bathroom tissue, but apparently there are still some protections left.

You can't use the Constitution for toilet paper if you've shredded it first, which of course Ashcroft did within a year of taking office.

Art Vandalay · Sep 29, 2004

I've got to hand it to you for being as patient as you were. I'm sure you would've love to belt the idiot.

A friend of mine is a landscape architect working for a city parks board. A few years ago he had to go photograph a children's playground, for work, and had the foresight to bring along a letter stating what his intentions were. He approached the parents that were there, telling them that he wanted to photograph the apparatus without their children on them. But do you think this was enough??? Nope! The parents went ape and accused him of being a pedophile and one dad even tried to start a fight with him. All the more reason to include pepper spray in your camera bag!

Aggie · Sep 30, 2004

ThomHarrop said:
Ashcroft has pretty much used the constitution for bathroom tissue, but apparently there are still some protections left.

Since he has used up the constitution lets send him a bucket of red and white corncobs. Bet most of you don't know the proper usage of those.

livemoa · Sep 30, 2004

Aggie said:
Since he has used up the constitution lets send him a bucket of red and white corncobs. Bet most of you don't know the proper usage of those.

Use them as toilet paper (of sorts) with the white ones last, for checking "cleanliness".

There is a plant that grows here called a "rangiora" that was utilised for this particular function. There is also a town called Rangiora.....

Wonder if its a paper developer as well as a substitute....

Aggie · Sep 30, 2004

Darn it takes someone from New Zealand to know it.

Roger Krueger · Oct 7, 2004

Fear

It's gotten to the point where the city of Santa Monica, CA has defined it as disorderly conduct for an adult to be present on a public playground without an accompanying minor.

All of which is the height of stupidity. For every reported molestation by a stranger, there are how many unreported molestations by family members? I personally have yet to encounter anyone molested by a stranger or anyone who has reported to the police, but I can think of one unreported molestation by cousin, one by priest, two by father, two by step-father, one by step-brother and one by tennis teacher right off of the top of my head. And it's not like I'm drawing from a huge circle of close friends; I'm really pretty reclusive.

Plus, it seems to me that were I a pedophile who wanted to get off to pictures of fully clothed children playing I'd go rent "Bad News Bears" or the like, rather than risking assault at the park. Do we have even ONE bona-fide case of a pedophile (other than a flasher) taking pictures of fully clothed children with proven sexual intent?

inthedark · Oct 8, 2004

Okay, I am not a photographer as I have said, but about five years ago I was trying to be an artist (huge failure) so I was out taking lots of photographs to use as a basis for painting. I found that when I went to playgrounds and the like, I would introduce myself to any adults nearby, give them a card, and promise to send them (if they gave me a contact) a proof of any particularly good shots of their children. I never had any good shots because I took them all a little out of focus (a trick for artists to NOT try to copy too much detail) but nonetheless, I never had a problem and was at parks and by childrens activities quite a bit.

TPPhotog · Oct 8, 2004

Mmmm 5 years ago we didn't have any problems, 2 years ago it wasn't too bad but since then paranoia has become the norm for many people even when their door is locked and they are inside safe and sound

inthedark · Oct 8, 2004

You may have a point there. I wa going to go out this weekend and photo some fall color and such, plus the kites should be out in the parks. I'll let you know how it goes.

Fears

sparx

RAP

TPPhotog

TPPhotog

jd callow

Moderator

Ed Sukach

anyte

rakuhito

SuzanneR

Moderator

jd callow

Moderator

Ed Sukach

Robert Kennedy

ThomHarrop

bjorke

Ed Sukach

Stephen J. Collier

c6h6o3

Art Vandalay

Aggie

livemoa

Aggie

Roger Krueger

inthedark

TPPhotog

inthedark

Fears

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency