Question: Has there been any discussions regarding photographing children?

[Cholentpot]

Tell that to the 20 people who were pushed onto the subway tracks in New York this year. The good news is that only two were killed. Crime in New York is up by 30% and there have been over 600 mass shootings so far in 2022, not to mention 27 school shootings. Doesn't sound like the Peaceful Kingdom to me.

That's not how it works...

Never mind.

Sure, the world is in a bloodbath. It's never been worse. Women can't walk alone in the streets of Smallville. Thugs and gangsters have the run of entire neighborhoods. The Mafia has made a comeback and local businesses are getting shook down.

Hide your wife, hide your kids.

 

[AgX]

You avoid taking photos of children without prior consultation and agreement to help protect the interests - privacy and otherwise - of children.

Privacy in public space?

 

[Arthurwg]

That's not a compelling argument, since the vast majority of photos are neither great nor of particular social importance. No one is concerned with those photos. The fact is, in order to get great photos and photos of social importance, you may need to disregard the contextual and temporary concerns of the individuals involved. It's more a matter of what you, as a photographer, are trying to do.
Socially important photos tend to remain important when removed from the time and context of the photo. Great photos, one could say, transcend those concerns entirely.
No one ever needed to know Napalm Girl's real name.

I would call that a journalistic point of view.

 

[MattKing]

Privacy in public space?

Sure.
There is nothing wrong with people being happy to be seen in public, but unwilling to have their image distributed afterwards. It is the subsequent distribution that is problematic with respect to privacy.
So if they directly or indirectly (through parents) express that preference, it should be honoured, unless there are very good reasons not to. And while there are good reasons that exist, the artistic wishes of a stranger photographer are pretty low on the list.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Tell that to the 20 people who were pushed onto the subway tracks in New York this year. The good news is that only two were killed. Crime in New York is up by 30% and there have been over 600 mass shootings so far in 2022, not to mention 27 school shootings. Doesn't sound like the Peaceful Kingdom to me.

"Crime" is a pretty vast category, and a general statistic doesn't say much. Better to be precise if you want to have an informed opinion. So, from September 2022:

Murders were down 8.1%, from 284 to 261, the number of people shot dropped 7.4%, from 1,101 to 1,020, and the number of shooting incidents fell 10.1%, from 938 to 843, according to the NYPD data.

Grand larceny was up a whopping 48.3%, from 20,374 to 30,205 incidents, auto theft rose 42%, from 5,589 to 7,939, and robbery jumped 39.8%, from 7,366 to 10,294, over the same period in 2021, the data show.

 

[Helge]

Well, the children have grown up since then or are dead.

Does that really make a difference?
And doesn’t it make an example to be followed and establish good practice?
It’s not like things have changed fundamentally since then.

Distribution has gotten a lot easier. But the fundamental nature of photos hasn’t. Does it make a difference whether five million people have seen HCBs wine bottle boy, or it’s a billion?
He is still eternalized with no consent (if we buy the premise that the photo wasn’t staged).

That is a fundament question we really should get globally sorted out.
Why should the future be robbed of the same type of art and freedom of expression, as was previously possible (granted that it doesn’t hurt anyone)?

If things happen in the public sphere, and no one is getting obviously humiliated, or is put at risk. Why shouldn’t it be possible?

 

[Don_ih]

what often benefits the individual, can also harm the greatest number in the end.

All artistic endeavour is done for the individual. You will have to work hard to prove how it is "often" that that which benefits the individual harms the greatest number. People get jobs for themselves, they get educated for themselves, they start businesses and end up employing people for themselves. Your attitude is pretty strange, if you think about it a little past the surface.

But if you are merely desiring to satisfy your artistic needs, than the children and/or their guardians should be consulted, because their interests are just as important as yours.

Are they? Their interests are vague, protectorate, mostly blindly based on distrust. Artistic interests (genuine ones) are pure.

 

[warden]

This thread must surely discuss the work of:-

Not really.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Privacy in public space?

Legally, privacy — or the right to privacy — has nothing to do with where you are. Privacy is about having control over how the information about you is gathered and used. I can be in a public space but the information about me being in that place belongs to me and I should control whether or not I want to make it public, and to whom I want to make it public.

That's how the right of privacy can apply uniformly whether you're at home, in a parc or on the Web.

Not saying it's easy to apply — even at home, your Alexa or Google Home is listening to you and transmitting the information its gathering —, but it's how it should work.

 

[MattKing]

People get jobs for themselves, they get educated for themselves, they start businesses and end up employing people for themselves

People commit crimes for themselves, pollute for themselves, create unhealthy monopolies for themselves and gather power for themselves.
All of which can "harm the greatest number" in the end.
Quality of life comes from balancing individual interests and societal interests - both the long term and short term varieties - is a better goal.

 

[Arthurwg]

The French seem very concerned about their photographic "privacy." I believe that under French law, everyone has an absolute right to ownership of their own image. That goes so far that people have been known to jump into a crime scene picture so they can later sue on publication.

 

[Cholentpot]

The French seem very concerned about their photographic "privacy." I believe that under French law, everyone has an absolute right to ownership of their own image. That goes so far that people have been known to jump into a crime scene picture so they can later sue on publication.

Ahhhh the French...

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Ahhhh the French...

Aaaaand cue :

 

[Cholentpot]

Aaaaand cue :

Are you awake Mr Welles?

 

[Larryc001]

Before this gets too stupid, I would like to say this. Some of the posts seem to be from people who have not produced children. They may not understand that once a couple has kids, their entire existence revolves around nurturing and protecting those little charmers. As a parent and grandparent, I can understand that no parent gives a tinkers damn about artistic expression, the photographer’s rights, or anything else that just may threaten the family that is their responsibility. And generally no one can give a good reason for taking a picture of their kids. So what would you have wanted your parents to do if you were a kid today? There are just too many weirdo’s and perverts out there for me to have taken any chances.

 

[warden]

Before this gets too stupid, I would like to say this. Some of the posts seem to be from people who have not produced children. They may not understand that once a couple has kids, their entire existence revolves around nurturing and protecting those little charmers. As a parent and grandparent, I can understand that no parent gives a tinkers damn about artistic expression, the photographer’s rights, or anything else that just may threaten the family that is their responsibility. And generally no one can give a good reason for taking a picture of their kids. So what would you have wanted your parents to do if you were a kid today? There are just too many weirdo’s and perverts out there for me to have taken any chances.

I don't think there is a requirement to "produce" children in order to have a reasoned opinion about photographing them.

I recall when my little production units played on the playground other people would sometimes take pictures. No big deal, and it wouldn't occur to me to get upset about it unless there was a reason to.

 

[Cholentpot]

Before this gets too stupid, I would like to say this. Some of the posts seem to be from people who have not produced children. They may not understand that once a couple has kids, their entire existence revolves around nurturing and protecting those little charmers. As a parent and grandparent, I can understand that no parent gives a tinkers damn about artistic expression, the photographer’s rights, or anything else that just may threaten the family that is their responsibility. And generally no one can give a good reason for taking a picture of their kids. So what would you have wanted your parents to do if you were a kid today? There are just too many weirdo’s and perverts out there for me to have taken any chances.

I'm a proud Papa. Does this give my opinion more weight?

I'd rather if my child was not photographed and splashed all over social media but there's nothing I can do about it. If I go to a baseball game with my kid and we end up on the scoreboard and then some network picks it up and we're top funny sports moment of the day, there's nothing I can do.

 

[markjwyatt]

One interesting thing to ponder: Does this recent trend mean that candid “non concentual” photos taken of children, and people in general, in “the past” including masterpieces like the aforementioned ones by HCB, are now evil and wrong? Should they be canceled? How? And from what cutoff date?

Bingo. Welcome to cancel culture in Amerika. Almost like Kanada.

 

[AgX]

There is nothing wrong with people being happy to be seen in public, but unwilling to have their image distributed afterwards.

Legally, privacy — or the right to privacy — has nothing to do with where you are. Privacy is about having control over how the information about you is gathered and used. I can be in a public space but the information about me being in that place belongs to me and I should control whether or not I want to make it public, and to whom I want to make it public.

There still is the distinction between taking/making a photograph and publishing a photograph.

Though it seems that in some recent legal approaches this classic legal differenciation got lost.


Moreover there still is even the classic legal concept that if one is only unimportant part of a photograph then one got no right of privacy at all when having been on public ground.




Another interesting concept concerning public space that explicitely revokes privacy is that of banning the veiling of ones face in public. (legal burka-ban in some european countries)

 

[Don_ih]

People commit crimes for themselves, pollute for themselves, create unhealthy monopolies for themselves and gather power for themselves.

Do you live in a world where the criminals outnumber the law-abiding? Because that does not describe North American society in the slightest. Your arguments are hyperbolic.

I can be in a public space but the information about me being in that place belongs to me

It doesn't, though. Information about you belongs to whoever happens to gather it.

 

[guangong]

And of course, what often benefits the individual, can also harm the greatest number in the end.


Exactly. You don't avoid taking photos of children to avoid a fight with the parents. You avoid taking photos of children without prior consultation and agreement to help protect the interests - privacy and otherwise - of children.
If you have a very good reason to document something that needs documenting, then I support your legal right to do so. But if you are merely desiring to satisfy your artistic needs, than the children and/or their guardians should be consulted, because their interests are just as important as yours.

To quote Charlie Brown: “Good grief!”

 

[faberryman]

Some photographers sure sound like an entitled lot. No wonder there has been a backlash. The playground paparazzi stalking swing sets. Perhaps parents should bring cameras with them to the park and photograph the photographers and deliver the photographs to the police and express concern about the uses to which the photographers are putting the photographs of their children. The police could investigate. Perhaps the photographers will be exonerated. Seems fair. See something, say something. Or maybe parents could bring baseball bats with them, and when photographers start photographing their children, the parents could politely ask them not to. Or perhaps handguns.

 

[Helge]

Before this gets too stupid, I would like to say this. Some of the posts seem to be from people who have not produced children. They may not understand that once a couple has kids, their entire existence revolves around nurturing and protecting those little charmers. As a parent and grandparent, I can understand that no parent gives a tinkers damn about artistic expression, the photographer’s rights, or anything else that just may threaten the family that is their responsibility. And generally no one can give a good reason for taking a picture of their kids. So what would you have wanted your parents to do if you were a kid today? There are just too many weirdo’s and perverts out there for me to have taken any chances.

What a brazen statement. You don’t speak for all parents. It’s very possible to a relaxed and be a parent.

 

[faberryman]

What a brazen statement. You don’t speak for all parents. It’s very possible to a relaxed and be a parent.

Why should a parent be relaxed about a stranger taking photographs of his or her children? Of course, if you choose to be relaxed about a stranger taking photographs of your children, that is your prerogative.

 

[Helge]

Why should a parent be relaxed about a stranger taking photographs of his or her children? Of course, if you choose to be relaxed about a stranger taking photographs of your children, that is your prerogative.

That depends completely on the situation and the demeanor of the person. Personally I’d always prefer to be asked before or after, but I wouldn’t make a fuss over a causal shot.
It’s very rare that I take photos of children that are not in my family or friends. But on the rare occasion just ask, or get eye contact with the parents and get a nod or smile.